4 ms·

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 c

by 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 baby 5y ago

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