16 ms·
We All Work for Facebook
- mindgam3 8y ago“Facebook makes just a hair under $635,000 in profit for each of its 25,000 employees. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, makes about $158,000 per worker. (At Walmart, it’s $4,288.) These calculations often get spun as representing a victory for automation and algorithms—machines, rather than humans, creating value. But the truth is, these media companies have billions of people working for them—they’re just not on staff.”
- trpc 8y agoAt least Google's main revenue, Adsense, is shared with other people. Publishers, websites and apps that voluntarily choose their Ad service.
- anticensor 8y agoFacebook also has an ad service. Social network users contribute voluntarily too.
- trpc 8y agoThe difference is that the vast majority of users are unaware that their content is making other users stay within Facebook as long as possible and feed it with more data to make money for Facebook alone.
- Fnoord 8y agoGoogle Maps is community driven as well. I contributed to it, then I was like "wait, why am I not contributing to OSM instead?" Google does give rewards for the contributions but they're laughable compared to the amount of time you put into the work.
- skinnymuch 8y agoMost people pick Adsense because it’s the de facto service to use. Name a competitor to Adsense for your average small site that doesn’t take a lot of work or pay a lot less in aggregate. It’s not the same as truly voluntarily using it. Adsense isn’t Google’s main revenue or profit source either. That would be AdWords and specifically ads on their own properties.
- mxd3 8y agoTheir main revenue is actually Adwords.
- polskibus 8y agoThey outsource a lot of things like content filtering. It would be interesting to know the numbers including outsourcing.
- imgabe 8y agoIf they're looking at profit that should already include any expenses for outsourcing.
- touristtam 8y agoIf you haven't read it, I would recommend Matt Mason's "The Pirate's Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism" (goodread link:https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2286633.The_Pirate_s_Dilemma https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2286633.The_Pirate_s_Dil...), which is arguably still very relevant.
- maybe-YOU 8y agoSpeak for yourself, asshole.
- arendtio 8y agoWell, the problem is not the millions of unpaid post writers... The problem is the number of unpaid ad receivers.
- dymk 8y agoThe ad viewer is receiving free use of the website they’re browsing. That’s the value exchange.
- thih9 8y agoFacebook and other social media rely on that heavily and make their users do as much work for them as possible. The constant stream of notifications makes it easier. Instructions can be presented as „tips”: upload a new photo, greet new users on your fanpage, reply to this message. Some users are getting paid in just likes, but an increasing number receives very tangible business opportunities or direct compensation. This is getting very close to employment territory. But unlike real employment, social media get to set the rules.
- trpc 8y agoNot only that, Facebook is designed to lock users inside their services as long as possible. The web, to billions of users now, is simply Facebook. The only way to make people leave Facebook and visit your website or app is to PAY Facebook to promote your page and posts so that users visit your services. It's the biggest carefully designed theft of time and effort of all time. Facebook must be destroyed or at least weakened by the power of governments now or never. Also most social websites were designed on free labor by users like Quora and Reddit (at least the new corporatist reddit)
- return1 8y agoAt least reddit lets you get some pageviews without forcing you to pay. Facebook's pages and likes are a total scam. It's impossible to reach users without paying, while it takes a lot of effort to create the network of likes. That's double effort for zero benefit.
- trpc 8y agoI agree that reddit is still the fairest social website even after the many changes they did to monetize their services, which isn't wrong btw since it's in the end a business, Quora is now nothing but a big spam and self promotion website but fortunately they don't have the power to force users to stay in their circle of influence like Facebook. ProductHunt doesn't need a comment, it's a shameless cheesy website designed as "pay for shilling" scheme.
- paulpauper 8y agoquora is def. the worst. Low quality, tons of spam, all the good ppl left, clutters google search results.
- isoprophlex 8y ago> clutters google search results let's not forget Pinterest, the image aggregator slash image search destroyer
- return1 8y agoFacebook should have a revenue sharing program for its users. Google and youtube have kinda bern doing that and it helped create some kind of synnergy.
- skinnymuch 8y agoHow? Google makes the majority of its money from its own properties.
- return1 8y agoadsense and youtube revenue are big incentives to create content
- skinnymuch 8y agoYeah that makes sense for Facebook. YouTube is a money losing enterprise. Or at least not profitable one. So going that far is probably too much. The Adsense argument is better but that’s for stuff not on Google’s properties. It might be a good idea for Facebook to do revenue sharing. But they’re a public company now. They can’t do something too big. They need their profits. Just like Google.
- zhte415 8y agoWhile obviously people use facebook, I just don't get it. Had a profile and deleted it years ago. What does it add? I see no value in it.
- jonp888 8y agoYou might as well say "While obviously people use HackerNews, I just don't get it. Had a account and deleted it years ago. What does it add? I see no value in it." The same reason anyone does anything social. To discuss with friends and others topics of mutual interest, to find out about things that have happened to people and orgsnisations I care about. And sometimes to get validation by publicising things relevant to you personally and seeing the reaction. Quite why HN seems to have such a collective hatred of Facebook specifically, far above all other organisations running social/content sharing platforms I don't understand. It's worse than /. and MS back in the day.
- aabbcc1241 8y agoPeople can do those discussions and information sharing without Facebook. e.g. They would have their own blog and read feeds from friends from RSS reader. Maybe they think it's easier to do that with Facebook.
- JohnFen 8y ago> Quite why HN seems to have such a collective hatred of Facebook specifically, far above all other organisations running social/content sharing platforms I don't understand I cant' speak for anybody but me, but my personal animosity towards these organization is purely because they work so hard to spy on me.
- thih9 8y agoFacebook is in the ad business. If you pay, you can post ads. Its "free tier" gives the ability to exchange your time and personal network into visibility.
- rm445 8y agoIt's a link to people I know from real life, by their real names. Family and friends. People I have some level of emotional connection to such that I have some level of interest in seeing pictures of what they do in their leisure time, how their kids are growing up and so on. Staying in touch with them by the many other forms of communication available would be such a pain, just because there are so many. I've spent a lot of time on pseudonymous online communities - slashdot, reddit, hacker news and others - and although there is always interesting discussion, I don't feel anything like the same interest in other posters as I do in say my housemate from 2003-2005. Don't get me wrong, Facebook-the-company and Facebook-the-algorithmically-generated-feed are fairly vile, but the USP, the network effect is something that has emotional worth to a lot of people.
- paulpauper 8y agoI don't work for them. The production of the shows my kids enjoy goes something like this: Unpaid redditors post original material to amuse their online friends. Unpaid moderators keep the subreddit functioning by cleaning out spam and abuse. Reddit gets a little money from ads posted on the subreddit. Then a YouTube channel called Sorrow TV—apparently a one-man operation run by a 20-something guy—harvests the best posts and creates the video. YouTube, which is part of Google, runs more ads, while collecting valuable data about the viewing patterns of users like my kids. YouTube shares some of the money it makes with SorrowTV, based on a formula that Google controls and can alter at any time. Except that: The barriers to entry to breaking-out in the screen writing or acting biz are much higher than it is to upload YouTube videos. Anyone can post to Facebook or Reddit, so why should the pay be higher than more selective and prestigious jobs that have a more rigorous screening processes? YouTube allows content creators to profit from their work through ad revenue sharing, premium subscriptions, and super-chats. Facebook allows content creators to post external links to their websites, such as stores. Reddit moderators, especially for popular subs, have an enormous amount of power and influence, and such postilions are highly sought after. If being a Reddit mod is so bad, why is there so much competition for mod spots? They are not the victims at all. The users are much more likely to be victims by having to adhere to arbitrary rules and censorship imposed by mods.
- orkon 8y agoI feel the entire post is missing the two main points: 1) No one would bother creating these free services if they could not draw massive revenue streams out of it. If the returns disappear, it'd all be shut down. 2) If you create content on an online platform, you get paid in emotions you feel, the popularity you might get or the money you get through your own advertising if you are popular. If you contribute the data, you also benefit from a better service which is free. P.S. I am thinking of building an RSS reader app with the built-in discussions. If it sounds interesting, please fill out a survey https://forms.gle/9V85Eb8PZnBXKaFr6 https://forms.gle/9V85Eb8PZnBXKaFr6
- lazyjones 8y ago> 1) No one would bother creating these free services if they could not draw massive revenue streams out of it. If the returns disappear, it'd all be shut down. You may have missed all the free forums on the Internet, financed by hobbyists or a few unobtrusive banner ads. It used to be the norm. Surely most of the development efforts of FB go into maximizing revenue through use(misuse?) of private data, but this is a "free service" nobody asked for.
- orkon 8y agoSo you are saying, basically, if there was Unix why do we have Windows since no one asked for it. On the positive side, running your own website or a forum is now easier than ever. I think more people should do it.
- lazyjones 8y ago> So you are saying, basically, if there was Unix why do we have Windows since no one asked for it. No. Windows is not free. Perhaps your interpretation of "these free services" is a bit far from mine. The topic was FB and the services it offers, which, for the majority of users (sans advertisers) isn't overwhelmingly different from other free social networks, which aren't disappearing because they're not making billions in profits.
- chillacy 8y ago
- throwaway_9168 8y agoI would certainly like Facebook the company to completely fail, but the WagesforFacebook website is probably the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time. It is like turning into a penniless bum by spending all your money partying, and then blaming all the party hosts for your predicament and asking them to pay you money for each visit so you can keep partying forever into the future. Why not stop attending the parties? Why not a) remove the mobile app and use it only on a desktop/laptop to reduce the amount of time you spend on Facebook b) monitor how much time you spend on FB and slowly cut it down c) pick up the phone and pay a few damn dollars to talk to close friends - in case you don't have a way to call for free d) meet people in real life and put your mobile phone away and actually pay attention to the other person e) spend your time educating everyone you know about the problem of FB addiction f) volunteer for some community service where you actually get to meet your friends and neighbors? But NO! "I want to bum around on Facebook, I want my minute-by-minute dopamine hit, and I want to distort the issue so no one figures out that my FB addiction is actually my fault in the first place"
- microcolonel 8y agoThis is HN, where it is presumed that people who absolutely have the willpower to exert personal responsibility instead convince themselves that they don't, so that they can play the victim. If you don't like Facebook, don't use Facebook, try not to run their code, try not to connect to their hosts, and don't send data to their partners. Most importantly, live the life that makes the people around you not want to use Facebook either.
- firethief 8y ago> This is HN, where it is presumed that people who absolutely have the willpower to exert personal responsibility instead convince themselves that they don't, so that they can play the victim. If there's somewhere humans don't do that, sign me up. Not that I'd probably pass the entrance test but my failure would be enlightening.
- RugnirViking 8y agoWhat makes you think that everyone has this mythical willpower? Is it the same belief as belief in rational market actors, or that eveyone makes decisions after carefully considering all of the concequences? Face it, humans (you, me, bigshot CEOs) all act primarily based on simple emotional wants and desires, most of the time. I can guarantee you that there are a great deal of CEOs, maybe even some of whom you look up to, that spend too much time on facebook/linkedin/playing golf etc, know it, and yet do nothing about it.
- garbonicc 8y agoYou don't work for facebook, you are facebook's product. Just don't use it, it's that simple. Why is this so difficult for people to understand.
- areejs 8y agoThere's always a catch. Nothing is ever free
- colejohnson66 8y agoOpen source software?
- onefuncman 8y agoyou pay for open source through adopting the risk of running it, the cost of hosting it, and the time to understand how to maintain and use it.
- JohnFen 8y agoI operate a number of websites that are free for users, no catch. No advertising, no tracking, no nothing. There's not even any way to make voluntary donations.
- avip 8y agoThis is completely backwards. I get free, undisturbed, superb quality communication with all my friends and family via WhatsApp. I used to pay a fortune for that and now it's FREE. So OP suggests I should be paid for the suffering of using a 100% free super useful service?
- username223 8y agoWhat? WhatsApp was $1/yr before Facebook bought it, which is hardly a "fortune." A lifetime of WhatsApp would have cost you less than one month's internet bill.
- skinnymuch 8y agoNo it wasn’t. Almost no one paid that amount. And this isn’t about Whatsapp before FB. It is about before Whatsapp existing at all.
- username223 8y agoDid most people pay more than $1/yr plus data rates? My point was that WhatsApp was apparently a legitimate, independent business where people paid a small fee for the equivalent of international SMS.
- skinnymuch 8y agoBut no one was happy with that. So that was never how it was going to stay. The people making Whatsapp were mostly much happier getting millions and billions for the app. There’s no point in talking about Whatsapp as a tiny company charging $1 to a small percent of its user base. No one had any intention of keeping it that way. I also don’t think billionaires like the founders saying they regret stuff after they’ve become billionaires from Whatsapp’s sale should count as a counter argument. I doubt they’d be fine giving back their billions for a few million a year salary while being worried about what their future will hold.
- annadane 8y agoI think what pisses me off the most about FB is they used to be legitimately good, then over time slowly boiled the frog, less and less privacy, more features people don't want, so people begrudgingly put up with it now rather than truly enjoy it. They can't leave, not that everyone they know is on FB due to the first mover phenomenon. And if they were honest with themselves or us, they'd admit that. And even if people get sick of FB and migrate to another platform, guess what, they own Instagram and Whatsapp. Someone in Facebook at a high level is a psychopath, or maybe multiple people
- snarf21 8y agoI would argue they were never good. He called people who gave FB data "... dumb f#@$s" back when he was 19. It was just that in the beginning they weren't pushing the monetization yet. Now that is all it is about and people are starting to understand how they are being exploited. The only thing that has changed is that you are aware. I still don't think any of the people in my family give a crap. They are more than happy in their echo chamber and free service.
- Mirioron 8y agoI echo your statement. I knew of Facebook rather early on and even back then it seemed like a bad idea to sign up. What I find interesting, though, is that Facebook feels like an entirely unknown part of the internet for me as a result. A lot of the links and what not on Facebook are like closed doors for me.
- inflatableDodo 8y agoI find the biggest issue to be events. About the only thing I have been excluded from by not using facebook is some of the more hippy end of events where sometimes the only access is through facebook and people are seemingly too high to realise that this may in fact be somewhat against their own stated ethos.
- ravenstine 8y agoFacebook was indeed always like that, and it even became apparent as time went on. Yet people did not care until the media decided that Facebook was bad (instead of acting like their minds were blown by it 24/7), and even at that most people continue to use it. Facebook could be spying on people in the shower and they'd continue using it because their platform is one of a plethora of distractions that allow people to not have to think about the truth while practicing both apathy and recreational outrage.
- orkon 8y agoIf spending time on Facebook is work, why is my employer not happy?
- aabbcc1241 8y agobecause it's not working for your original employeer
- CM30 8y agoYep, all these services basically exist off the back of their userbases, and practically all their value comes from the content submitted by the people that use them for free. And this makes it rather interesting to hear complaints about working for exposure or free or what not. Yes, that's a bad deal, but it's really also the same deal you're agreeing to when you heavily use these 'social media' sites and platforms. You're saying you'll provide a ton of content for free on the assumption that just maybe, some of those millions/billions of users will check it out on your own site and help you make money. And YouTube and other sites with monetisation requirements may actually be worse in some extent. Think about it, YouTube's basically like a bad internship; work for free for a few months, then if you're good enough maybe we'll decide to pay you. But hey, I guess those millions/billions of users are too tempting for many.
- 1sttimeposter 8y agoIf you want to know why people use Facebook it is for all of the positive it brings, rather than the negative which is portrayed consistently on HN. Check out this FB page where FB accumulates stories that show FB making a meaningful and positive impact on people’s lives. https://wwww.facebook.com/CommunityVoices/ https://wwww.facebook.com/CommunityVoices/
- 50656E6973 8y agoOne can always cherry pick good or bad elements of FB use, but the vast majority of users and the average use case would not have anything to do on the Community Voices page. Most people use facebook to satisfy vices such as outrage addiction, vanity, and jealousy/noseyness. Even cable news runs an uplifting story every now and then, but for the most part simply magnifies and profits from the worst in society.
- mrep 8y agoHacker news ain't that different. Pretty much every article I see here that mentions Facebook or any other company is full of outrage. Just 2 days ago there was an article on the Facebook fine [0] and half the people were demanding that Facebook should have been dismantled and the executives should have gone to jail. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490
- cribbles 8y agoWhy are your only comments on this site rebutting negative stories about Facebook? As a follow-up question, what are your thoughts on this longitudinal study from 2017[1], which found that "the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being", such that any form of engagement with Facebook was negatively correlated with a wide range of self-reported mental, emotional, and physical health indicators? Does the Facebook PR page you linked contradict that somehow? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386
- dymk 8y ago
- magwa101 8y agoAt the end of the day, your contribution to a site, any site, any contribution has a finite limited time value to you, but has a much longer, and multidimensional value to the receiving site. The value shared is asymmetric.
- chillacy 8y agoI’m hoping people can come to an agreement over the degree of asymmetry. This reminds me of a parallel discussion of how much businesses leaders should benefit vs employees, the spectrum ranging from full socialist worker control to naked capitalism. Maybe a hint lies in the ranges of accepted offers in the ultimatum game
- ausjke 8y agoAt least not me, as I don't use facebook at all, life is good without it. I have to use google for daily searching, along with gmail, I now migrate my primary email to outlook and my goal is to use google only for searching under anonymous mode, i.e. not all eggs in one basket, to mitigate privacy concerns
- goodrubyist 8y agoWhether Facebook should be paying people to work or not, the decision should be made by Facebook and those people voluntarily, not imposed on them by the government. If some people think they should be paid for the work, they should refuse to do it for free...the fact that in such a case other people might do the same work for free instead doesn't still entitle the government to dictate the terms of a voluntary relationship.
- chillacy 8y agoThat sounds fair but nothing the government does works that way. If you asked us all we would pay zero taxes ourselves and enjoy social benefits paid by others.
- JohnFen 8y ago> If you asked us all we would pay zero taxes ourselves and enjoy social benefits paid by others. Most, maybe, but certainly not all.
- JohnFen 8y ago> the decision should be made by Facebook and those people voluntarily, not imposed on them by the government. I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this argument is Facebook and the like weren't imposed on my against my will.
- 3xblah 8y ago"Whenever you post a photo on Instagram, write an Amazon review, or skim through complaints about potholes on your neighborhood's Facebook group, you're helping generate profit for the world's richest corporations. A growing movement is making the case that you ought to get paid for it." The value is in the traffic, not necessarily the content. The traffic is what allows them to sell advertising. They could have billions of submitted photos, reviews and comments about potholes, but if they failed to get enough daily traffic, the business would fail. Imagine if web users retrieving each others' content were each visiting different websites controlled by different people (different domain name owners); the traffic would be more evenly distributed. Advertisers would be faced with different choices. They could not all choose to advertise with a small number of disproportionately high traffic websites. One website could not so easily generate billions in revenue from ad sales. When so many web users all visit the same website, they create a highly valuable entity to advertisers. Why do they all visit the same website? They do so because that is the only source of the content. Exclusivity. "Walled garden." What if a web user could retrieve those same photos, reviews and comments from many different websites, instead of just one? What if it was the author that mattered and not necessarily the source? What if we reimagined the way content was distributed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_centric_networking If users are the ones generating this "content", and they retain ownership, then it stands to reason that if provided with the technical means, they can choose make it available on any website they choose. It is their choice. Open source operating systems use mirrors to make software available to users from multiple websites. The goal in that case is to distribute traffic more evenly across multiple websites, not to send all users to one controlled by a single owner. When traffic is distributed across disparate websites it reduces the likelihood that web advertisers will fund the creation of monopolistic web-based companies like the ones that are causing so many unnecessary problems today. Is there a technical barrier that prevents user-generated content from being mirrored at many different sites, with servers located around the globe? Perhaps it already is? Is there a technical requirement that all these sites be controlled by the same entity? The disproportionate traffic to a single domain name is what allows one owner to monopolise and generate disproportionate wealth. What if we could distribute the traffic to other owners? After all, it is the user's content. Whether it is exclusively available from one website or available from multiple mirrors should be the user's decision. Of course the author here may see no problems with the existence of these monopolies. Maybe all he really wants is a piece of the enormous ad revenue. He wants a multi billion dollar enterprise to pay him. Absent a lawsuit, what are the chances of that? Websites will not pay for content. Howeverthey will pay for traffic.
- sascha_sl 8y agoI don't. I still do however work for Google because their "solve 10 machine learning challenges or be well tracked" service is integrated by so many fucking idiotic services. I just call it the Google tax.
- JohnFen 8y ago> I still do however work for Google because their "solve 10 machine learning challenges or be well tracked" service is integrated by so many fucking idiotic services. I don't, for the most part. If I have to solve a captcha for something, I usually don't use that thing. I will make the occasional exception for captchas that are part of signing up for a service if it's important enough to me, as long as the captcha never appears again.
- sys_64738 8y agoFB's biggest problems are about market saturation and maintaining that position. If they lose the youngest generation then they will gradually decrease in value as their legacy userbase ages. This is why FB constantly has to buy up and coming social media style tech so that they can constantly reinvigorate the youth demographic into the fold. It's a constant battle for FB to avoid becoming obsolete.
- jdofaz 8y agoI used to post photos on google maps, sometimes at the prompting of the Maps app. It was cool to get emails saying a 100,000 people had seen my photo. But I quit “contributing” when it finally occurred to me that I was doing free work for a billion dollar company. I think Facebook is toxic for some people I know personally. I decided that by posting on Facebook I’m helping create reasons for those people to keep checking Facebook. A while back I deleted everything from my profile except my phone number and email address. In the rare occasions I look at the news feed I never like or interact with posts. I miss the good things about Facebook but it just isn’t worth the cost.
- lone_haxx0r 8y agoI would have wholeheartedly agreed with this post had its thesis been "Don't use Facebook, Twiter, Youtube, etc.", but instead I got "Use Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, but complain to your govt. because they make too much money". You don't like how they make money(X)? Don't use it. No one is forcing you. > but if I don't use them I'm at a disadvantage Then they are useful for you, use them. I don't use fb, twitter, reddit, etc. I only use Google search, Youtube and Hacker news, and do so voluntarily. I'm happy with the value I get, I take measures to diminish the amount of data they get (use fake names, use VPN, etc.) Living in a system based on freedom means that if someone succeeds through their own effort, they are entitled to that success. You can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person, or how much money they make. (X) If your copyrighted content is being used without your permission, there are legal mechanisms to stop it. But I doubt reddit users posting in a humor sub care about their joke being used in a Youtube video.
- georgeecollins 8y agoThe problem is that people want to converge on one system, so opting out often isn't viable. I don't use Facebook, for example. But when my school makes an announcement, or creates some kind of bulletin board or sign up, they often use Facebook. Most people are on it. If I want to advertise a mobile app it is really hard without using Facebook or Instagram. You say "you can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person". This is not about animosity toward any person or company (or it shouldn't be). We have stopped people or issued government control when people are close to having monopolies over oil, monopolies over power, telecommunications, etc.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JohnFen 8y ago> But when my school makes an announcement, or creates some kind of bulletin board or sign up, they often use Facebook. You should make a huge stink about this. At a minimum, schools and other public services should always provide a means to interact with them that doesn't involve such things.
- yeahitslikethat 8y agoI said basically exactly this yesterday in a comment on a story and got down voted. This place is jacked up. Even hackers don't think right anymore.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Kiro 8y agoEvery post about Facebook comes with the same lynch mob in the comments and it's getting tiresome. Yes, you all hate Facebook and want Mark Zuckerberg's head on a pole (literally). You also want every single employee to be executed for treason against humanity. HN has really lost any chance of sensible discussions around this.
- JohnFen 8y agoI want none of those things. I just want some effective way of getting Facebook and the like to leave me alone.
- kripy 8y agoThis reminds me of Matt Webb's piece titled "Instagram as an island economy"[1] where he writes about the concept of encoded labour: "Every "user" of Instagram is a worker. There are some people who produce photos -- this is valuable, it means there is something for people to look it. There are some people who only produce comments or "likes," the virtual society equivalent of apes picking lice off other apes." [1] http://interconnected.org/home/2012/04/11/instagram_as_an_island_economy http://interconnected.org/home/2012/04/11/instagram_as_an_is...
- JohnFen 8y agoNot all of us. Some of us avoid the products and services of surveillance-based companies like Facebook, Google, etc., and block traffic to them to the greatest degree possible.