3 ms·

I had an entirely different interpretation of the article. It seems to me that it's mostly centered around evidence: the WSJ articles based on Facebook's leaked

I had an entirely different interpretation of the article. It seems to me that it's mostly centered around evidence: the WSJ articles based on Facebook's leaked research. The author isn't saying FB is in trouble because kids think its uncool. He's saying FB itself thinks they are in trouble as evidenced by their own data--"internal researchers predicted that daily use would decline 45 percent by 2023"--and by the desperate attempts to remain relevant like trying to target the pre-teen audience. I think the point of the article is that while FB might look strong to outsiders, if you look at internal communications and efforts, they sound pretty worried about becoming irrelevant. What stronger evidence could you want than that?

fleddr 5y ago
Of course they are internally worried. Every business is internally worried, otherwise they wouldn't be doing their jobs. The point is proportionality. A single signal, the slow decline of teen activity, which has been known for some 2-3 years, is used to lead to an existential conclusion. A service with 2.7 billion users that has kept growing despite years of criticism is called "weak" for it. I consider that a baseless dramatization. Seeking next growth areas (such as pre-teens) isn't "desperate", it's just Facebook trying to keep growing the user base, which is obviously a hard thing to do at this size.