3 ms·

I sure am tired of hearing about "the fundamental flaw" in empowering people. What you describe is not a flaw in empowerment, it's a flaw in their business mod

I sure am tired of hearing about "the fundamental flaw" in empowering people. What you describe is not a flaw in empowerment, it's a flaw in their business model, and it's one that can that be fixed (i.e. "innovate a better business model"). Can we stop propagating the idea that people who do not want to use their limited bandwidth and processing power to rasterize someone else's advertising are somehow "flawed"? The only thing more insane than blaming users for having self-interest are the people who pretend that Facebook et al. are somehow owed the business model they have, painting ad-blockers as some kind of dangerous society-destabilizing technology instead of the commonsense response to shitty business practices it clearly is.

solveit 6y ago
The point is that fighting Facebook on Facebook is a losing game and "innovate a better business model" has been tried, is being tried, and is not working because it is hard. A plan that does not work is indeed "flawed", no matter how noble and natural the intentions.
- stonogo 6y ago
  "Users don't care about your ad network" is not a "plan," it is a reality, and calling it "flawed" is just corporate propaganda. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but the very foundation of this assessment is fundamentally incompatible with reality.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Well, no, today's model is "users tolerate your ad network in return for free content". Which is clearly true given that Facebook is making profits despite everyone and their mother grumbling about ads. Something has to pay the bills.
    - stonogo 6y ago
      Yes, tolerating the ad network definitely falls under "users don't care"... until they do, and they start taking measures to counteract it, and then we're back to "something has to pay the bills," which is where I'm suggesting some R&D investment might be wise.
      - bradlys 6y ago
        If not ads then what would pay the bills? We all know users won’t pay for a subscription service.
        enneff 6y ago
        Perhaps if people aren’t willing to pay for it the service isn’t that valuable after all.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Perhaps if people don't find a service valuable, then we should everyone to stop using it. If that argument sounded absurd to you, it's probably because it is. The services are valuable because people ultimately do use them — a lot of them, even. They pay for them indirectly by agreeing to look at ads. There are loads of services we do not directly pay for, like the fire department and the public library — and yet they are immensely valuable.
        enneff 6y ago
        The argument sounds nonsensical because it’s missing a verb. I don’t agree that just because people will use a free thing that means it has a lot of value. Note I didn’t say that FB has no value, just that it might not be as valuable as one might think. Considering most of their value is their messenger platform I don’t think FB is really worth much at all beyond their social graph.
        bhupy 6y ago
        > The argument sounds nonsensical because it’s missing a verb. That's a typo on my part — it doesn't change the veracity of the argument. > I don’t agree that just because people will use a free thing that means it has a lot of value. Note I didn’t say that FB has no value, just that it might not be as valuable as one might think. Sure, but how do you measure the "true" value? If you can answer that question, you will probably become a billionaire. > Considering most of their value is their messenger platform I don’t think FB is really worth much at all beyond their social graph. What are you basing this on? You may only find the messenger platform to be valuable, but how do you know how others perceive the FB platform/product?
- esperent 6y ago
  Facebook is only 16 years old. The idea of social networks is only a few years older than that. Surely we can't have tried and failed at every possible alternative already?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coffeecat 6y ago
It appears to me that the parent post was criticizing the ad-based business model - not endorsing it.
- stonogo 6y ago
  I'm complaining about the structure of the dialog around this issue, not casting aspersions on the parent post's argument itself. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when the terminology in use is strongly prejudiced against one of the key parties in the relationship.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Reality is strongly prejudiced against one of the key parties in the relationship. Users, today, tolerate ads in exchange for free content. Any reasonable discussion — where continued delivery of content is a desired end goal — needs to come up with an answer for how we pay for it. Calling out "fundamental flaws" is one such way of doing that.
  - coffeecat 6y ago
    Stating things nakedly, using the assumptions and perspective of the big guy, can be a powerful rhetorical style when advocating for the little guy. See any of Chomsky's political writing as an example.
brigandish 6y ago
> it's a flaw in their business model, and it's one that can that be fixed (i.e. "innovate a better business model") Doesn't that assume that there is a better business model?
- inetknght 6y ago
  Yes. They're based on users voluntarily giving payment for services rendered and, importantly, being satisfied with the transaction.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Which company uses that business model and has a size comparable to Facebook?
    - tomrod 6y ago
      Apple.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        I thought it was obvious I meant from the sector in question. My mistake, I'll try again. Do you know of a social media company (or ad company using a product to garner the data, if that helps) that uses that model with a comparable size to Facebook? If not, are there any that are making ground?
redwall_hp 6y ago
I can buy web hosting for less than a coffee per month that can sling thousands of static HTTP requests per second. In a world where something like Mastodon/GNU Social was the norm, any hobbyist could opt to run one fraction of a grand federated social network out of the goodness of their hearts, for spare change, or for a small fee to their users. Centralized, siloed social networks are only expensive to run because they're centralized. Things were better when the norm was to start a blog instead of using someone else's walled garden.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
munificent 6y ago
> I sure am tired of hearing about "the fundamental flaw" in empowering people. I'm all for empowering people. But adding personally controlled user agents to Facebook is a fundamentally flawed solution. There is no path for that to succeed because the primary content users will want to filter is ads, and the primary content Facebook needs people to see is ads. Thus user agents are an existential threat to Facebook and since Facebook controls all the content, they will ensure user agents are not allowed. The core business model does not align Facebook's incentives with user's incentives. You can't fix that at the content level.

solveit 6y ago

The point is that fighting Facebook on Facebook is a losing game and "innovate a better business model" has been tried, is being tried, and is not working because it is hard. A plan that does not work is indeed "flawed", no matter how noble and natural the intentions.

stonogo 6y ago
"Users don't care about your ad network" is not a "plan," it is a reality, and calling it "flawed" is just corporate propaganda. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith but the very foundation of this assessment is fundamentally incompatible with reality.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Well, no, today's model is "users tolerate your ad network in return for free content". Which is clearly true given that Facebook is making profits despite everyone and their mother grumbling about ads. Something has to pay the bills.
  - stonogo 6y ago
    Yes, tolerating the ad network definitely falls under "users don't care"... until they do, and they start taking measures to counteract it, and then we're back to "something has to pay the bills," which is where I'm suggesting some R&D investment might be wise.
    - bradlys 6y ago
      If not ads then what would pay the bills? We all know users won’t pay for a subscription service.
      - enneff 6y ago
        Perhaps if people aren’t willing to pay for it the service isn’t that valuable after all.
        bhupy 6y ago
        Perhaps if people don't find a service valuable, then we should everyone to stop using it. If that argument sounded absurd to you, it's probably because it is. The services are valuable because people ultimately do use them — a lot of them, even. They pay for them indirectly by agreeing to look at ads. There are loads of services we do not directly pay for, like the fire department and the public library — and yet they are immensely valuable.
        enneff 6y ago
        The argument sounds nonsensical because it’s missing a verb. I don’t agree that just because people will use a free thing that means it has a lot of value. Note I didn’t say that FB has no value, just that it might not be as valuable as one might think. Considering most of their value is their messenger platform I don’t think FB is really worth much at all beyond their social graph.
        bhupy 6y ago
        > The argument sounds nonsensical because it’s missing a verb. That's a typo on my part — it doesn't change the veracity of the argument. > I don’t agree that just because people will use a free thing that means it has a lot of value. Note I didn’t say that FB has no value, just that it might not be as valuable as one might think. Sure, but how do you measure the "true" value? If you can answer that question, you will probably become a billionaire. > Considering most of their value is their messenger platform I don’t think FB is really worth much at all beyond their social graph. What are you basing this on? You may only find the messenger platform to be valuable, but how do you know how others perceive the FB platform/product?
esperent 6y ago
Facebook is only 16 years old. The idea of social networks is only a few years older than that. Surely we can't have tried and failed at every possible alternative already?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

coffeecat 6y ago

It appears to me that the parent post was criticizing the ad-based business model - not endorsing it.

stonogo 6y ago
I'm complaining about the structure of the dialog around this issue, not casting aspersions on the parent post's argument itself. It's impossible to have a reasonable discussion when the terminology in use is strongly prejudiced against one of the key parties in the relationship.
- bhupy 6y ago
  Reality is strongly prejudiced against one of the key parties in the relationship. Users, today, tolerate ads in exchange for free content. Any reasonable discussion — where continued delivery of content is a desired end goal — needs to come up with an answer for how we pay for it. Calling out "fundamental flaws" is one such way of doing that.
- coffeecat 6y ago
  Stating things nakedly, using the assumptions and perspective of the big guy, can be a powerful rhetorical style when advocating for the little guy. See any of Chomsky's political writing as an example.

brigandish 6y ago

> it's a flaw in their business model, and it's one that can that be fixed (i.e. "innovate a better business model") Doesn't that assume that there is a better business model?

inetknght 6y ago
Yes. They're based on users voluntarily giving payment for services rendered and, importantly, being satisfied with the transaction.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Which company uses that business model and has a size comparable to Facebook?
  - tomrod 6y ago
    Apple.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      I thought it was obvious I meant from the sector in question. My mistake, I'll try again. Do you know of a social media company (or ad company using a product to garner the data, if that helps) that uses that model with a comparable size to Facebook? If not, are there any that are making ground?

redwall_hp 6y ago

I can buy web hosting for less than a coffee per month that can sling thousands of static HTTP requests per second. In a world where something like Mastodon/GNU Social was the norm, any hobbyist could opt to run one fraction of a grand federated social network out of the goodness of their hearts, for spare change, or for a small fee to their users. Centralized, siloed social networks are only expensive to run because they're centralized. Things were better when the norm was to start a blog instead of using someone else's walled garden.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

munificent 6y ago

> I sure am tired of hearing about "the fundamental flaw" in empowering people. I'm all for empowering people. But adding personally controlled user agents to Facebook is a fundamentally flawed solution. There is no path for that to succeed because the primary content users will want to filter is ads, and the primary content Facebook needs people to see is ads. Thus user agents are an existential threat to Facebook and since Facebook controls all the content, they will ensure user agents are not allowed. The core business model does not align Facebook's incentives with user's incentives. You can't fix that at the content level.