5 ms·

I agree with you; however, the key disconnect is that Facebook is not a photo, video, post and message sharing website. It's a marketing platform intended to ex

I agree with you; however, the key disconnect is that Facebook is not a photo, video, post and message sharing website. It's a marketing platform intended to extract the most value out of you, the viewer, and transfer that value to Facebook and its advertisers. If you think of it this way, you can see how you may need 2MB of CSS: to battle the bots trying to scrape your information and replicate your network, to sidestep the evil developers of adblocker software that threaten to destroy the sweet value transfer, the JS required to track every single movement you make both online and off, the A/B testing framework that allows you to determine how to most efficiently extract that extra 0.001% of valuable eyeball time, and so forth... Connecting the world? Well, I guess that could be a nice side-effect...

rosstex 6y ago
Unfortunately, you're right.
karmakaze 6y ago
These views are aligned. A site that's fast and a pleasure to use advances both agendas. It's still a failure.
- radicalbyte 6y ago
  Only if there's competition. The network effect ensures that there is no competition. Leaving us where we currently are.
  - karmakaze 6y ago
    Not even, users can just 'not play' (or play less) if the game's no fun.
    - beagle3 6y ago
      There are many users for which it is not fun, but an addiction. I have spoken to lots of people who say about once a month something like "Yeah, facebook is really bad for me, I just waste time and get upset", but they can't stop checking it every hour, and responding to posts that touch them emotionally, in either a good or bad way. That's by design, of course - it benefits Facebook greatly that its herd is addicted, and unlike people addicted to alcohol, nicotine or other substances - there's not even another supplier they can turn to: It's either feed your addiction or suffer withdrawal symptoms. And I think the success rate of quitters (as a percentage of those who actually want to quit) is also comparable, at single digit percent.
jawns 6y ago
Imagine this: A "free" ad-driven social networking site that brings in gigantic revenue, but that has to pay thousands of high-priced engineers to implement all of the cruft you just described. versus ... A subscription-based, non-ad-driven social networking site (perhaps operating as a member-owned cooperative?) that brings in much more modest revenue but that also can operate with many fewer engineers because it can be largely cruft-free. I know there have been a gazillion attempts at the latter and none has succeeded in any way comparable to the "free" sites. It's too bad, because if any of them were to ever achieve Facebook scale, the subscription price would probably be quite modest.
- hbosch 6y ago
  > A subscription-based, non-ad-driven social networking site (perhaps operating as a member-owned cooperative?) that brings in much more modest revenue but that also can operate with many fewer engineers because it can be largely cruft-free. I, too, loved App.net. Alas, seems that people won't even pay a couple bucks a month to see what their friends are eating for lunch.
  - asdkhadsj 6y ago
    People instinctively know the value of something when asked to part with their money. :D Yet they still spend their time on it. Huh.
    - jimbokun 6y ago
      People know their friends are not on App.net, but are on Facebook. Or in other words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
- maccam94 6y ago
  Facebook's problem is that a subscription fee would drastically limit adoption and prevent them from monopolizing the social graph. They see more potential to make money without charging users directly.
- 6y ago
rhizome 6y ago
That's probably something that can be measured: if the profile/wall fills out over several seconds, when do the ads appear? First, before everything else? In that case it would be cynical, but I agree that they might monetize the delays by ensuring ads appear before anything else.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  The ads are only on the side on profile pages. The actual ads on FB desktop are the newsfeed ads, which you see as you scroll.

rosstex 6y ago

Unfortunately, you're right.

karmakaze 6y ago

These views are aligned. A site that's fast and a pleasure to use advances both agendas. It's still a failure.

radicalbyte 6y ago
Only if there's competition. The network effect ensures that there is no competition. Leaving us where we currently are.
- karmakaze 6y ago
  Not even, users can just 'not play' (or play less) if the game's no fun.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    There are many users for which it is not fun, but an addiction. I have spoken to lots of people who say about once a month something like "Yeah, facebook is really bad for me, I just waste time and get upset", but they can't stop checking it every hour, and responding to posts that touch them emotionally, in either a good or bad way. That's by design, of course - it benefits Facebook greatly that its herd is addicted, and unlike people addicted to alcohol, nicotine or other substances - there's not even another supplier they can turn to: It's either feed your addiction or suffer withdrawal symptoms. And I think the success rate of quitters (as a percentage of those who actually want to quit) is also comparable, at single digit percent.

jawns 6y ago

Imagine this: A "free" ad-driven social networking site that brings in gigantic revenue, but that has to pay thousands of high-priced engineers to implement all of the cruft you just described. versus ... A subscription-based, non-ad-driven social networking site (perhaps operating as a member-owned cooperative?) that brings in much more modest revenue but that also can operate with many fewer engineers because it can be largely cruft-free. I know there have been a gazillion attempts at the latter and none has succeeded in any way comparable to the "free" sites. It's too bad, because if any of them were to ever achieve Facebook scale, the subscription price would probably be quite modest.

hbosch 6y ago
> A subscription-based, non-ad-driven social networking site (perhaps operating as a member-owned cooperative?) that brings in much more modest revenue but that also can operate with many fewer engineers because it can be largely cruft-free. I, too, loved App.net. Alas, seems that people won't even pay a couple bucks a month to see what their friends are eating for lunch.
- asdkhadsj 6y ago
  People instinctively know the value of something when asked to part with their money. :D Yet they still spend their time on it. Huh.
  - jimbokun 6y ago
    People know their friends are not on App.net, but are on Facebook. Or in other words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
maccam94 6y ago
Facebook's problem is that a subscription fee would drastically limit adoption and prevent them from monopolizing the social graph. They see more potential to make money without charging users directly.
6y ago

rhizome 6y ago

That's probably something that can be measured: if the profile/wall fills out over several seconds, when do the ads appear? First, before everything else? In that case it would be cynical, but I agree that they might monetize the delays by ensuring ads appear before anything else.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
The ads are only on the side on profile pages. The actual ads on FB desktop are the newsfeed ads, which you see as you scroll.