30 ms·

Facebook Research Warned of ‘Tipping Point’ Threat to Core App

195 points by otoburb 7y ago

mic47 7y ago
Is it just me, or do "secret" have negative connotation? Because for me it does, and I am really sad from journalist when they use "secret" or "secretly" in headlines, when it just mean internal, or just not disclosed. What is interesting that the article does not contain word secret, and they always use the word internal.
- 0x006A 7y ago
  Is "secret" not one of the classifications for internal documents? "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "restricted". While this classification is usually used to classify access to documents of the state, it could also apply to internal documents in large organizations.
  - necroforest 7y ago
    no
  - ajdlinux 7y ago
    I'm not aware of any private sector companies that have more than 2-3 formal "classification" markings, and they're usually more like "internal use only" and "confidential" rather than "secret". For particularly sensitive documents there would of course be additional restrictions, but I'd be surprised if there were companies using the marking "top secret" for that purpose...
    - rietta 7y ago
      I have seen companies with 5. Along the lines of: 1. Public: Public information 2. Internal Use: Confidential business information 3. Confidential: Information that customers consider confidential 4. Sensitive: Personal and Private Information (PII), information that THE LAW considers confidential 5. Highly Sensitive: Encryption keys, server secrets, staff/admin passwords This list is from a blog I wrote at https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classifications/ https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classificatio.... It was adapted from something I originally saw while a student at Georgia Tech. I've consulted with companies that separately developed a substantially similar 5 point list.
      - jefftk 7y ago
        Yes. Categories I've encountered at the big tech company I work at include: * Public * Company confidential (most things) * Need to know (only finance people can see some kinds of financials, only people working on a service can see it's logs) * Legal stuff * Personnel stuff * Highly valuable IP (spam detection algorithms etc)
  - bertil 7y ago
    It can be but I’d be surprised if that document had anything like it. Very few things are confidential internally at Facebook. Compensation, seniority level and review are the most common “Confidential” category but they are typically marked as “personal and confidential”. A few things are permission-access-controlled (think things involving the Police where rules of evidence apply) but I don’t remember if they had a name; “Talk to legal” was the short-hand. Source: I used to work at Facebook & I know Tom C. personally. I’ve written similar documents four years ago. There were publicly visible internally. Few people really cared outside of senior Product people.
    - paulie_a 7y ago
      How can seniority level be secret?
      - jefftk 7y ago
        "seniority level" an in "what level have you been promoted to". At Google you don't have to disclose your level, but most people do and most of my coworkers know I'm L5. At Facebook my understanding is they've tried to build a culture where people don't know each other's levels, to focus more on "what can you do" instead of "what does management think you can do".
        wolco 7y ago
        Then why have different levels at all and just pay more or less? Why hide someone's position/level.. why even have levels? Is this a shield for management.. you shouldn't know Jim is more valuable.. easier to pull the wool over employee eyes?
        slowmovintarget 7y ago
        You have levels to guide HR in making compensation decisions relative to the rest of the market. For example, Google might set their target at 105% of the top range of the market in order to retain the best employees. 105% of a fresh graduate's salary is very different from the same rate for a top-of-field industry recognized veteran. Even in those cases, that's a guide so exceptions are made as merited. And no, I don't work at Google :)
- doyoulikeworms 7y ago
  It's the headline, and "secret research" sounds sexier than "internal research," at least to me.
  - stakhanov 7y ago
    I was just going to say the same thing: It's clickbait-phraseology.
- Retric 7y ago
  I don’t think of secret as having a negative connotation. Secret Santa, secret key exchange, etc it’s just descriptive.
  - crikli 7y ago
    Context is everything. The things you're talking about are innocuous with no negative loading or reputation. Facebook isn't innocuous and has a high negative load and reputation. Tack the word "secret" in front of some internal research they did and it puts a darker shade on something every company does (internal research).
    - Retric 7y ago
      Doesn’t that just mean it’s Facebook with the negative connotation not secret? Something like ‘Secret Facebook network architecture’ is rather neutral.
      - vikramkr 7y ago
        I think it's the interplay between both the words, especially considering that Facebook's scandals are privacy related, it might subconsciously trigger some sort of negative reaction when you hear that they are keeping secrets (though that's obviously not what's going on here)
      - eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago
        “Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better” “Tesla’s secret battery program” Neither has negative connotation to me. Like you said, I think it’s because Facebook regularly acts unethically in public view. Anything they do in secret or private will be viewed with even more suspicion.
        ilovetux 7y ago
        I cant explain it, but > Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better to me, this sounds negative > Tesla’s secret battery program to me this does not sound negative.
- untog 7y ago
  Internal doesn't necessarily mean "not public" though. "Private" is perhaps a better term.
  - brokensegue 7y ago
    people don't typically call reports "internal" if they are released to the public. what would "internal" mean in that context?
    - RaptorJ 7y ago
      the intended audience is inside the company. A US Gov GAO report on (eg) transport spending might be called 'internal' to the govt since its primarily public policy recommendations generated by and for the govt, but the report still has to be publicly accessible
- ouid 7y ago
  the content is the responsibility of the author, but the headline is the responsibility of the marketing department.
- dang 7y ago
  Ok, we've taken secrecy out of the title above.
john_minsk 7y ago
Interesting to see that Facebook, being big tech+data driven company, needs a year to gather such statistics. I would imagine it to be almost real time there...
- yomly 7y ago
  There's probably a TONNE of cleaning/reconciling/deduping that needs to go on if they are trying to connect cross-platform users (like WhatsApp and Facebook) - especially over historical data. Sure, maybe going forward refreshing these reports might be quick but don't underestimate the inertia of having to go through that pain of integrating the data for the first time. Any analysis worth its salt will also need to go through rounds of sense-checking + checks for statistical robustness: this all takes time
salsadip 7y ago
I am happy that we have Snapchat and iMessage as competitors to the Facebook Apps. I very much dislike their business practices of sucking up all the data they can get their hands on e.g. during the acquisition of WhatsApp where they had to promise to European [1] regulators to not combine the user data with facebook‘s and then did it anyway. Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead. All in all I know many people who really dislike FB and would leave it if they could, but the network effect keeps everybody locked in to WhatsApp at least in Europe/Germany. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp-instagram-third-party-user-data-combined-banned-germany-fco-competition https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...
- nexuist 7y ago
  Snapchat is not any better. Given their financials I am sure they are selling my data to anyone who is willing to pay for it.
  - cobookman 7y ago
    Source to back that up? From my understanding Snap's entire spiel is user privacy
    - jefftk 7y ago
      s/spiel/shtick/
    - moocowtruck 7y ago
      so when they do these sponsored filters, say the taco bell one? I wonder what metadata they send to taco bell saying hey look all these people used the your filter.. I mean I doubt it's just a number, taco bell would want some uniqueness? If would be nice if snapchat published the metadata fields so users can see what they expose by using sponsor filters n such? This is my basic understanding though I don't know that much abotu snapchat
    - 7y ago
nolok 7y ago
While I have a facebook account I'm not a big user, it's mostly for a few contacts that are only on messenger. I don't look at my "stream" a lot, and when I do it's mostly useless content like meme, self-centered post and whatnot that I personnaly have zero interest in, with maybe 1% of actually interesting thing in between like birth annoncement from acquaintances etc ... I don't plan to delete my account because I want to keep the ability to be in touch with those few friends, and I haven't reached the point where I want to delete the messenger app, but the main FB/messenger duo just doesn't fill any major need for me. But two things that struck me recently: 1. When opening my stream just to gloss over, there is A TON of ads. Like, the first 4/5 posts are real, then it's one post one ad one post one ad. And the targeting is abysmal. The only ones that are kind of on target are the amazon retargeting, except in typical amazon retargeting fashion it advertises to me stuff that I have already bought (on amazon no less). At least google has the decency to show me stuff I may be interested in, if vaguely. 2. I'm not sure when this was added to android, or if this is a specific samsung thing, but I had a weird warning that I had never seen before: my phone warned me that messenger, while not being open, was trying to access the "microphone" permission. Kudos to android for blocking it and warning me, so I could disable that permission for good. I can't think of a single reason for that app to do it that isn't super evil. I'm also 99,9% certain it's not even legal where I live (France), I can't record my customers without asking or warning them on each instance of a conversation and with a clear non hidden message, so I doubt they can do that no matter what's in their TOS.
- quelltext 7y ago
  The microphone permission is used for you to be able to record a voice message to send to someone. I don't know why it would suddenly ask but I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past. Or maybe it's just something the app requests globally on newer versions.
  - nolok 7y ago
    I was not asking why the microphone permission is needed, but why it would be used with the app in the background, not being used. > I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past App in the background. It's not due to a keypress or to do any user-initiated action. Googling it, seems it's not a one off and that the app does indeed access the microphone from the background from time to time to do god knows what
ian0 7y ago
I think FB caught onto this a long, long time ago. Back when they saw the adoption & activity rates of the then competing WA & Instagram. The only difference being at the time of this analysis FB owns most of the apps people are migrating to. Its not that threatening - as they already proved they know how to counter through acquisition or competition and have a good track record of being able to monetise new properties.
dontbenebby 7y ago
Is this really surprising? The strength of a network is n^2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law It makes sense that the more people leaving a network then the utility of said network will decline. What seems odd is why they care if people move to Insta or WhatsApp, since FB owna both.
- chaosbolt 7y ago
  This, I removed FB a few years ago and never even tried Instagram, but my gf has both, and we speak everyday on Whatsapp, and I have a picture on Whatsapp, so they still know pretty much everything about me if they scrap the conversations for keywords or something more advanced. Tried removing Whatsapp for something like Telegram but couldn't since I need to convince my parents and sisters and gf and friends to move there too.
  - prolepunk 7y ago
    Have you tried to tell them that they are constantly being watched? How receptive were they about recent articles on data breaches in facebook? What would happen if you only reply to them over SMS or Telegram? I'm also struggling with this issue and I've been contemplating about either moving all of my interactions on a mailing list or a mastodon instance. I don't know how to move the network of my friends into that space.
- ishjoh 7y ago
  They probably make more money with the amount of advertising they have on FB as compared to Instagram. That will probably change over time but is likely true today, hence why they are worried about a FB exudes.
OoOOo 7y ago
This should be at the very least a reminder to try and use wrappers and disable/uninstall as much as you can from your phone facebook.
Zak 7y ago
I can say what has reduced my Facebook use, if anybody in a relevant position at the company is reading. It's the content Facebook shows me. A decade or so ago, most of the content I saw on Facebook was original content from people I know. Most posts were either text written by someone I knew, or a photo taken by someone I knew. Perhaps not everybody shares this position, but what I most want from Facebook is to keep up with people I actually know. Here are the first 20 posts I see now: 7 shared images from strangers/pages. 1 screenshot from a TV show uploaded by a friend. 1 page updated its website. 1 shared video from strangers/pages. 2 "suggested" videos from a page. 1 photograph taken by a friend. 1 "memory" containing text written by the person who shared it. 3 links to a news story. 3 posts by a page. That's 2/20 posts of original content from people I know. I've noticed that if I post original content, my friends are less likely to interact with it than a few years ago, probably because they, too are presented with such a huge amount of other content. I know I can opt in to something like the old experience with the "friends feed" feature. Well, I can on the desktop site (if I bookmark it, click it each time, or use a browser extension); it appears to be missing from the mobile site and the Facebook Lite app. Anything I post is still disadvantaged though, because most people are using the default algorithmic feed. On Instagram, every one of the first 20 posts I see is original content by a person or page I follow. 16 of those are individual people. I see shared third-party content on Instagram fairly rarely, probably because its UI doesn't encourage that. What would get me to use Facebook more actively is a change to the algorithm that advantages original content over shared third-party content.
- deanclatworthy 7y ago
  Enjoy insta while it lasts. They are having more and more sponsored posts creep into the feed. I don’t expect this trend to reverse. It’s how they make money.
  - Zak 7y ago
    I'm not actually a big fan of Instagram. Its format restrictions and mobile-only upload may be contributing to it having more interesting content for the moment, but I'm convinced Facebook could achieve a more interesting feed by changing the algorithm as well. I don't mind terribly if there are a few sponsored posts in any of my social media feeds. I suspect the acceptable rate is somewhere around one per five original content posts.
aj7 7y ago
This is in progress. The most avid FB users are 55+, and FB is unknown 25-
- dymk 7y ago
  Source?
burlesona 7y ago
This is why, as Ben Thompson points out in his Stratechery emails, we should focus more of our anti-trust efforts on blocking mega-acquisitions than on regulating the giants. If Facebook were currently competing with Instagram and WhatsApp, it would be in a lot more trouble.
- alkibiades 7y ago
  just curious, this assumes that companies being in more trouble would be a good thing. why is that the case?
  - WhompingWindows 7y ago
    Independent Instagram or WhatsApp could push FB to reduce its reliance on non-original posting, could move into privacy as a competitive advantage, could steal new users, could steal people leaving FB. As it is currently, FB can herd users into using its other apps without improving its core business. They can be dodgy because people "leaving" them are just returning to them, if they go to Insta or WhatsApp.
  - DavideNL 7y ago
    To state the obvious, because abuse (of users privacy, etc.) would then have a bigger negative impact on the company (FB) which would be an incentive to improve this behavior?
  - Snd_ 7y ago
    Because they would be inclined to offer a better service as their competitors? They'd have to make more effort to please users. My guess is this would mean show less ads.
  - burlesona 7y ago
    What all the other posters said. If Facebook had real competition then it’s likely they wouldn’t be soaring in the stock market while in the midst of so much controversy and negative attention. It’s more likely that their competition would be pouncing on them by offering more distinct alternatives, forcing Facebook to either reform or fade away.
rconti 7y ago
I think the focus on Stories is a huge mistake. Disclaimer: I'm too old to "get it". I've only used stories a few times, they feel like a huge time sink vs a normal FB/IG post, and that investment seems less worthwhile for something that doesn't stick around like a vacation photo album that I or someone else might refer back to later. I've only used stories when (say) traveling solo, and I want to post more mundane shit because I don't have a ton going on. Keeps folks at home more apprised of what I'm up to, but not the kind of content that's 'important/curated' enough to keep forever. So on to why I think it's a mistake. Yes, both the core business and the stories rely on the network effects of social networks to gain/maintain popularity. But encouraging users to share ephemeral content makes the switching costs much lower. If some new "yourspace" competitor came along, I'd be hesitant to switch because I LIKE the library of content myself and my friends and family have built up over the years. If literally all that prevents me from switching is where my friends are, I can use both until everyone switches, and then just drop the one entirely. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is still almost worthless to users without friends using it, but the switching costs are still higher when there's old content.
- slimshady93 7y ago
  Here's one bonus point of stories that makes me and my friends use it alot, that you might not have considered - it doesn't have publicly viewable like counts, so I post pictures that I normally wouldn't post because they would have gotten an embarrassingly low amount of likes/comments.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Ephemeral content means you must check all the time. If you are like me and you want to check your friends original content or some event calendar once every 48h or less, you are probably not in the user group they see as “profitable”
koonsolo 7y ago
I was talking to my 15yo niece, and I already suspected that Facebook is losing young people. So I asked on which platforms she spends her time. "No Facebook, mainly WhatsApp groups, and also private Instagram". Facebook is dead, long live Facebook. I must say that their aquisition strategy is impressive.
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  Isn’t it fairly well known at this point that FB isn’t used by young people?
  - koonsolo 7y ago
    Yes, but the impressive thing for me was that she and her group of friends swithed to other Facebook owned platforms. Not SnapChat or some other competitor.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  Soon these youngsters realize they need an event planning/calendar thing for WhatsApp, or a “page” for their business. And Fb can add it. Next, their own kids will get devices, and they’ll be on platform X that their parents aren’t on. And Facebook will quickly buy it. Repeat.
jdofaz 7y ago
Facebook is kind of like my email Spam folder now. I check it once or twice a month to see if anything useful was caught there but I otherwise ignore it. It took me way too long to notice, but facebook stopped being an enjoyable thing a long time ago.
goldcd 7y ago
I miss why this considered bad news. Facebook spent billions pickup up Whats-app and Instagram (and probably a fair chunk developing and maintaining messenger). This wasn't solely to pick up untold millions of new users who'd never used "original blue facebook" - if it had been, you'd need a facebook account to use Whats-app. Point was to ensure you didn't stray from the blue-app, onto something Facebook didn't own/control. In my humble view, the keeping of messenger and whats-app separate by Facebook is smart - as they have two offerings that appeal to different people (and to many people that happily use both). You know from all the rumours of "ads on Whatsapp" that internally in facebook they're trying to work out how to leverage all our eyeballs on all those different apps - but the reason they haven't merged them all, is they've worked out they keep more people if they keep the apps separate. To take my favourite anecdotal example, I used to use latitude on google maps to work out where my friends were (I'm in the pub, when are you turning up?). Then google killed that functionality to try to make us all move to google+.... We didn't, it died. Now, if a few of us are trying to co-ordinate say a drink after work, we'll use whatsapp. Google lost that feature I use to Facebook.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Facebook’s superpower was that everyone was on it. If half their users are on Insta and the other half on WhatsApp and the other half left for other random networks, then they’re just a holding company for brands with less network effects.
notTyler 7y ago
I used to think they would follow the xanga / myspace train and be blown out of the water by something but that's not the case anymore. They have proven they can just buy any competitors or quickly copy their features, and "all my friends are on fb/insta/whatsapp" will keep the vast majority of the users entwined in one way or another. Regardless of usage metrics, if you only use their apps for social, that's a win in itself.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
I sometimes try to use the Facebook (“blue”) app to do messages and then I remember Facebook nerfed it’s own app so it can’t send messages and then I give up.

195 points by otoburb 7y ago

Is it just me, or do "secret" have negative connotation? Because for me it does, and I am really sad from journalist when they use "secret" or "secretly" in headlines, when it just mean internal, or just not disclosed. What is interesting that the article does not contain word secret, and they always use the word internal.

0x006A 7y ago
Is "secret" not one of the classifications for internal documents? "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "restricted". While this classification is usually used to classify access to documents of the state, it could also apply to internal documents in large organizations.
- necroforest 7y ago
  no
- ajdlinux 7y ago
  I'm not aware of any private sector companies that have more than 2-3 formal "classification" markings, and they're usually more like "internal use only" and "confidential" rather than "secret". For particularly sensitive documents there would of course be additional restrictions, but I'd be surprised if there were companies using the marking "top secret" for that purpose...
  - rietta 7y ago
    I have seen companies with 5. Along the lines of: 1. Public: Public information 2. Internal Use: Confidential business information 3. Confidential: Information that customers consider confidential 4. Sensitive: Personal and Private Information (PII), information that THE LAW considers confidential 5. Highly Sensitive: Encryption keys, server secrets, staff/admin passwords This list is from a blog I wrote at https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classifications/ https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classificatio.... It was adapted from something I originally saw while a student at Georgia Tech. I've consulted with companies that separately developed a substantially similar 5 point list.
    - jefftk 7y ago
      Yes. Categories I've encountered at the big tech company I work at include: * Public * Company confidential (most things) * Need to know (only finance people can see some kinds of financials, only people working on a service can see it's logs) * Legal stuff * Personnel stuff * Highly valuable IP (spam detection algorithms etc)
- bertil 7y ago
  It can be but I’d be surprised if that document had anything like it. Very few things are confidential internally at Facebook. Compensation, seniority level and review are the most common “Confidential” category but they are typically marked as “personal and confidential”. A few things are permission-access-controlled (think things involving the Police where rules of evidence apply) but I don’t remember if they had a name; “Talk to legal” was the short-hand. Source: I used to work at Facebook & I know Tom C. personally. I’ve written similar documents four years ago. There were publicly visible internally. Few people really cared outside of senior Product people.
  - paulie_a 7y ago
    How can seniority level be secret?
    - jefftk 7y ago
      "seniority level" an in "what level have you been promoted to". At Google you don't have to disclose your level, but most people do and most of my coworkers know I'm L5. At Facebook my understanding is they've tried to build a culture where people don't know each other's levels, to focus more on "what can you do" instead of "what does management think you can do".
      - wolco 7y ago
        Then why have different levels at all and just pay more or less? Why hide someone's position/level.. why even have levels? Is this a shield for management.. you shouldn't know Jim is more valuable.. easier to pull the wool over employee eyes?
        slowmovintarget 7y ago
        You have levels to guide HR in making compensation decisions relative to the rest of the market. For example, Google might set their target at 105% of the top range of the market in order to retain the best employees. 105% of a fresh graduate's salary is very different from the same rate for a top-of-field industry recognized veteran. Even in those cases, that's a guide so exceptions are made as merited. And no, I don't work at Google :)
doyoulikeworms 7y ago
It's the headline, and "secret research" sounds sexier than "internal research," at least to me.
- stakhanov 7y ago
  I was just going to say the same thing: It's clickbait-phraseology.
Retric 7y ago
I don’t think of secret as having a negative connotation. Secret Santa, secret key exchange, etc it’s just descriptive.
- crikli 7y ago
  Context is everything. The things you're talking about are innocuous with no negative loading or reputation. Facebook isn't innocuous and has a high negative load and reputation. Tack the word "secret" in front of some internal research they did and it puts a darker shade on something every company does (internal research).
  - Retric 7y ago
    Doesn’t that just mean it’s Facebook with the negative connotation not secret? Something like ‘Secret Facebook network architecture’ is rather neutral.
    - vikramkr 7y ago
      I think it's the interplay between both the words, especially considering that Facebook's scandals are privacy related, it might subconsciously trigger some sort of negative reaction when you hear that they are keeping secrets (though that's obviously not what's going on here)
    - eeeeeeeeeeeee 7y ago
      “Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better” “Tesla’s secret battery program” Neither has negative connotation to me. Like you said, I think it’s because Facebook regularly acts unethically in public view. Anything they do in secret or private will be viewed with even more suspicion.
      - ilovetux 7y ago
        I cant explain it, but > Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better to me, this sounds negative > Tesla’s secret battery program to me this does not sound negative.
untog 7y ago
Internal doesn't necessarily mean "not public" though. "Private" is perhaps a better term.
- brokensegue 7y ago
  people don't typically call reports "internal" if they are released to the public. what would "internal" mean in that context?
  - RaptorJ 7y ago
    the intended audience is inside the company. A US Gov GAO report on (eg) transport spending might be called 'internal' to the govt since its primarily public policy recommendations generated by and for the govt, but the report still has to be publicly accessible
ouid 7y ago
the content is the responsibility of the author, but the headline is the responsibility of the marketing department.
dang 7y ago
Ok, we've taken secrecy out of the title above.

john_minsk 7y ago

Interesting to see that Facebook, being big tech+data driven company, needs a year to gather such statistics. I would imagine it to be almost real time there...

yomly 7y ago
There's probably a TONNE of cleaning/reconciling/deduping that needs to go on if they are trying to connect cross-platform users (like WhatsApp and Facebook) - especially over historical data. Sure, maybe going forward refreshing these reports might be quick but don't underestimate the inertia of having to go through that pain of integrating the data for the first time. Any analysis worth its salt will also need to go through rounds of sense-checking + checks for statistical robustness: this all takes time

salsadip 7y ago

I am happy that we have Snapchat and iMessage as competitors to the Facebook Apps. I very much dislike their business practices of sucking up all the data they can get their hands on e.g. during the acquisition of WhatsApp where they had to promise to European [1] regulators to not combine the user data with facebook‘s and then did it anyway. Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead. All in all I know many people who really dislike FB and would leave it if they could, but the network effect keeps everybody locked in to WhatsApp at least in Europe/Germany. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp-instagram-third-party-user-data-combined-banned-germany-fco-competition https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...

nexuist 7y ago
Snapchat is not any better. Given their financials I am sure they are selling my data to anyone who is willing to pay for it.
- cobookman 7y ago
  Source to back that up? From my understanding Snap's entire spiel is user privacy
  - jefftk 7y ago
    s/spiel/shtick/
  - moocowtruck 7y ago
    so when they do these sponsored filters, say the taco bell one? I wonder what metadata they send to taco bell saying hey look all these people used the your filter.. I mean I doubt it's just a number, taco bell would want some uniqueness? If would be nice if snapchat published the metadata fields so users can see what they expose by using sponsor filters n such? This is my basic understanding though I don't know that much abotu snapchat
  - 7y ago

nolok 7y ago

While I have a facebook account I'm not a big user, it's mostly for a few contacts that are only on messenger. I don't look at my "stream" a lot, and when I do it's mostly useless content like meme, self-centered post and whatnot that I personnaly have zero interest in, with maybe 1% of actually interesting thing in between like birth annoncement from acquaintances etc ... I don't plan to delete my account because I want to keep the ability to be in touch with those few friends, and I haven't reached the point where I want to delete the messenger app, but the main FB/messenger duo just doesn't fill any major need for me. But two things that struck me recently: 1. When opening my stream just to gloss over, there is A TON of ads. Like, the first 4/5 posts are real, then it's one post one ad one post one ad. And the targeting is abysmal. The only ones that are kind of on target are the amazon retargeting, except in typical amazon retargeting fashion it advertises to me stuff that I have already bought (on amazon no less). At least google has the decency to show me stuff I may be interested in, if vaguely. 2. I'm not sure when this was added to android, or if this is a specific samsung thing, but I had a weird warning that I had never seen before: my phone warned me that messenger, while not being open, was trying to access the "microphone" permission. Kudos to android for blocking it and warning me, so I could disable that permission for good. I can't think of a single reason for that app to do it that isn't super evil. I'm also 99,9% certain it's not even legal where I live (France), I can't record my customers without asking or warning them on each instance of a conversation and with a clear non hidden message, so I doubt they can do that no matter what's in their TOS.

quelltext 7y ago
The microphone permission is used for you to be able to record a voice message to send to someone. I don't know why it would suddenly ask but I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past. Or maybe it's just something the app requests globally on newer versions.
- nolok 7y ago
  I was not asking why the microphone permission is needed, but why it would be used with the app in the background, not being used. > I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past App in the background. It's not due to a keypress or to do any user-initiated action. Googling it, seems it's not a one off and that the app does indeed access the microphone from the background from time to time to do god knows what

ian0 7y ago

I think FB caught onto this a long, long time ago. Back when they saw the adoption & activity rates of the then competing WA & Instagram. The only difference being at the time of this analysis FB owns most of the apps people are migrating to. Its not that threatening - as they already proved they know how to counter through acquisition or competition and have a good track record of being able to monetise new properties.

dontbenebby 7y ago

Is this really surprising? The strength of a network is n^2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law It makes sense that the more people leaving a network then the utility of said network will decline. What seems odd is why they care if people move to Insta or WhatsApp, since FB owna both.

chaosbolt 7y ago
This, I removed FB a few years ago and never even tried Instagram, but my gf has both, and we speak everyday on Whatsapp, and I have a picture on Whatsapp, so they still know pretty much everything about me if they scrap the conversations for keywords or something more advanced. Tried removing Whatsapp for something like Telegram but couldn't since I need to convince my parents and sisters and gf and friends to move there too.
- prolepunk 7y ago
  Have you tried to tell them that they are constantly being watched? How receptive were they about recent articles on data breaches in facebook? What would happen if you only reply to them over SMS or Telegram? I'm also struggling with this issue and I've been contemplating about either moving all of my interactions on a mailing list or a mastodon instance. I don't know how to move the network of my friends into that space.
ishjoh 7y ago
They probably make more money with the amount of advertising they have on FB as compared to Instagram. That will probably change over time but is likely true today, hence why they are worried about a FB exudes.

OoOOo 7y ago

This should be at the very least a reminder to try and use wrappers and disable/uninstall as much as you can from your phone facebook.

Zak 7y ago

I can say what has reduced my Facebook use, if anybody in a relevant position at the company is reading. It's the content Facebook shows me. A decade or so ago, most of the content I saw on Facebook was original content from people I know. Most posts were either text written by someone I knew, or a photo taken by someone I knew. Perhaps not everybody shares this position, but what I most want from Facebook is to keep up with people I actually know. Here are the first 20 posts I see now: 7 shared images from strangers/pages. 1 screenshot from a TV show uploaded by a friend. 1 page updated its website. 1 shared video from strangers/pages. 2 "suggested" videos from a page. 1 photograph taken by a friend. 1 "memory" containing text written by the person who shared it. 3 links to a news story. 3 posts by a page. That's 2/20 posts of original content from people I know. I've noticed that if I post original content, my friends are less likely to interact with it than a few years ago, probably because they, too are presented with such a huge amount of other content. I know I can opt in to something like the old experience with the "friends feed" feature. Well, I can on the desktop site (if I bookmark it, click it each time, or use a browser extension); it appears to be missing from the mobile site and the Facebook Lite app. Anything I post is still disadvantaged though, because most people are using the default algorithmic feed. On Instagram, every one of the first 20 posts I see is original content by a person or page I follow. 16 of those are individual people. I see shared third-party content on Instagram fairly rarely, probably because its UI doesn't encourage that. What would get me to use Facebook more actively is a change to the algorithm that advantages original content over shared third-party content.

deanclatworthy 7y ago
Enjoy insta while it lasts. They are having more and more sponsored posts creep into the feed. I don’t expect this trend to reverse. It’s how they make money.
- Zak 7y ago
  I'm not actually a big fan of Instagram. Its format restrictions and mobile-only upload may be contributing to it having more interesting content for the moment, but I'm convinced Facebook could achieve a more interesting feed by changing the algorithm as well. I don't mind terribly if there are a few sponsored posts in any of my social media feeds. I suspect the acceptable rate is somewhere around one per five original content posts.

aj7 7y ago

This is in progress. The most avid FB users are 55+, and FB is unknown 25-

dymk 7y ago
Source?

burlesona 7y ago

This is why, as Ben Thompson points out in his Stratechery emails, we should focus more of our anti-trust efforts on blocking mega-acquisitions than on regulating the giants. If Facebook were currently competing with Instagram and WhatsApp, it would be in a lot more trouble.

alkibiades 7y ago
just curious, this assumes that companies being in more trouble would be a good thing. why is that the case?
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Independent Instagram or WhatsApp could push FB to reduce its reliance on non-original posting, could move into privacy as a competitive advantage, could steal new users, could steal people leaving FB. As it is currently, FB can herd users into using its other apps without improving its core business. They can be dodgy because people "leaving" them are just returning to them, if they go to Insta or WhatsApp.
- DavideNL 7y ago
  To state the obvious, because abuse (of users privacy, etc.) would then have a bigger negative impact on the company (FB) which would be an incentive to improve this behavior?
- Snd_ 7y ago
  Because they would be inclined to offer a better service as their competitors? They'd have to make more effort to please users. My guess is this would mean show less ads.
- burlesona 7y ago
  What all the other posters said. If Facebook had real competition then it’s likely they wouldn’t be soaring in the stock market while in the midst of so much controversy and negative attention. It’s more likely that their competition would be pouncing on them by offering more distinct alternatives, forcing Facebook to either reform or fade away.

rconti 7y ago

I think the focus on Stories is a huge mistake. Disclaimer: I'm too old to "get it". I've only used stories a few times, they feel like a huge time sink vs a normal FB/IG post, and that investment seems less worthwhile for something that doesn't stick around like a vacation photo album that I or someone else might refer back to later. I've only used stories when (say) traveling solo, and I want to post more mundane shit because I don't have a ton going on. Keeps folks at home more apprised of what I'm up to, but not the kind of content that's 'important/curated' enough to keep forever. So on to why I think it's a mistake. Yes, both the core business and the stories rely on the network effects of social networks to gain/maintain popularity. But encouraging users to share ephemeral content makes the switching costs much lower. If some new "yourspace" competitor came along, I'd be hesitant to switch because I LIKE the library of content myself and my friends and family have built up over the years. If literally all that prevents me from switching is where my friends are, I can use both until everyone switches, and then just drop the one entirely. Don't get me wrong, Facebook is still almost worthless to users without friends using it, but the switching costs are still higher when there's old content.

slimshady93 7y ago
Here's one bonus point of stories that makes me and my friends use it alot, that you might not have considered - it doesn't have publicly viewable like counts, so I post pictures that I normally wouldn't post because they would have gotten an embarrassingly low amount of likes/comments.
alkonaut 7y ago
Ephemeral content means you must check all the time. If you are like me and you want to check your friends original content or some event calendar once every 48h or less, you are probably not in the user group they see as “profitable”

koonsolo 7y ago

I was talking to my 15yo niece, and I already suspected that Facebook is losing young people. So I asked on which platforms she spends her time. "No Facebook, mainly WhatsApp groups, and also private Instagram". Facebook is dead, long live Facebook. I must say that their aquisition strategy is impressive.

stingraycharles 7y ago
Isn’t it fairly well known at this point that FB isn’t used by young people?
- koonsolo 7y ago
  Yes, but the impressive thing for me was that she and her group of friends swithed to other Facebook owned platforms. Not SnapChat or some other competitor.
alkonaut 7y ago
Soon these youngsters realize they need an event planning/calendar thing for WhatsApp, or a “page” for their business. And Fb can add it. Next, their own kids will get devices, and they’ll be on platform X that their parents aren’t on. And Facebook will quickly buy it. Repeat.

jdofaz 7y ago

Facebook is kind of like my email Spam folder now. I check it once or twice a month to see if anything useful was caught there but I otherwise ignore it. It took me way too long to notice, but facebook stopped being an enjoyable thing a long time ago.

goldcd 7y ago

I miss why this considered bad news. Facebook spent billions pickup up Whats-app and Instagram (and probably a fair chunk developing and maintaining messenger). This wasn't solely to pick up untold millions of new users who'd never used "original blue facebook" - if it had been, you'd need a facebook account to use Whats-app. Point was to ensure you didn't stray from the blue-app, onto something Facebook didn't own/control. In my humble view, the keeping of messenger and whats-app separate by Facebook is smart - as they have two offerings that appeal to different people (and to many people that happily use both). You know from all the rumours of "ads on Whatsapp" that internally in facebook they're trying to work out how to leverage all our eyeballs on all those different apps - but the reason they haven't merged them all, is they've worked out they keep more people if they keep the apps separate. To take my favourite anecdotal example, I used to use latitude on google maps to work out where my friends were (I'm in the pub, when are you turning up?). Then google killed that functionality to try to make us all move to google+.... We didn't, it died. Now, if a few of us are trying to co-ordinate say a drink after work, we'll use whatsapp. Google lost that feature I use to Facebook.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
Facebook’s superpower was that everyone was on it. If half their users are on Insta and the other half on WhatsApp and the other half left for other random networks, then they’re just a holding company for brands with less network effects.

notTyler 7y ago

I used to think they would follow the xanga / myspace train and be blown out of the water by something but that's not the case anymore. They have proven they can just buy any competitors or quickly copy their features, and "all my friends are on fb/insta/whatsapp" will keep the vast majority of the users entwined in one way or another. Regardless of usage metrics, if you only use their apps for social, that's a win in itself.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

I sometimes try to use the Facebook (“blue”) app to do messages and then I remember Facebook nerfed it’s own app so it can’t send messages and then I give up.