3 ms·

For FB, like for other “free” platforms, the end users are not paying customers and are more of a necessary evil. Such a platform only needs to keep the majorit

For FB, like for other “free” platforms, the end users are not paying customers and are more of a necessary evil. Such a platform only needs to keep the majority of eyeballs by the number. — It doesn’t really matter if those eyeballs are satisfied or not. There is no transaction taking place. — Most eyeballs can’t really leave, since service is free and all their friends are here. — There’s nowhere to leave to anyway, as new companies can’t compete with “free” (unless they are extraordinarily well-funded. As in, by a nation-state). — If eyeballs complain and make $platform be regulated by the government (forcing some sort of user representation, oversight of habit-forming tech use, etc.), all the better—targeted regulation would lend it the status of a public good, implying approval, solidifying its already almost-monopoly. Meanwhile, business model will find its way as user representatives and lawmakers are lobbied, regulations can’t keep up with the tech, and politics proliferate. The root problem is that users are tricked into thinking they are customers of a service for which they are not paying. This is at odds with the way the market is supposed to work. If we take away this trick—the core idea where a platform survives off advertiser money—we might just be able to finally let the market do its job, move towards heterogenous social tech landscape and vote with our wallets rather than being exploited.

cabalamat 5y ago
> Most eyeballs can’t really leave, since service is free and all their friends are here. That's why governments need to mandate interoperability of social networks, using ActivityPub and similar protocols.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  This is something I have been thinking about. I don’t like regulation, but imagine a small, surgically focused requirement that says, for example, “you are obligated to provide an API covering the entirety of your platform’s GUI features if you serve more than N users”. As a consequence: 1) fully-featured third-party cross-platform client software allows users to transition across platforms more easily, 2) platforms start bleeding users, 3) platforms start charging for service, 4) platforms become pipes. There are implications, though: 1) big tech might find ways to pretend to be smaller entities; 2) this does not guarantee that user data privacy is respected, but ideally this creates a scenario in which the user is free to choose a more ethical provider; 3) client app security & ethics will become paramount, client apps will become valuable targets; 4) downgrade to pipes will end of the age of cool Web 2.0 platforms and grand social startups. Unfortunately, I don’t see any other way—this business model is user- (society-?) hostile yet addictive, and there seems no other way around it apart from WeChat-like nationalization which is objectionable for a whole other chunk of reasons.
  - cabalamat 5y ago
    > 3) platforms start charging for service, Possibly. If FB et al did, they would have to become a lot more responsive to users. > 4) platforms become pipes. Not sure what you mean by that.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      A pipe is like a mobile provider: it provides an infrastructure for data to flow, but not necessarily the terminals. Here too, if platforms open up full APIs they’d be liable to become more like pipes for social data to flow through, to be displayed by third-party client of user’s choice. They can still offer a GUI and develop new features, it just has to be covered by an API. It’s an interesting thought experiment.
- betterunix2 5y ago
  Ehh... It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I suspect such a regulation would at best accomplish nothing and at worst would be a disaster. How do you even define a "social network?" The regulation would either be too broad and wind up covering the comments section of HN, or too narrow and easy to evade. In all likelihood the outcome would be similar to GDPR -- the big companies that inspire it would have little difficulty with compliance while startups would find it that much harder to compete.
  - cabalamat 5y ago
    > The regulation would either be too broad and wind up covering the comments section of HN HN is clearly a social network. What I envisage is a regulation that applies to social networking and user-generated content sites with greater than a certain number of users, e.g. 1 million. Obviously there shouldn't be onerous regulation on small sites.
  - beecafe 5y ago
    Why shouldn't it apply to the HN comment section?
  - sporkland 5y ago
    Ben Thompson @ Stratechery does the most in depth analyses of regulating companies like FB, which I think reach similar conclusions for different reasons, such as it's actually in the users' best interest in some ways.

cabalamat 5y ago

> Most eyeballs can’t really leave, since service is free and all their friends are here. That's why governments need to mandate interoperability of social networks, using ActivityPub and similar protocols.

strogonoff 5y ago
This is something I have been thinking about. I don’t like regulation, but imagine a small, surgically focused requirement that says, for example, “you are obligated to provide an API covering the entirety of your platform’s GUI features if you serve more than N users”. As a consequence: 1) fully-featured third-party cross-platform client software allows users to transition across platforms more easily, 2) platforms start bleeding users, 3) platforms start charging for service, 4) platforms become pipes. There are implications, though: 1) big tech might find ways to pretend to be smaller entities; 2) this does not guarantee that user data privacy is respected, but ideally this creates a scenario in which the user is free to choose a more ethical provider; 3) client app security & ethics will become paramount, client apps will become valuable targets; 4) downgrade to pipes will end of the age of cool Web 2.0 platforms and grand social startups. Unfortunately, I don’t see any other way—this business model is user- (society-?) hostile yet addictive, and there seems no other way around it apart from WeChat-like nationalization which is objectionable for a whole other chunk of reasons.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > 3) platforms start charging for service, Possibly. If FB et al did, they would have to become a lot more responsive to users. > 4) platforms become pipes. Not sure what you mean by that.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    A pipe is like a mobile provider: it provides an infrastructure for data to flow, but not necessarily the terminals. Here too, if platforms open up full APIs they’d be liable to become more like pipes for social data to flow through, to be displayed by third-party client of user’s choice. They can still offer a GUI and develop new features, it just has to be covered by an API. It’s an interesting thought experiment.
betterunix2 5y ago
Ehh... It sounds nice in theory, but in practice I suspect such a regulation would at best accomplish nothing and at worst would be a disaster. How do you even define a "social network?" The regulation would either be too broad and wind up covering the comments section of HN, or too narrow and easy to evade. In all likelihood the outcome would be similar to GDPR -- the big companies that inspire it would have little difficulty with compliance while startups would find it that much harder to compete.
- cabalamat 5y ago
  > The regulation would either be too broad and wind up covering the comments section of HN HN is clearly a social network. What I envisage is a regulation that applies to social networking and user-generated content sites with greater than a certain number of users, e.g. 1 million. Obviously there shouldn't be onerous regulation on small sites.
- beecafe 5y ago
  Why shouldn't it apply to the HN comment section?
- sporkland 5y ago
  Ben Thompson @ Stratechery does the most in depth analyses of regulating companies like FB, which I think reach similar conclusions for different reasons, such as it's actually in the users' best interest in some ways.