7 ms·

Does it face a PR crisis? Despite all the clamor, I've yet to see any actual movement away from it. I guess maybe it's opening the door for a competitor, but

Does it face a PR crisis? Despite all the clamor, I've yet to see any actual movement away from it. I guess maybe it's opening the door for a competitor, but until that exists again, I don't see anything happening. They've got plenty of time to massage things around until people either shut up or get sick of hearing people complain about things that those people don't really understand or believe.

dspillett 5y ago
> I've yet to see any actual movement away from it From what I've read in various places the concern isn't people leaving, but certain groups (mostly young demographics) not bothering to join. This means that user numbers are relatively stagnant and that active user numbers will be falling as will average engagement (or whatever marketers measure these days). I've seen some evidence of this: younger members of my hobby groups are not on there, or are just because the group is and they don't use it for anything else but receiving group updates.
- ghaff 5y ago
  Most of my (not younger) cohort aren't so much not joining or rage quitting as just not really posting any longer. A lot of my somewhat casual professional/school/etc. acquaintances who used to post pretty regularly now post something once in a blue moon and I'm pretty much in the same boat. So it's something I glance at maybe a few times a week now.
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  My 16-year old daughter, who is a user of TikTok, has never joined Facebook, and none of her friends seem to be suggesting that she should so either they haven't joined either or it's just not how they communicate with their peers. They text, which has the big advantage of being a way of communicating without your parents or grandparents being in the conversation. :)
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    If tiktok has one redeeming quality is that it actively buries the polarizing content (of course some of this is debatable, like content relating to minorities, etc) But no bad vibes allowed there
  - kleinsch 5y ago
    None of her friends use IG?
    - rossdavidh 5y ago
      Her mother introduced her to IG, but she doesn't seem to have been all that interested in it. Certainly doesn't seem to be a thing among her peer group. I should mention that YouTube most definitely is a thing, although that seems to be used more like TV and less like a social network (among her peers).
- shmatt 5y ago
  As a younger person groups is all I use it for. I also use Instagram (so they still get my data) and TikTok, but when I need advice/help/reviews/just reading about other peoples issues the quality of content is slightly higher and broader than reddit in FBs earnings report this week MAU were up 6% vs. last year, far from stagnant.
- fernandotakai 5y ago
  younger people, at least where i live, are mostly using instagram, tiktok, and whatsapp. so two out of three are facebook properties.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Not the FB site/app itself, but WhatsApp, Instagram and Occulus would attract some of the younger demographic.
ren_engineer 5y ago
true, most FB users really don't care. This is the media being wrapped in their own bubble yet again, they personally care a lot so this story gets a ton of media attention. I've seen a few people point out that the MSM is actually mad because FB really has the same business model, they are just far more effective and profitable at implementing it. MSM has been pushing controversial stories for decades to boost their ratings, FB just used algorithms to do it rather than humans. At its core this is about the traditional media's profit margins and cultural power being eaten up by FB and tech in general
- onion2k 5y ago
  most FB users really don't care Most FB users don't matter. The people who do matter are the advertisers, and by most accounts a lot of them are very unhappy (for a range of reasons, and mostly not about whatever the latest "PR crisis" is.)
- vadfa 5y ago
  I doubt even the MSM believes this. They are throwing stuff at the wall, seeing if something ever sticks. I guess it's the only way they can come up with to save their business.
  - decremental 5y ago
    It would be funny if Facebook just launched their own news organization and used it to drag MSM through the mud all day. There's endless content to work with to that end. I'd rather see them eliminate each other.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- afavour 5y ago
  > I've seen a few people point out that the MSM is actually mad because FB really has the same business model Facebook themselves have been pushing this angle so they’re probably very grateful any time someone repeats it! It’s very convenient because it allows them to dismiss pretty much any reporting about them as biased. In reality though, the source of this story, NY Times, is more profitable than it’s been in a long time and the majority of that profit is coming from subscriptions, not ads. ProPublica, a non profit with zero ads has also done some excellent work covering Facebook. They don’t have the same business model as FB and never have. This isn’t true for every media outlet out there but to write off any critical coverage of FB because “it’s the media” feels wildly shortsighted to me. The advice is “consider the source” not “dismiss based on the source”.
bjt2n3904 5y ago
Came to write the same thing. There's a PR effort to manufacture a PR crisis... But by and large, it has seemed rather ineffective outside the filter bubble. It seems like the news is trying to prescribe a reality, instead of describing it.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  It seems you believe the Facebook spin. Congratulations! You're on of two people believing anything Clegg has said in the last decade or so, and the other one is Zuckerberg. FWIW, the problem with this idea, except from being an ad hominem of sorts in that it attacks the message via the messenger, is that the individual journalist doesn't actually hold the opinions that we ascribe to "the media". Some young writer at the New York Times isn't upset because Facebook robbed them of the position of power they once had and cut their income by 70% because they never had that power. And since they are the Times, they aren't exactly unhappy with their career, either. Every time there is an article about the privacy implications of ad tracking, something things it's a great indictment to point out how many trackers the article page loads. Yet that only proofs how independent journalists are. In that industry, getting some ad customer to boycott your publisher is almost as good as a Pulitzer, and if it means nobody gets a raise... well, at least you got the story.
- jpe90 5y ago
  > It seems like the news is trying to prescribe a reality, instead of describing it. Thanks for putting that into words. It perfectly describes the uncanny feeling that I often feel while reading both left-leaning and right-leaning American news media, and why I've made a large conscious effort to scale back my consumption as much as possible.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  > “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. > “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” I'm curious which filter bubble you're referring to. The HN filter bubble (a lot of people don't seem to like Facebook)? The gamer filter bubble (many in that community were upset when Facebook accounts became required for Oculus)? The media filter bubble (as evidenced by this reporting)? There seem to be a lot of different filter bubbles that think Facebook is a shit company. Maybe these don't add up to much, or maybe they do. Time will tell.
ravenstine 5y ago
Every time they face a "PR crisis", Facebook remains intact the year following. The establishment also has interest in keeping Facebook around, not to mention Zuckerberg's close involvement with the "big club" that "you ain't in". Nothing's going to change in any sort of official sense. Facebook will naturally decay while the rest of the company plans to leave it behind like a hermit crab crawling out of its shell to find a bigger one, as we are already witnessing with "Metaverse".
AlexandrB 5y ago
I disagree, but only slightly. I think most people who were going to leave are already gone. There has been a seemingly endless stream of Facebook scandals in the last 2-3 years and if the first few (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) didn't convince you, these new ones probably won't either. There's also the question of what "moving away from Facebook" means. Does it mean deleting your account? What if you check your messages once a month, are you still a Facebook user? Only Facebook really knows what impact this has had on their user base and they have every incentive to pick and choose metrics that paint them in the best light.
pinox 5y ago
Its been having an effect on the share price for a while now. Its been underperforming the S&P. For the type of growth they have shown in revenue and active users thats not good. They have been busy buying back shares so its probably worse than it looks.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Baloney. Wall Street doesn't give a rats ass about what the media narrative this week happens to be. What Wall Street does care about is revenue and usage numbers, and it's clear FB took a hit from Apple's changes, and it's also clear that they're having big problems with younger demographics, and that their TikTok feature copies likely aren't having the impact they hoped. All of those things would have happened with or without the "Facebook Papers" release.
marto1 5y ago
I believe the issue is way too technical for most of FB’s user base(which is supposedly enormous) and it seems most senators too so appropriate action is not to be expected. And then you have the issue of people not wanting to look stupid especially on high positions.And then the obvious, but often understated, power and monetary issue of FB being a major part of US’s tech supremacy. It all adds up to a horrifying unstoppable mess and FB's top management seems to be playing everyone in power to do something like a fiddle. Then again FB could end up in the “thing bad --> ban it!” corner, but I doubt it.

dspillett 5y ago

> I've yet to see any actual movement away from it From what I've read in various places the concern isn't people leaving, but certain groups (mostly young demographics) not bothering to join. This means that user numbers are relatively stagnant and that active user numbers will be falling as will average engagement (or whatever marketers measure these days). I've seen some evidence of this: younger members of my hobby groups are not on there, or are just because the group is and they don't use it for anything else but receiving group updates.

ghaff 5y ago
Most of my (not younger) cohort aren't so much not joining or rage quitting as just not really posting any longer. A lot of my somewhat casual professional/school/etc. acquaintances who used to post pretty regularly now post something once in a blue moon and I'm pretty much in the same boat. So it's something I glance at maybe a few times a week now.
rossdavidh 5y ago
My 16-year old daughter, who is a user of TikTok, has never joined Facebook, and none of her friends seem to be suggesting that she should so either they haven't joined either or it's just not how they communicate with their peers. They text, which has the big advantage of being a way of communicating without your parents or grandparents being in the conversation. :)
- raverbashing 5y ago
  If tiktok has one redeeming quality is that it actively buries the polarizing content (of course some of this is debatable, like content relating to minorities, etc) But no bad vibes allowed there
- kleinsch 5y ago
  None of her friends use IG?
  - rossdavidh 5y ago
    Her mother introduced her to IG, but she doesn't seem to have been all that interested in it. Certainly doesn't seem to be a thing among her peer group. I should mention that YouTube most definitely is a thing, although that seems to be used more like TV and less like a social network (among her peers).
shmatt 5y ago
As a younger person groups is all I use it for. I also use Instagram (so they still get my data) and TikTok, but when I need advice/help/reviews/just reading about other peoples issues the quality of content is slightly higher and broader than reddit in FBs earnings report this week MAU were up 6% vs. last year, far from stagnant.
fernandotakai 5y ago
younger people, at least where i live, are mostly using instagram, tiktok, and whatsapp. so two out of three are facebook properties.
goatlover 5y ago
Not the FB site/app itself, but WhatsApp, Instagram and Occulus would attract some of the younger demographic.

ren_engineer 5y ago

true, most FB users really don't care. This is the media being wrapped in their own bubble yet again, they personally care a lot so this story gets a ton of media attention. I've seen a few people point out that the MSM is actually mad because FB really has the same business model, they are just far more effective and profitable at implementing it. MSM has been pushing controversial stories for decades to boost their ratings, FB just used algorithms to do it rather than humans. At its core this is about the traditional media's profit margins and cultural power being eaten up by FB and tech in general

onion2k 5y ago
most FB users really don't care Most FB users don't matter. The people who do matter are the advertisers, and by most accounts a lot of them are very unhappy (for a range of reasons, and mostly not about whatever the latest "PR crisis" is.)
vadfa 5y ago
I doubt even the MSM believes this. They are throwing stuff at the wall, seeing if something ever sticks. I guess it's the only way they can come up with to save their business.
- decremental 5y ago
  It would be funny if Facebook just launched their own news organization and used it to drag MSM through the mud all day. There's endless content to work with to that end. I'd rather see them eliminate each other.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
afavour 5y ago
> I've seen a few people point out that the MSM is actually mad because FB really has the same business model Facebook themselves have been pushing this angle so they’re probably very grateful any time someone repeats it! It’s very convenient because it allows them to dismiss pretty much any reporting about them as biased. In reality though, the source of this story, NY Times, is more profitable than it’s been in a long time and the majority of that profit is coming from subscriptions, not ads. ProPublica, a non profit with zero ads has also done some excellent work covering Facebook. They don’t have the same business model as FB and never have. This isn’t true for every media outlet out there but to write off any critical coverage of FB because “it’s the media” feels wildly shortsighted to me. The advice is “consider the source” not “dismiss based on the source”.

bjt2n3904 5y ago

Came to write the same thing. There's a PR effort to manufacture a PR crisis... But by and large, it has seemed rather ineffective outside the filter bubble. It seems like the news is trying to prescribe a reality, instead of describing it.

KarlKemp 5y ago
It seems you believe the Facebook spin. Congratulations! You're on of two people believing anything Clegg has said in the last decade or so, and the other one is Zuckerberg. FWIW, the problem with this idea, except from being an ad hominem of sorts in that it attacks the message via the messenger, is that the individual journalist doesn't actually hold the opinions that we ascribe to "the media". Some young writer at the New York Times isn't upset because Facebook robbed them of the position of power they once had and cut their income by 70% because they never had that power. And since they are the Times, they aren't exactly unhappy with their career, either. Every time there is an article about the privacy implications of ad tracking, something things it's a great indictment to point out how many trackers the article page loads. Yet that only proofs how independent journalists are. In that industry, getting some ad customer to boycott your publisher is almost as good as a Pulitzer, and if it means nobody gets a raise... well, at least you got the story.
jpe90 5y ago
> It seems like the news is trying to prescribe a reality, instead of describing it. Thanks for putting that into words. It perfectly describes the uncanny feeling that I often feel while reading both left-leaning and right-leaning American news media, and why I've made a large conscious effort to scale back my consumption as much as possible.
AlexandrB 5y ago
> “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. > “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” I'm curious which filter bubble you're referring to. The HN filter bubble (a lot of people don't seem to like Facebook)? The gamer filter bubble (many in that community were upset when Facebook accounts became required for Oculus)? The media filter bubble (as evidenced by this reporting)? There seem to be a lot of different filter bubbles that think Facebook is a shit company. Maybe these don't add up to much, or maybe they do. Time will tell.

ravenstine 5y ago

Every time they face a "PR crisis", Facebook remains intact the year following. The establishment also has interest in keeping Facebook around, not to mention Zuckerberg's close involvement with the "big club" that "you ain't in". Nothing's going to change in any sort of official sense. Facebook will naturally decay while the rest of the company plans to leave it behind like a hermit crab crawling out of its shell to find a bigger one, as we are already witnessing with "Metaverse".

AlexandrB 5y ago

I disagree, but only slightly. I think most people who were going to leave are already gone. There has been a seemingly endless stream of Facebook scandals in the last 2-3 years and if the first few (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) didn't convince you, these new ones probably won't either. There's also the question of what "moving away from Facebook" means. Does it mean deleting your account? What if you check your messages once a month, are you still a Facebook user? Only Facebook really knows what impact this has had on their user base and they have every incentive to pick and choose metrics that paint them in the best light.

pinox 5y ago

Its been having an effect on the share price for a while now. Its been underperforming the S&P. For the type of growth they have shown in revenue and active users thats not good. They have been busy buying back shares so its probably worse than it looks.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Baloney. Wall Street doesn't give a rats ass about what the media narrative this week happens to be. What Wall Street does care about is revenue and usage numbers, and it's clear FB took a hit from Apple's changes, and it's also clear that they're having big problems with younger demographics, and that their TikTok feature copies likely aren't having the impact they hoped. All of those things would have happened with or without the "Facebook Papers" release.

marto1 5y ago

I believe the issue is way too technical for most of FB’s user base(which is supposedly enormous) and it seems most senators too so appropriate action is not to be expected. And then you have the issue of people not wanting to look stupid especially on high positions.And then the obvious, but often understated, power and monetary issue of FB being a major part of US’s tech supremacy. It all adds up to a horrifying unstoppable mess and FB's top management seems to be playing everyone in power to do something like a fiddle. Then again FB could end up in the “thing bad --> ban it!” corner, but I doubt it.