5 ms·

Blaming agents, that are making locally optimal decisions due to the incentives present in the game, for the system being stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium

Blaming agents, that are making locally optimal decisions due to the incentives present in the game, for the system being stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium is a very boring critique. Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. In this particular case, the incentives are as follows. Initially, facebook set up the game so that the condition of every agent, as well as the global equilibrium improved if people used facebook. Later on, facebook changed things around, so that the global equilibrium became suboptimal.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. Another thing that's boring is false equvalences. There are tons of other "highways", ie platforms that allow for communication like facebook does. People don't choose them.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Network effects around facebook mean it is far more expensive for people's social lives to use those highways.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    If by "expensive" you mean having to make 2 more clicks for some action, or installing 5 apps instead of one - then I argue that it's not that important to people to use those other highways in the first place. That's just not a high price to pay for anyone who cares about not being on facebook. If they are not willing to pay it, it is an indication that they just don't care. It seems that tech people have a hard time to realize this: most people are fine with facebook, knowing all its evils. And of course the other platforms, they should keep improving and bringing those number of clicks down, and polishing up the UI, etc. But I just mean that they are already up there in terms of usability, at least in the same league. PS. Heck, people can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes listening about and 5 clicks installing adblock/ublock... I suppose that's Zuckerberg's fault too. /s
    - Veen 6y ago
      Expensive doesn't mean "two extra clicks". It means convincing all of your friends and family to use a new platform. Facebook's network effects impose very high switching costs. That's one reason your "free choice" defense of Facebook is inadequate. Yes, people "choose" to use Facebook. Yes, they are techncially free to stop using it. But, when the cost is high, is the choice really free? If an individual's social and professional life depends on a platform because that's what everyone else uses, they cannot in practice switch to another platform even if that is their preference. You might as well argue that someone from a disfunctional family gets a new family. Or that someone living in a disfunctional state emigrates. They can do these things in theory, but in practice they are not completely free to do them.
      - inglor_cz 6y ago
        This. Lack of interoperability is what keeps people from moving to another platform. A mandated API for interoperability would go a long way. Just like with e-mails. We expect people with Gmail addresses to be able to get in contact with someone who does not have Gmail.
        treeman79 6y ago
        Post grand kid photos else where. Grandmas will follow. Turned off my Facebook for awhile. Losing access to photos about caused a family riot.
      - ryandrake 6y ago
        As someone who once used facebook, maybe a decade ago, but currently does not, I can confidently say I've seen little to no social expense to not using it. My real friends and family keep me abreast of the important things that are happening offline, and I get to skip the rest that happens on Facebook, which is essentially noise, baby pictures, and toxic politics. I think it's almost entirely FOMO that is keeping people on these horrible "social" platforms. Best decision of my life was to leave.
        6y ago
  - dr-detroit 6y ago
    ... because its a sex app. Real tools never could compete with porn let alone real sex. Humans are animals.
socialentity 6y ago
Facebook did not "set up the game". Everybody is playing the same game. Facebook did not have special powers to change the rules. They built an especially attractive service (judging by user numbers). Everybody else is free to build services in whatever way they fancy.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  Facebook did not have special powers to change the rules. They built an especially attractive service (judging by user numbers) That is why they initially rose to dominance. They provided a faster and more focused version of what Myspace had become. More attractive, indeed. They maintain dominance primarily through the power of network effect. You are free to switch away from Facebook, but doing so is useless unless a significant portion of your network switches as well. FB's end user experience is still good (I'm talking strictly about their engineering and UX here, not their business practices and other board-level decisions) and they have expanded it by adding things like their marketplace. If that experience ever got bad enough I'm sure people would start itching to switch. But as things are, a competitor would not merely need to be as good or even 50% or 100% better. More like 500% or 1000% better if they wanted to overcome the momentum of FB's network effect.
zby 6y ago
This is a great quote in that first paragraph! I need to save it. But the second paragraph looks like you blamed facebook for making locally optimal decisions and making the system stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium :)

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

> Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. Another thing that's boring is false equvalences. There are tons of other "highways", ie platforms that allow for communication like facebook does. People don't choose them.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Network effects around facebook mean it is far more expensive for people's social lives to use those highways.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  If by "expensive" you mean having to make 2 more clicks for some action, or installing 5 apps instead of one - then I argue that it's not that important to people to use those other highways in the first place. That's just not a high price to pay for anyone who cares about not being on facebook. If they are not willing to pay it, it is an indication that they just don't care. It seems that tech people have a hard time to realize this: most people are fine with facebook, knowing all its evils. And of course the other platforms, they should keep improving and bringing those number of clicks down, and polishing up the UI, etc. But I just mean that they are already up there in terms of usability, at least in the same league. PS. Heck, people can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes listening about and 5 clicks installing adblock/ublock... I suppose that's Zuckerberg's fault too. /s
  - Veen 6y ago
    Expensive doesn't mean "two extra clicks". It means convincing all of your friends and family to use a new platform. Facebook's network effects impose very high switching costs. That's one reason your "free choice" defense of Facebook is inadequate. Yes, people "choose" to use Facebook. Yes, they are techncially free to stop using it. But, when the cost is high, is the choice really free? If an individual's social and professional life depends on a platform because that's what everyone else uses, they cannot in practice switch to another platform even if that is their preference. You might as well argue that someone from a disfunctional family gets a new family. Or that someone living in a disfunctional state emigrates. They can do these things in theory, but in practice they are not completely free to do them.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      This. Lack of interoperability is what keeps people from moving to another platform. A mandated API for interoperability would go a long way. Just like with e-mails. We expect people with Gmail addresses to be able to get in contact with someone who does not have Gmail.
      - treeman79 6y ago
        Post grand kid photos else where. Grandmas will follow. Turned off my Facebook for awhile. Losing access to photos about caused a family riot.
    - ryandrake 6y ago
      As someone who once used facebook, maybe a decade ago, but currently does not, I can confidently say I've seen little to no social expense to not using it. My real friends and family keep me abreast of the important things that are happening offline, and I get to skip the rest that happens on Facebook, which is essentially noise, baby pictures, and toxic politics. I think it's almost entirely FOMO that is keeping people on these horrible "social" platforms. Best decision of my life was to leave.
      - 6y ago
- dr-detroit 6y ago
  ... because its a sex app. Real tools never could compete with porn let alone real sex. Humans are animals.

socialentity 6y ago

Facebook did not "set up the game". Everybody is playing the same game. Facebook did not have special powers to change the rules. They built an especially attractive service (judging by user numbers). Everybody else is free to build services in whatever way they fancy.

JohnBooty 6y ago
Facebook did not have special powers to change the rules. They built an especially attractive service (judging by user numbers) That is why they initially rose to dominance. They provided a faster and more focused version of what Myspace had become. More attractive, indeed. They maintain dominance primarily through the power of network effect. You are free to switch away from Facebook, but doing so is useless unless a significant portion of your network switches as well. FB's end user experience is still good (I'm talking strictly about their engineering and UX here, not their business practices and other board-level decisions) and they have expanded it by adding things like their marketplace. If that experience ever got bad enough I'm sure people would start itching to switch. But as things are, a competitor would not merely need to be as good or even 50% or 100% better. More like 500% or 1000% better if they wanted to overcome the momentum of FB's network effect.

zby 6y ago

This is a great quote in that first paragraph! I need to save it. But the second paragraph looks like you blamed facebook for making locally optimal decisions and making the system stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium :)