6 ms·

You know something is broken when the CEO of Facebook chooses to apply himself to lobbying the government to ban his competitors instead of building a better pr

You know something is broken when the CEO of Facebook chooses to apply himself to lobbying the government to ban his competitors instead of building a better product.

MengerSponge 6y ago
In fairness, though, the CEO of Facebook hasn't built a better product in almost two decades. Instead, his company's growth has been based on brilliant (and occasionally very shady) acquisitions.
- tmpz22 6y ago
  There was nothing brilliant about buying two obviously successful apps: Instagram and WhatsApp.
  - 2arrs2ells 6y ago
    I’m not here to defend Zuck, but those acquisitions only look obvious in hindsight. People thought Facebook was insane for paying a billion for a photo sharing app with a tiny team. And while WhatsApp was ubiquitous, it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time. Instagram may go down in history as one of the greatest acquisitions of all time.
    - manquer 6y ago
      WhatsApp was quoted at $19B . You are right that those two were really smart acquisitions . While WhatsApp has not really changed all that much since the acquisition, there is very little that is the same between Instagram pre Facebook and now. Were they worth the 1B and 19B price tag? yes totally, however both could have been done cheaper and earlier. There was lots of discussions with snap before whatsApp. The way occulus($3B) due diligence was handled also does not show give a lot of confidence. Facebook just got their way with sheer amount of money they could spend.
    - Frost1x 6y ago
      I won't speak to valuations because all of these values numb my brain a bit, but both Instagram and WhatsApp were obviously quite successful at the times of their acquisitions. It didn't seem surprising at all at the time that Facebook bought both services, many people I knew were using them as much or more for social media than Facebook. Now, the values of course were a bit gawking but I'm sure experts crawled over a lot of their own internal figures and what they would expect out of both services. If any organization had enough social media data to evaluate these services marketability, it was FB.
    - opo 6y ago
      >...it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time. Facebook paid a lot more than 12 billion: >...When Facebook announced its plans to acquire WhatsApp in February 2014, WhatsApp's founders attached a purchase price of $16 billion: $4 billion in cash and $12 billion remaining in Facebook shares. This price tag is dwarfed by the actual price Facebook paid: $21.8 billion, or $55 per user. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
  - teruakohatu 6y ago
    Facebook had a WhatsApp competitor with significant marketshare. It was $12 billion to buy WhatsApp or >$12 billion to crush the competition. In hindsight he made the right move.
  - winenbug 6y ago
    Everything about the Instagram acquisition was brilliant. Reminder that neither Instagram nor Facebook was making a profit at the time, and Instagram's $1B price tag was both very high at the time and minuscule in hindsight. 8 years later, Instagram is the platform that allows Facebook to still be mega successful.
  - paxys 6y ago
    If it was so obvious, why didn't Microsoft, Google or anyone else outbid them?
- simonsarris 6y ago
  Facebook Marketplace is better than Craigslist. Buyers have a history by default ("On Facebook since 2009" etc) which is nice.
  - wdb 6y ago
    Wouldn't be more interested in how active the user has been over the last year? I haven't used my account for years but signed up a long time ago. You can easily buy Facebook account which have been old but might not have been active for a long time. To me being on Facebook since 2009 is not really a great indicator for trust.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    It requires you to have a Facebook account. This by definition makes it an inferior product. I've been buying and selling stuff on Craigslist for years, never had a problem. If you're really paranoid about getting ripped off, do the transaction in the parking lot of your local police station.
    - baby 6y ago
      I'm moving out right now and using facebook to sell out my stuff, and let me tell you, you are missing out
      - virginieAFP 6y ago
        Hi, I work for a global news agency AFP and I'm doing a story about people leaving San Francisco because of remote work/pandemic. Can I talk to you? https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub
        baby 6y ago
        Sure thing, you can reach out to me through the contact page in my profile
      - triceratops 6y ago
- kleinsch 6y ago
  And due to the current antitrust concerns, there’s no way FB could buy TikTok.
- throwaway7281 6y ago
  Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness. There were a million different ways to design a communications tool for people that would have respected its users. I hope we will leave this decade with a sad, distant memory of facebook and its outlets. BTW: I am sure we will see the end of facebook (and it's subsidies) in this decade. The power concentration is just too insane. If it does not implode itself, then even a weak government like the US will take action.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    >Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness Oh, good grief. Just say "Facebook didn't stop Trump from being elected!!!!1!!!1!". It would be fewer words.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Facebook's public-facing websites are not its product. Rather, the websites are a lure to attract people to be used as feedstock used by Facebook's actual business. Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades. Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebook should be regarded not as an advertising platform but rather as a rootkit and firmware upload tool for the human mind. Facebook's algorithms are quite capable of making a critical mass of the population believe utterly anything and, if if prompted, to act on those beliefs even in ways that go against their own interests. What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. That is their business, and they're doing very well with it.
  - throwaway7281 6y ago
    When Zuckerberg mentioned sometime last year, that he wants to make facebook better, and especially wants to make people happy [...] - just think about that. With kind of admits that it is facebook's mission to control your feelings - and no better feeling to convey this idea than happiness. Which is what everybody wants, right? Large demand - big business.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    Let’s put things in proportion. Facebook took the place of television. Can it be effective in changing people’s minds? Yes, within a the scope of variability that they already have. Can it turn religious people secular, Democrats into Republicans? Citation needed.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    > What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. You were more on target when you praised the efficacy of FB's advertising products, bleepblorp. Unfortunately, FB doesn't offer any way to control the course of society except to hasten its decline by overwhelming users with crap. Neil Postman anticipated this in 1985, when he explained that America had not succumbed to Orwell's dystopian 1984 vision, but rather, had become something more akin to Huxley's Brave New World: “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with indulgences, trifles, and vanities."
kristopolous 6y ago
kind of a classic traditional move no?
donmcronald 6y ago
And it's pretty rich coming from a guy that's responsible for most kids on the internet thinking it's ok to use their real name.

You know something is broken when the CEO of Facebook chooses to apply himself to lobbying the government to ban his competitors instead of building a better product.

MengerSponge 6y ago

In fairness, though, the CEO of Facebook hasn't built a better product in almost two decades. Instead, his company's growth has been based on brilliant (and occasionally very shady) acquisitions.

tmpz22 6y ago
There was nothing brilliant about buying two obviously successful apps: Instagram and WhatsApp.
- 2arrs2ells 6y ago
  I’m not here to defend Zuck, but those acquisitions only look obvious in hindsight. People thought Facebook was insane for paying a billion for a photo sharing app with a tiny team. And while WhatsApp was ubiquitous, it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time. Instagram may go down in history as one of the greatest acquisitions of all time.
  - manquer 6y ago
    WhatsApp was quoted at $19B . You are right that those two were really smart acquisitions . While WhatsApp has not really changed all that much since the acquisition, there is very little that is the same between Instagram pre Facebook and now. Were they worth the 1B and 19B price tag? yes totally, however both could have been done cheaper and earlier. There was lots of discussions with snap before whatsApp. The way occulus($3B) due diligence was handled also does not show give a lot of confidence. Facebook just got their way with sheer amount of money they could spend.
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    I won't speak to valuations because all of these values numb my brain a bit, but both Instagram and WhatsApp were obviously quite successful at the times of their acquisitions. It didn't seem surprising at all at the time that Facebook bought both services, many people I knew were using them as much or more for social media than Facebook. Now, the values of course were a bit gawking but I'm sure experts crawled over a lot of their own internal figures and what they would expect out of both services. If any organization had enough social media data to evaluate these services marketability, it was FB.
  - opo 6y ago
    >...it was very under the radar in the US until Facebook paid what seemed like an ungodly sum ($12bn) at the time. Facebook paid a lot more than 12 billion: >...When Facebook announced its plans to acquire WhatsApp in February 2014, WhatsApp's founders attached a purchase price of $16 billion: $4 billion in cash and $12 billion remaining in Facebook shares. This price tag is dwarfed by the actual price Facebook paid: $21.8 billion, or $55 per user. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whatsapp-best-facebook-purchase-ever.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/whats...
- teruakohatu 6y ago
  Facebook had a WhatsApp competitor with significant marketshare. It was $12 billion to buy WhatsApp or >$12 billion to crush the competition. In hindsight he made the right move.
- winenbug 6y ago
  Everything about the Instagram acquisition was brilliant. Reminder that neither Instagram nor Facebook was making a profit at the time, and Instagram's $1B price tag was both very high at the time and minuscule in hindsight. 8 years later, Instagram is the platform that allows Facebook to still be mega successful.
- paxys 6y ago
  If it was so obvious, why didn't Microsoft, Google or anyone else outbid them?
simonsarris 6y ago
Facebook Marketplace is better than Craigslist. Buyers have a history by default ("On Facebook since 2009" etc) which is nice.
- wdb 6y ago
  Wouldn't be more interested in how active the user has been over the last year? I haven't used my account for years but signed up a long time ago. You can easily buy Facebook account which have been old but might not have been active for a long time. To me being on Facebook since 2009 is not really a great indicator for trust.
- triceratops 6y ago
  It requires you to have a Facebook account. This by definition makes it an inferior product. I've been buying and selling stuff on Craigslist for years, never had a problem. If you're really paranoid about getting ripped off, do the transaction in the parking lot of your local police station.
  - baby 6y ago
    I'm moving out right now and using facebook to sell out my stuff, and let me tell you, you are missing out
    - virginieAFP 6y ago
      Hi, I work for a global news agency AFP and I'm doing a story about people leaving San Francisco because of remote work/pandemic. Can I talk to you? https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub https://www.afp.com/en/news-hub
      - baby 6y ago
        Sure thing, you can reach out to me through the contact page in my profile
    - triceratops 6y ago
kleinsch 6y ago
And due to the current antitrust concerns, there’s no way FB could buy TikTok.
throwaway7281 6y ago
Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness. There were a million different ways to design a communications tool for people that would have respected its users. I hope we will leave this decade with a sad, distant memory of facebook and its outlets. BTW: I am sure we will see the end of facebook (and it's subsidies) in this decade. The power concentration is just too insane. If it does not implode itself, then even a weak government like the US will take action.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >Brilliant ruthlessness brought us one of the most destructive tools on earth, disguised as a site for peace, love, cat content and happiness Oh, good grief. Just say "Facebook didn't stop Trump from being elected!!!!1!!!1!". It would be fewer words.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Facebook's public-facing websites are not its product. Rather, the websites are a lure to attract people to be used as feedstock used by Facebook's actual business. Facebook's actual product is its targeted advertising algorithms that advertisers pay handsomely to exploit. Facebook's advertising product has improved massively over the past two decades. Indeed, Facebook's advertising algorithms are so good that Facebook should be regarded not as an advertising platform but rather as a rootkit and firmware upload tool for the human mind. Facebook's algorithms are quite capable of making a critical mass of the population believe utterly anything and, if if prompted, to act on those beliefs even in ways that go against their own interests. What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. That is their business, and they're doing very well with it.
- throwaway7281 6y ago
  When Zuckerberg mentioned sometime last year, that he wants to make facebook better, and especially wants to make people happy [...] - just think about that. With kind of admits that it is facebook's mission to control your feelings - and no better feeling to convey this idea than happiness. Which is what everybody wants, right? Large demand - big business.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Let’s put things in proportion. Facebook took the place of television. Can it be effective in changing people’s minds? Yes, within a the scope of variability that they already have. Can it turn religious people secular, Democrats into Republicans? Citation needed.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  > What Facebook sells is the ability to control the course of society. You were more on target when you praised the efficacy of FB's advertising products, bleepblorp. Unfortunately, FB doesn't offer any way to control the course of society except to hasten its decline by overwhelming users with crap. Neil Postman anticipated this in 1985, when he explained that America had not succumbed to Orwell's dystopian 1984 vision, but rather, had become something more akin to Huxley's Brave New World: “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with indulgences, trifles, and vanities."

kristopolous 6y ago

kind of a classic traditional move no?

donmcronald 6y ago

And it's pretty rich coming from a guy that's responsible for most kids on the internet thinking it's ok to use their real name.