5 ms·

Facebook isn't really in the business of connecting people, as the article notes briefly: they're in the business of growth. Growth of daily user count, growth

by ethbr0 5y ago

Facebook isn't really in the business of connecting people, as the article notes briefly: they're in the business of growth. Growth of daily user count, growth of daily time on Facebook per user, growth of ad revenue, and ultimately growth of profits. And indeed, these are where most of Facebook's evils come from. If Facebook was ambivalent about eyeball time, they wouldn't need to juice user's feeds or create addictive engagement loops. If they were ambivalent about ad revenue, then their data collection could be massively curtailed. Facebook as a not-for-profit would not need to act in evil ways, and Facebook as a for-profit cannot help but do so.

baby 5y ago
Two things to counter balance your point of view: - In some way, had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone. - on the other hand, I do think that the app could be better if they cared less about engagement. I really wish you could customize your timeline and see things chronologically by default, like it used to be. It has become less and less of a place to find out what your friends are up to, and more about "news sharing" and "facebook groups".
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone Agreed. The uptake was predicated on their excellence and strive to growth. But I think there's an argument towards making a base layer of shared services non-profit, and then allowing for-profit companies to build on top and capture most of the value (e.g. ICANN). I think a present where we'd done that might have a healthier (for-profit) Facebook. > app could be better if they cared less about engagement The root of Facebook's evil is that their ad revenue model inherently means engagement = $. And so, whatever their ancillary preferences and morals, they will ultimately do whatever increases engagement (to the brink of public outcry). In a lot of ways, this is like the resource curse of oil, diamonds, etc. Facebook (as a company), as powerful as it is, can't actually make strategic decisions that have a side effect of decreasing engagement.
  - baby 5y ago
    I feel like that's a problem with capitalism, not necessarily facebook :P
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Fair. But also innovation at scale. GE overrelying on finance income, despite having so many other core competencies, would be a similar example. But then Amazon would be a counter-example of successful diversification (unless we want to look at their tolerate-fakes-for-revenue approach). But it boggles my mind that Facebook doesn't trade at a discount, specifically due to Zuckerberg's sole control. A singular leader at that scale seems... dubious.
      - baby 5y ago
        I think it is trading at a discount currently :o

by ethbr0 5y ago

baby 5y ago

Two things to counter balance your point of view: - In some way, had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone. - on the other hand, I do think that the app could be better if they cared less about engagement. I really wish you could customize your timeline and see things chronologically by default, like it used to be. It has become less and less of a place to find out what your friends are up to, and more about "news sharing" and "facebook groups".

ethbr0 5y ago
> had they not care about growth, they would not have become a useful public registry that you can use to connect with anyone Agreed. The uptake was predicated on their excellence and strive to growth. But I think there's an argument towards making a base layer of shared services non-profit, and then allowing for-profit companies to build on top and capture most of the value (e.g. ICANN). I think a present where we'd done that might have a healthier (for-profit) Facebook. > app could be better if they cared less about engagement The root of Facebook's evil is that their ad revenue model inherently means engagement = $. And so, whatever their ancillary preferences and morals, they will ultimately do whatever increases engagement (to the brink of public outcry). In a lot of ways, this is like the resource curse of oil, diamonds, etc. Facebook (as a company), as powerful as it is, can't actually make strategic decisions that have a side effect of decreasing engagement.
- baby 5y ago
  I feel like that's a problem with capitalism, not necessarily facebook :P
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Fair. But also innovation at scale. GE overrelying on finance income, despite having so many other core competencies, would be a similar example. But then Amazon would be a counter-example of successful diversification (unless we want to look at their tolerate-fakes-for-revenue approach). But it boggles my mind that Facebook doesn't trade at a discount, specifically due to Zuckerberg's sole control. A singular leader at that scale seems... dubious.
    - baby 5y ago
      I think it is trading at a discount currently :o