12 ms·

We might be at a local maximum, but we're nowhere near the peak. What we're seeing is an end of the race to the bottom. What's happened is that most of the maj

We might be at a local maximum, but we're nowhere near the peak. What we're seeing is an end of the race to the bottom. What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood. Even though everyone can recognize that most users no longer find these experiences to be compelling, they're all stuck in a one-way spiral. Web 3 is just getting started though, and with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction.

logicallee 8y ago
>Web 3 is just getting started though, and with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by Web 3, what are examples? What is just getting started?
- chrisvalleybay 8y ago
  Decentralization is one part of Web 3. ActivityPub could be one technology that is relevant to this story. Edit: Moving things out of silos, re-focusing on the content and its value to people, instead of what's relevant to advertisers – as have been mentioned throughout this thread.
drb91 8y ago
> with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? While I am entertained by social media, I can't remember the last time I actually interacted with anyone in a substantive way. I'd much rather hit the bar and admit to myself that social media isn't very social.
- Alex3917 8y ago
  > Web 1.0 lets individuals create and express ideas > Web 2.0 lets groups create and express ideas > Web 3.0 lets societies create and express ideas It's blockchain. Blockchain is what gets us from web 2.0 to web 3.0. The technology is almost here, and after another few years of basic R&D the stuff we're going to be able to start building is going to transform society in ways that are barely even imaginable today.
  - dangerlibrary 8y ago
    I have no idea if this comment is satire.
    - KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
      Wow that guy got a lot of responses quick, I feel trolled.
  - Qwertie 8y ago
    Could you explain exactly how blockchains allow societies to create ideas? I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not.
    - Alex3917 8y ago
      > I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not. So at the software developer level of the stack, what we get are new tools for managing reputation, identity, authentication, transparency, accountability, etc. If you think of people as a graph of nodes, these tools enable novel patterns of trust and collaboration between individuals that aren't possible today. What this means is that every institution will ultimately have to reimagine itself so as to be cost competitive in the new paradigm, HT Carlota Perez. To give a more concrete example, think of the 2008 real estate collapse. The reason the market failed isn't because people didn't have the data, it's because no one one going to read through a 3,000 page paper print out to figure out what was actually in whatever debt tranche they happened to buy. But when you can just run a simple Python script to analyze the contents of all that debt and get updates on payments in real time, suddenly those types of systematic market failures can no longer happen. And because a big portion of the lemon market problem is ameliorated, that creates new ways to finance big capital investments that would be completely impossible today. Think about why we weren't able to have large corporations before double entry was invented/popularized in Florence in the late 1400s, because there was no way to really know if you were making or losing money once you got beyond a certain scale. Because blockchain reduces the costs of double entry accounting by 10,000x, we can (and will) restructure all aspects of society in ways that just aren't possible currently, everything from supply chains to social networks. I think it stands to reason that blockchain is going to be the most financially important technology of the last 500 years, since imho it's the biggest innovation since double entry accounting.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- grimbly 8y ago
  Since when was the bar ever a "substantive" way to interact with people?
- rqs 8y ago
  > What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? Off topic but, you know what, maybe it eventually will. Just like in the movie Ready Player One, nothing says it couldn't be done. Maybe the reduce of physical interaction between people are not caused by social medias, maybe just because people don't want to spend time and energy (or, lazy) on those physical interactions. If meet with friends face to face cost 2 bars of power, and interact with them on social media cost 1 bar, I think many people will rather to save 1 bar, so they can do more tings (like, take a nap).
- mrep 8y ago
  You're interacting with us right now :)
  - drb91 8y ago
    Oh I do agree there! I just don’t file forums under “social media” in the sense most people bemoan the concept.
benwerd 8y ago
> What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood. _Exactly_ this. Rather than understanding their users as real humans, having unique insights about them, and building something that meets their real needs, everything has been about maximizing hollow engagement metrics. And guess what? That's good for short term revenue but not long term trust. If you're running a startup and the main way you learn about your users is through statistical tracking and A/B testing, you're missing an important opportunity to get to know them properly. They will lead the way and although you can't simply ask them what they want, if you understand them deeply you'll know what to do. I'm excited about the next wave of platforms, which are tapping into enormous unmet needs. It's early days, and I can't stand the "web 3" label, but there's definitely going to be a sea change.
- danepowell 8y ago
  Sounds like an example of Goodhart's Law: "When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric." Optimizing for something as abstruse as "engagement" seems like a great way to completely ignore everything that actually makes social networks compelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    I'd give Gresham some due as well.
    - dredmorbius 8y ago
      Many possible examples, but Dwight MacDonald's "Mass Culture" (1953) is a good start. https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDonald_-_A_Theory_of_Mass_Culture.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDon...
  - mygo 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fullshark 8y ago
Ironic this is here given Snap supposedly lost users with a redesign independent/at odds with such techniques.
- qvrjuec 8y ago
  It wasn't at odds with those techniques. The redesign was meant to force the users to view sponsored stories by sacrificing the usability of the app to view their friends stories. To look at the redesign as some kind of improvement for the users is totally wrong, IMO.
  - graeme 8y ago
    Yes, but the point was they went on gut, not based on UI testing. It was a terrible blunder, since mostly reverted. Actual messages would get pushed down because a new story from an acquantaince popped up. Even with no ads it was bad UI.
florabuzzword 8y ago
I bailed at the advent of forced non-chronological timelines. I would have been less insulted if Facebook hired someone to spit in my face. Easily the scummiest design decision I have ever whitnessed. Actively manipulating the structural representation of time in a communication platform is begging for chaos. Yes, of course I know the time stamps are still presented. That is not my point. Communication is sensitive; very sensitive. Adding barriers in reverse like that signals to me these companies do not have a clue. The issues with this sort of thing will not be measurable or even observable. Our lives and society are impacted in mass proportions by events we as individuals will never perceive, or have the capacity to. And this is precisely what thinking is for; we theorize, organize, and make sense of things. This is the basis for all of our potential, and that potential is all we have. But this is not rocket science. It’s a sorted list. that everyone uses. And now it’s unsorted. for And what?
- quotemstr 8y ago
  Chronological is just one ordering. Why are you so attached to it? Why must deviating from this one specific ranking approach lead to "chaos"? Algorithmic ranking is not evil. A tiny minority of people rail against algorithmic ranking, but the vast majority, as demonstrated by their engagement, prefer the algorithmic model. Should we let this tiny vocal minority dictate policy, data be damned?
  - FridgeSeal 8y ago
    Increased engagement because it takes more clicks and scrolling to get to what you want != increased engagement because I want to be on the platform.
  - ChristianBundy 8y ago
    I can't speak for GP, but most people who don't like the switch from non-chronological timelines because their replacements are usually opaque algorithms that are optimized for maximum shareholder profit. That's a downgrade. On the other hand, non-chronological timelines are celebrated in communities like Scuttlebutt, but it's because we have control and you can choose the UX that works best for you without sacrificing connectivity. Diagnosis: https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm... First round of treatment: https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-internet.html https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-interne...
dangero 8y ago
I've noticed a similar effect with fast food restaurants. Fast food up-and-coming competitors tend to offer higher quality, fresher food at a slightly higher price. Problem is that when you look back at McDonald's 50 years ago, it had higher quality and fresher ingredients than it does today. Profit motive drove slow incremental decreases in quality till eventually new competitors could differentiate by offering a product probably somewhat similar to an original McDonald's burger. Are we destined to see this same cycle with social media? Profit motive slowly degrades the platform privacy and feed quality till a new player can enter simply by offering something closer to the original product Facebook offered?
- trophycase 8y ago
  It's basically just the life cycle of nearly every corporation due to their incessant need to grow. Offer a great product and build a strong customer base, then slowly cut costs by worsening product or externalizing costs.
  - stef25 8y ago
    > their incessant need to grow This need is something I've never really understood and indeed is the root of all these problems. Zuck wouldn't be mister billionaire if he'd kept FB V1, but the world would have been better for it.
    - jefe_ 8y ago
      Growth or opportunities for growth must be present to convince buyers and investors to exchange more-liquid assets like cash for less-liquid assets like ownership. I part with $100 that I can spend anywhere for a share of stock that I hope will grow in value. Without opportunity for growth I have no incentive to part with my $100. In the Facebook example, if Zuckerberg didn't want to grow Facebook, but wanted to still capitalize on it, he could have found a buyer and sold. The buyer would have been interested in growing it, and committed resources to doing so. Growing or Selling were the only two real options that would deliver Zuckerberg any gain. Once he decided not to sell, his only option was to deliver investors growth, so they would be willing to place their money in Facebook. Another example would be an iOS app. There are plenty of apps in the app store where the developer built it, put it out there, charged $0.99 and that was it. If the app meets a need, this can work for a while, but eventually either demand will change or competitors will arise and the developer would either need to update/grow their app to maintain their revenue stream. Growth is a fundamental piece of the financial system and eventually everyone decides to either grow, sell, or undercapitalize their asset.
alexashka 8y ago
The 'forms' may be different, the desires and needs stay the same. People want to communicate with as little friction as possible - then some smarty pants thinks why don't I insert myself in the middle and be the creepy overlord. It'd be novel and compelling if people thought beyond themselves for one second and wondered what they'd actually like to spend their life on. That'd be novel and compelling. It's been novel and compelling since the beginning of time, because it happens so rarely. I don't expect that to change. Sorry, carry on :)
chewz 8y ago
I have quit FB like 6 years ago and stopped using Twitter (I still have account I guess) like 2 years ago. It doesn't mean the web became a lonely place for me - Github, HN, some music apps, Instagram, Duo, e-mail etc. What I have left behind is pictures of newborns, awkard 'friends', news and shallow exchanges - which I am not fond of also in real.
est 8y ago
> What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics Few years back there was a similar company called Zynga. Analytics was its secret of success as well as demise. Snap or FB is on the same course but with an evidently longer life span.
dalbasal 8y ago
Maybe. I hope so. But... If other mediums are a guide, the messages don't get more artisanal over time. They can get more mass produced, "click-baity' and sacrine...TV=>reality TV ; Ne spaoers => tabloids. These mediums aren't purely crap. We get Westworld and GOt too, but the thick part of the pyramid is low cost, replicable-by-hacks, low brow "content." The online version of that is the algorithmic bias confirmation version of flame wars and cat pictures. Specifically on online social media... History shows these have lifecycles. Digg, Reddit, stumbleupon... these were different in year one. Novelty wears off, low hanging fruit gets eaten and mature games take over.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Yeah there's still billions of people that aren't online yet, and even without all of the optimization targets, people still use services like Facebook, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc multiple times per day - all of these services will remain highly profitable even with declining usage figures. It's just that their share prices will take a hit and shareholders will be disgruntled. Fuck those guys though.
- majos 8y ago
  I'm not sure how close tech companies are to monetizing the kinds of users who aren't online yet. For example, I talked to somebody at Microsoft a while back who said that Bing doesn't even serve ads to many African users because there isn't a sufficient advertiser base trying to court those users. So the last few billion users may be we less profitable than the first few billion.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JacobJans 8y ago
It should be noted that Facebook is pushing very hard for more meaningful interactions in the form of Groups. These groups are taking an increasingly large amount of the newsfeed. Facebook's stated goal with these groups is to create meaningful communities. I think, at least to some extent, they are succeeding with this goal. Anecdotally, I know several people who say groups are the only thing keeping them on the network. Interestingly, the groups also dovetail well into the continued growth of their ad platform; they tend to be interest based, so they help with ad targeting.
Nightshaxx 8y ago
I think Web 3.0 is going to be more focused on small communities and niche-focused platforms. Look at how many people shove money to twitch streamers and YouTube personalities that have minimal operating costs but extremely strong communities. The whole reason companies like the web is because it provides high profit margins since compared to physical things, the web is incredibly cheap. Communites allow companies to make money off of feelings and comradre that their users build for them. Twitter doesn't have sense of community so people are quick to leave, but even if pewdiepie left YouTube, the platform would be fine because it has so many other niches that people would stay for.
tryitnow 8y ago
I don't know if that's it at all. I think the more likely explanation is that all of these companies are competing for a single, finite resource: human attention. Maybe the opportunities for developing new ways to exploit human attention are simply drying up. Between streaming video, games, social media, podcasts, and just plain old traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) how much more room is there to grow? If I'm right this could be the signal of the current tech bubble finally bursting.
siruncledrew 8y ago
All the major social networks seem to end up like this at some point. They start out small, users really dig it and use it a lot, then the company experiences massive growth and begins to optimize around metrics, then the user/community experience slowly goes to shit. Companies like Facebook endlessly proliferate they are all about “connecting people”, but what’s the point of even having people run it when “connecting people” really means just using algorithms to spoon feed bullshit to people so the company can count it as “engagement time” and report it back to their board on the quarterly conference call. Digital social interaction isn’t a free public good centered around people as long as it’s privitized for the purpose of profit, and it’s also something the government can’t be trusted with providing either. Honestly, I don’t think we have figured out a good solution or channel for social communication yet. I’m not trying to be a tinfoil hat wearer alluding to blockchain or p2p as the answer because who’s to say it is the answer. We can only use our current frustrations to push us to keep innovating further towards a solution that’s more natural and compelling to use. Sometimes I long back to the days of AIM, because while it seems pretty feature poor compared to services today, it did the job that I needed it to do, which was provide an easy avenue to stay in touch with current friends and easily start conversations with new people. Simplicity is taken for granted in the world today, and even though we are in the “Web 3” age we shouldn’t just throw experiences and social channels from earlier days of the internet out the window for the sake of illusionary progress. Shit, I even meet people who are still passionate about Usenet, despite it being older than me. That’s damn powerful to see people care about the communities they were/are a part of and remember stories of building friendships and social interactions on the internet some decades later. These are things that seem lost today in a landscape focused on striving towards hitting target numbers.
HNLogInShit 8y ago
Nice blather. Keep trying to push “Web 3.0” shit. You didn’t learn from the last time?
ace_of_spades 8y ago
Thanks for your comment! While I agree with your overall outline that „something“ is lost from current social media, I would argue that analytics or more specifically analtical mindset in general should not be blamed for this. Analytics is simply a tool that can be used for good and for bad. The real problem are bad overall societal incentives and ideals (i.e., focus on profits and other narrow/short term metrics) which lead to missuse of these powerful and potentially highly useful/benefical tools. So I don‘t think we necessarily need to resort to an complete change of the tech stack (i.e., web 3), but should simply try to support projects focused on better incentieves and ideals (e.g., Mastodon over Facebook/Twitter) no matter the technology stack. Nevertheless, I agree that web 3 may enable more idealistic/well aligned business models in the long run. Another thing to push for may be more end user friendly legislation such as GDPR. While it may stiffle innovation by small companies in the short run, having long term standardization around good practices will hopefully create better and enable easier scale up of organizations in the future. Hope some researchers are coming up with good designs to investigate the effects of such legislation on the internet landscape. (On that note, can someone tell me again why impact evaluation of laws is not a standard practice, yet?! How much grieve could be spared if we decided to use evidence and facts to ground legislation...)

logicallee 8y ago

>Web 3 is just getting started though, and with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by Web 3, what are examples? What is just getting started?

chrisvalleybay 8y ago
Decentralization is one part of Web 3. ActivityPub could be one technology that is relevant to this story. Edit: Moving things out of silos, re-focusing on the content and its value to people, instead of what's relevant to advertisers – as have been mentioned throughout this thread.

drb91 8y ago

> with new technologies are going to come novel and compelling forms of social interaction. What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? While I am entertained by social media, I can't remember the last time I actually interacted with anyone in a substantive way. I'd much rather hit the bar and admit to myself that social media isn't very social.

Alex3917 8y ago
> Web 1.0 lets individuals create and express ideas > Web 2.0 lets groups create and express ideas > Web 3.0 lets societies create and express ideas It's blockchain. Blockchain is what gets us from web 2.0 to web 3.0. The technology is almost here, and after another few years of basic R&D the stuff we're going to be able to start building is going to transform society in ways that are barely even imaginable today.
- dangerlibrary 8y ago
  I have no idea if this comment is satire.
  - KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
    Wow that guy got a lot of responses quick, I feel trolled.
- Qwertie 8y ago
  Could you explain exactly how blockchains allow societies to create ideas? I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not.
  - Alex3917 8y ago
    > I'm not sure how append only lists allow idea sharing in ways a database does not. So at the software developer level of the stack, what we get are new tools for managing reputation, identity, authentication, transparency, accountability, etc. If you think of people as a graph of nodes, these tools enable novel patterns of trust and collaboration between individuals that aren't possible today. What this means is that every institution will ultimately have to reimagine itself so as to be cost competitive in the new paradigm, HT Carlota Perez. To give a more concrete example, think of the 2008 real estate collapse. The reason the market failed isn't because people didn't have the data, it's because no one one going to read through a 3,000 page paper print out to figure out what was actually in whatever debt tranche they happened to buy. But when you can just run a simple Python script to analyze the contents of all that debt and get updates on payments in real time, suddenly those types of systematic market failures can no longer happen. And because a big portion of the lemon market problem is ameliorated, that creates new ways to finance big capital investments that would be completely impossible today. Think about why we weren't able to have large corporations before double entry was invented/popularized in Florence in the late 1400s, because there was no way to really know if you were making or losing money once you got beyond a certain scale. Because blockchain reduces the costs of double entry accounting by 10,000x, we can (and will) restructure all aspects of society in ways that just aren't possible currently, everything from supply chains to social networks. I think it stands to reason that blockchain is going to be the most financially important technology of the last 500 years, since imho it's the biggest innovation since double entry accounting.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
grimbly 8y ago
Since when was the bar ever a "substantive" way to interact with people?
rqs 8y ago
> What, Web 3.0 will come with booze? Off topic but, you know what, maybe it eventually will. Just like in the movie Ready Player One, nothing says it couldn't be done. Maybe the reduce of physical interaction between people are not caused by social medias, maybe just because people don't want to spend time and energy (or, lazy) on those physical interactions. If meet with friends face to face cost 2 bars of power, and interact with them on social media cost 1 bar, I think many people will rather to save 1 bar, so they can do more tings (like, take a nap).
mrep 8y ago
You're interacting with us right now :)
- drb91 8y ago
  Oh I do agree there! I just don’t file forums under “social media” in the sense most people bemoan the concept.

benwerd 8y ago

> What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics. As a result these sites no longer have any real communities or organic content, and have been completely hollowed out by math-friendly refrigerator magnet junkfood. _Exactly_ this. Rather than understanding their users as real humans, having unique insights about them, and building something that meets their real needs, everything has been about maximizing hollow engagement metrics. And guess what? That's good for short term revenue but not long term trust. If you're running a startup and the main way you learn about your users is through statistical tracking and A/B testing, you're missing an important opportunity to get to know them properly. They will lead the way and although you can't simply ask them what they want, if you understand them deeply you'll know what to do. I'm excited about the next wave of platforms, which are tapping into enormous unmet needs. It's early days, and I can't stand the "web 3" label, but there's definitely going to be a sea change.

danepowell 8y ago
Sounds like an example of Goodhart's Law: "When a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a good metric." Optimizing for something as abstruse as "engagement" seems like a great way to completely ignore everything that actually makes social networks compelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  I'd give Gresham some due as well.
  - dredmorbius 8y ago
    Many possible examples, but Dwight MacDonald's "Mass Culture" (1953) is a good start. https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDonald_-_A_Theory_of_Mass_Culture.pdf https://is.muni.cz/el/1421/jaro2008/ESB032/um/5136660/MacDon...
- mygo 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fullshark 8y ago

Ironic this is here given Snap supposedly lost users with a redesign independent/at odds with such techniques.

qvrjuec 8y ago
It wasn't at odds with those techniques. The redesign was meant to force the users to view sponsored stories by sacrificing the usability of the app to view their friends stories. To look at the redesign as some kind of improvement for the users is totally wrong, IMO.
- graeme 8y ago
  Yes, but the point was they went on gut, not based on UI testing. It was a terrible blunder, since mostly reverted. Actual messages would get pushed down because a new story from an acquantaince popped up. Even with no ads it was bad UI.

florabuzzword 8y ago

I bailed at the advent of forced non-chronological timelines. I would have been less insulted if Facebook hired someone to spit in my face. Easily the scummiest design decision I have ever whitnessed. Actively manipulating the structural representation of time in a communication platform is begging for chaos. Yes, of course I know the time stamps are still presented. That is not my point. Communication is sensitive; very sensitive. Adding barriers in reverse like that signals to me these companies do not have a clue. The issues with this sort of thing will not be measurable or even observable. Our lives and society are impacted in mass proportions by events we as individuals will never perceive, or have the capacity to. And this is precisely what thinking is for; we theorize, organize, and make sense of things. This is the basis for all of our potential, and that potential is all we have. But this is not rocket science. It’s a sorted list. that everyone uses. And now it’s unsorted. for And what?

quotemstr 8y ago
Chronological is just one ordering. Why are you so attached to it? Why must deviating from this one specific ranking approach lead to "chaos"? Algorithmic ranking is not evil. A tiny minority of people rail against algorithmic ranking, but the vast majority, as demonstrated by their engagement, prefer the algorithmic model. Should we let this tiny vocal minority dictate policy, data be damned?
- FridgeSeal 8y ago
  Increased engagement because it takes more clicks and scrolling to get to what you want != increased engagement because I want to be on the platform.
- ChristianBundy 8y ago
  I can't speak for GP, but most people who don't like the switch from non-chronological timelines because their replacements are usually opaque algorithms that are optimized for maximum shareholder profit. That's a downgrade. On the other hand, non-chronological timelines are celebrated in communities like Scuttlebutt, but it's because we have control and you can choose the UX that works best for you without sacrificing connectivity. Diagnosis: https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.html https://staltz.com/the-web-began-dying-in-2014-heres-how.htm... First round of treatment: https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-internet.html https://staltz.com/a-plan-to-rescue-the-web-from-the-interne...

dangero 8y ago

I've noticed a similar effect with fast food restaurants. Fast food up-and-coming competitors tend to offer higher quality, fresher food at a slightly higher price. Problem is that when you look back at McDonald's 50 years ago, it had higher quality and fresher ingredients than it does today. Profit motive drove slow incremental decreases in quality till eventually new competitors could differentiate by offering a product probably somewhat similar to an original McDonald's burger. Are we destined to see this same cycle with social media? Profit motive slowly degrades the platform privacy and feed quality till a new player can enter simply by offering something closer to the original product Facebook offered?

trophycase 8y ago
It's basically just the life cycle of nearly every corporation due to their incessant need to grow. Offer a great product and build a strong customer base, then slowly cut costs by worsening product or externalizing costs.
- stef25 8y ago
  > their incessant need to grow This need is something I've never really understood and indeed is the root of all these problems. Zuck wouldn't be mister billionaire if he'd kept FB V1, but the world would have been better for it.
  - jefe_ 8y ago
    Growth or opportunities for growth must be present to convince buyers and investors to exchange more-liquid assets like cash for less-liquid assets like ownership. I part with $100 that I can spend anywhere for a share of stock that I hope will grow in value. Without opportunity for growth I have no incentive to part with my $100. In the Facebook example, if Zuckerberg didn't want to grow Facebook, but wanted to still capitalize on it, he could have found a buyer and sold. The buyer would have been interested in growing it, and committed resources to doing so. Growing or Selling were the only two real options that would deliver Zuckerberg any gain. Once he decided not to sell, his only option was to deliver investors growth, so they would be willing to place their money in Facebook. Another example would be an iOS app. There are plenty of apps in the app store where the developer built it, put it out there, charged $0.99 and that was it. If the app meets a need, this can work for a while, but eventually either demand will change or competitors will arise and the developer would either need to update/grow their app to maintain their revenue stream. Growth is a fundamental piece of the financial system and eventually everyone decides to either grow, sell, or undercapitalize their asset.

alexashka 8y ago

The 'forms' may be different, the desires and needs stay the same. People want to communicate with as little friction as possible - then some smarty pants thinks why don't I insert myself in the middle and be the creepy overlord. It'd be novel and compelling if people thought beyond themselves for one second and wondered what they'd actually like to spend their life on. That'd be novel and compelling. It's been novel and compelling since the beginning of time, because it happens so rarely. I don't expect that to change. Sorry, carry on :)

chewz 8y ago

I have quit FB like 6 years ago and stopped using Twitter (I still have account I guess) like 2 years ago. It doesn't mean the web became a lonely place for me - Github, HN, some music apps, Instagram, Duo, e-mail etc. What I have left behind is pictures of newborns, awkard 'friends', news and shallow exchanges - which I am not fond of also in real.

est 8y ago

> What's happened is that most of the major social networks only hire and promote people who make decisions primarily based on analytics Few years back there was a similar company called Zynga. Analytics was its secret of success as well as demise. Snap or FB is on the same course but with an evidently longer life span.

dalbasal 8y ago

Maybe. I hope so. But... If other mediums are a guide, the messages don't get more artisanal over time. They can get more mass produced, "click-baity' and sacrine...TV=>reality TV ; Ne spaoers => tabloids. These mediums aren't purely crap. We get Westworld and GOt too, but the thick part of the pyramid is low cost, replicable-by-hacks, low brow "content." The online version of that is the algorithmic bias confirmation version of flame wars and cat pictures. Specifically on online social media... History shows these have lifecycles. Digg, Reddit, stumbleupon... these were different in year one. Novelty wears off, low hanging fruit gets eaten and mature games take over.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

Yeah there's still billions of people that aren't online yet, and even without all of the optimization targets, people still use services like Facebook, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc multiple times per day - all of these services will remain highly profitable even with declining usage figures. It's just that their share prices will take a hit and shareholders will be disgruntled. Fuck those guys though.

majos 8y ago
I'm not sure how close tech companies are to monetizing the kinds of users who aren't online yet. For example, I talked to somebody at Microsoft a while back who said that Bing doesn't even serve ads to many African users because there isn't a sufficient advertiser base trying to court those users. So the last few billion users may be we less profitable than the first few billion.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

JacobJans 8y ago

It should be noted that Facebook is pushing very hard for more meaningful interactions in the form of Groups. These groups are taking an increasingly large amount of the newsfeed. Facebook's stated goal with these groups is to create meaningful communities. I think, at least to some extent, they are succeeding with this goal. Anecdotally, I know several people who say groups are the only thing keeping them on the network. Interestingly, the groups also dovetail well into the continued growth of their ad platform; they tend to be interest based, so they help with ad targeting.

Nightshaxx 8y ago

I think Web 3.0 is going to be more focused on small communities and niche-focused platforms. Look at how many people shove money to twitch streamers and YouTube personalities that have minimal operating costs but extremely strong communities. The whole reason companies like the web is because it provides high profit margins since compared to physical things, the web is incredibly cheap. Communites allow companies to make money off of feelings and comradre that their users build for them. Twitter doesn't have sense of community so people are quick to leave, but even if pewdiepie left YouTube, the platform would be fine because it has so many other niches that people would stay for.

tryitnow 8y ago

I don't know if that's it at all. I think the more likely explanation is that all of these companies are competing for a single, finite resource: human attention. Maybe the opportunities for developing new ways to exploit human attention are simply drying up. Between streaming video, games, social media, podcasts, and just plain old traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers) how much more room is there to grow? If I'm right this could be the signal of the current tech bubble finally bursting.

siruncledrew 8y ago

All the major social networks seem to end up like this at some point. They start out small, users really dig it and use it a lot, then the company experiences massive growth and begins to optimize around metrics, then the user/community experience slowly goes to shit. Companies like Facebook endlessly proliferate they are all about “connecting people”, but what’s the point of even having people run it when “connecting people” really means just using algorithms to spoon feed bullshit to people so the company can count it as “engagement time” and report it back to their board on the quarterly conference call. Digital social interaction isn’t a free public good centered around people as long as it’s privitized for the purpose of profit, and it’s also something the government can’t be trusted with providing either. Honestly, I don’t think we have figured out a good solution or channel for social communication yet. I’m not trying to be a tinfoil hat wearer alluding to blockchain or p2p as the answer because who’s to say it is the answer. We can only use our current frustrations to push us to keep innovating further towards a solution that’s more natural and compelling to use. Sometimes I long back to the days of AIM, because while it seems pretty feature poor compared to services today, it did the job that I needed it to do, which was provide an easy avenue to stay in touch with current friends and easily start conversations with new people. Simplicity is taken for granted in the world today, and even though we are in the “Web 3” age we shouldn’t just throw experiences and social channels from earlier days of the internet out the window for the sake of illusionary progress. Shit, I even meet people who are still passionate about Usenet, despite it being older than me. That’s damn powerful to see people care about the communities they were/are a part of and remember stories of building friendships and social interactions on the internet some decades later. These are things that seem lost today in a landscape focused on striving towards hitting target numbers.

HNLogInShit 8y ago

Nice blather. Keep trying to push “Web 3.0” shit. You didn’t learn from the last time?

ace_of_spades 8y ago

Thanks for your comment! While I agree with your overall outline that „something“ is lost from current social media, I would argue that analytics or more specifically analtical mindset in general should not be blamed for this. Analytics is simply a tool that can be used for good and for bad. The real problem are bad overall societal incentives and ideals (i.e., focus on profits and other narrow/short term metrics) which lead to missuse of these powerful and potentially highly useful/benefical tools. So I don‘t think we necessarily need to resort to an complete change of the tech stack (i.e., web 3), but should simply try to support projects focused on better incentieves and ideals (e.g., Mastodon over Facebook/Twitter) no matter the technology stack. Nevertheless, I agree that web 3 may enable more idealistic/well aligned business models in the long run. Another thing to push for may be more end user friendly legislation such as GDPR. While it may stiffle innovation by small companies in the short run, having long term standardization around good practices will hopefully create better and enable easier scale up of organizations in the future. Hope some researchers are coming up with good designs to investigate the effects of such legislation on the internet landscape. (On that note, can someone tell me again why impact evaluation of laws is not a standard practice, yet?! How much grieve could be spared if we decided to use evidence and facts to ground legislation...)