3 ms·

Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't

Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't use it. Clearly that's not the case. The value prop for advertisers is obvious. Without Facebook, thousands of small businesses (delivering great services) would be much smaller or out of business. The value prop for users is manifold. To name a couple, without Facebook, people wouldn't connect and interact with people outside their proximal social circles. These otherwise lost connections often lead to strong healthy friendships, relationships, and/or partnerships. Many people also derive satisfaction from an entertainment perspective through Facebook whether that be through gossiping, viewing cat memes, or playing games. Though you may find these to be unimportant, that's you projecting your value system on someone else. To say that Facebook's existence is a net negative to society requires some fundamental assumptions around what is valuable. For example, if all you value in this world is privacy, then of course Facebook is detrimental. If what you value is family, entertainment, and pleasure, Facebook is probably of great benefit.

Barrin92 7y ago
>Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't use it. Clearly that's not the case. Of course they're not obligated, but it's a useful thing to ask in the context of this discussion. The average lifespan of a S&P 500 company is 18 years, tendency going down. So it seems to make sense to ask what Facebook's mi d and long term value proposition is. And I think all the points you make don't apply to facebook in particular at all, but to online communication platforms in general. It's true that small businesses and communities profit from means to communicate online, but it's not obvious at all that in the future that means having a centralized, ad driven company run the show, or Facebook specifically. In fact the entire pivot seems to indicate that all the things that facebook is built on, is ill suited for that future. How is Facebook going to sustain it's giant ad-driven money engine in a world of private, encrypted community interaction?
- smallgovt 7y ago
  You seem to be saying: 1) An ad-driven business model isn't the best way for Facebook to monetize its business now or in the future 2) Facebook isn't the best organization to build the social network of the future. These claims have little to do with the argument OP made (or my response). That is: 1) Facebook provides zero or negative value to users today 2) The world would be better off without Facebook today 3) If Facebook disagrees with 1 or 2, they're obligated to explain why
  - edmundsauto 7y ago
    1) billions of users' behavior disagree 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards? 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
    - ionised 7y ago
      > 1) billions of users' behavior disagree Facebook is engineered to be addictive and to keep people engaged and present on the platform so they can be exploited for data. If you are going to say Facebook provides these people value then I'm going to say a heroin distributor and his chemist provides a similar value to his customers. > 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards? Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion. One shared by a growing number of people. > 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it? They're not. Neither are people obliged to use their platform or abide by their terms of service if the company doesn't want to be forthcoming with explanations for its conduct.
      - edmundsauto 7y ago
        I strongly agree with point 3. I just wish people would accept that FB isn't for them, and move on. Instead, there is so much signaling going on that it's difficult to discuss real issues. I actually also agree with point 1, because I think that drug seekers are more rational actors than the average person. It seems indisputable that drug dealers provide value; the argument is that the long term harm outweights the immediate value, not that there is no value. With Facebook, I think it's much less clear that using FB causes harm, much less harm on the same level as an opiod addiction. (I'm aware of the research out there that correlates depressive symptoms with social media usage.)

Barrin92 7y ago

>Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't use it. Clearly that's not the case. Of course they're not obligated, but it's a useful thing to ask in the context of this discussion. The average lifespan of a S&P 500 company is 18 years, tendency going down. So it seems to make sense to ask what Facebook's mi d and long term value proposition is. And I think all the points you make don't apply to facebook in particular at all, but to online communication platforms in general. It's true that small businesses and communities profit from means to communicate online, but it's not obvious at all that in the future that means having a centralized, ad driven company run the show, or Facebook specifically. In fact the entire pivot seems to indicate that all the things that facebook is built on, is ill suited for that future. How is Facebook going to sustain it's giant ad-driven money engine in a world of private, encrypted community interaction?

smallgovt 7y ago
You seem to be saying: 1) An ad-driven business model isn't the best way for Facebook to monetize its business now or in the future 2) Facebook isn't the best organization to build the social network of the future. These claims have little to do with the argument OP made (or my response). That is: 1) Facebook provides zero or negative value to users today 2) The world would be better off without Facebook today 3) If Facebook disagrees with 1 or 2, they're obligated to explain why
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  1) billions of users' behavior disagree 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards? 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
  - ionised 7y ago
    > 1) billions of users' behavior disagree Facebook is engineered to be addictive and to keep people engaged and present on the platform so they can be exploited for data. If you are going to say Facebook provides these people value then I'm going to say a heroin distributor and his chemist provides a similar value to his customers. > 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards? Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion. One shared by a growing number of people. > 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it? They're not. Neither are people obliged to use their platform or abide by their terms of service if the company doesn't want to be forthcoming with explanations for its conduct.
    - edmundsauto 7y ago
      I strongly agree with point 3. I just wish people would accept that FB isn't for them, and move on. Instead, there is so much signaling going on that it's difficult to discuss real issues. I actually also agree with point 1, because I think that drug seekers are more rational actors than the average person. It seems indisputable that drug dealers provide value; the argument is that the long term harm outweights the immediate value, not that there is no value. With Facebook, I think it's much less clear that using FB causes harm, much less harm on the same level as an opiod addiction. (I'm aware of the research out there that correlates depressive symptoms with social media usage.)