4 ms·

When I joined FB there were no ads and a chronological feed and everything was awesome. Reddit was awesome. Nowadays they are an evil manipulation mess, but I

When I joined FB there were no ads and a chronological feed and everything was awesome. Reddit was awesome. Nowadays they are an evil manipulation mess, but I don't think it is an inherit property of social networks.

oblio 5y ago
Phase 1: user acquisition. Phase 2: profit (through using and abusing their users). Both steps are written in stone in their business plan on day 1, you just don't know it. As a user you were still in phase 1. Similar story with image hosting websites. First they don't have ads and load fast and don't really have image restrictions. Then they start adding restrictions and ads.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Profit doesn't have to be equivalent to abuse. The idea that you have to abuse your users to make a profit is a relatively new one pioneered by Silicon Valley scum thanks to anti-competitive practices and lax/non-existent regulation. Before this, we had centuries of businesses who were sustainable by just charging a fair premium on the goods they sold to their customers, and both sides were happy enough with the transaction to continue.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Well, considering the context of this thread, are there any social networks not working based on the Silicon Valley model? I don't know any.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      The phone company? You pay them a fee for access and that's it - they have no incentive to prioritize certain callers over others for "engagement"'s sake.
      - oblio 5y ago
        In this context social networks = social media = Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and their ilk, we can't really include AT&T in this conversation :-)
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        Why not? My point is that a communications network doesn't have to be hostile. It is possible to run a communications platform and get people to pay for it.
        oblio 5y ago
        Back in the day? Maybe. Today? Yeah, sure you could create something and try to charge people, but most people are now used to free + ads. You'll never get enough traction to break through to the mainstream, unless something radical changes.

oblio 5y ago

Phase 1: user acquisition. Phase 2: profit (through using and abusing their users). Both steps are written in stone in their business plan on day 1, you just don't know it. As a user you were still in phase 1. Similar story with image hosting websites. First they don't have ads and load fast and don't really have image restrictions. Then they start adding restrictions and ads.

Nextgrid 5y ago
Profit doesn't have to be equivalent to abuse. The idea that you have to abuse your users to make a profit is a relatively new one pioneered by Silicon Valley scum thanks to anti-competitive practices and lax/non-existent regulation. Before this, we had centuries of businesses who were sustainable by just charging a fair premium on the goods they sold to their customers, and both sides were happy enough with the transaction to continue.
- oblio 5y ago
  Well, considering the context of this thread, are there any social networks not working based on the Silicon Valley model? I don't know any.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    The phone company? You pay them a fee for access and that's it - they have no incentive to prioritize certain callers over others for "engagement"'s sake.
    - oblio 5y ago
      In this context social networks = social media = Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and their ilk, we can't really include AT&T in this conversation :-)
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        Why not? My point is that a communications network doesn't have to be hostile. It is possible to run a communications platform and get people to pay for it.
        oblio 5y ago
        Back in the day? Maybe. Today? Yeah, sure you could create something and try to charge people, but most people are now used to free + ads. You'll never get enough traction to break through to the mainstream, unless something radical changes.