3 ms·
I agree with most of the article's points, but not with the second one of these two in particular (pasting the first one just to keep the context, I don't disa
by anyfoo 4y ago
I agree with most of the article's points, but not with the second one of these two in particular (pasting the first one just to keep the context, I don't disagree with that one):
"Facebook's friend counts and "like" buttons turned human relations into a depersonalized metrics competition.
Keeping up with the volume of posts became a chore, which was why from 2009 on Facebook's news feed defaulted to an algorithmic, rather than chronological, sort."
I did not find it very difficult or a "chore" to casually keep up with the posts from my friends, and I doubt many others did (or that users even felt they needed to catch up with every update). But just keeping up with my friends likely did not have enough monetary value for Facebook, and that is in almost all certainty the actual reason why Facebook switched to an algorithmic "sort". Which by the way is also a giant misnomer, since it is entirely different content, not just "sorted" differently.
- netsharc 4y ago> But just keeping up with my friends likely did not have enough monetary value for Facebook Idea for a more evil version of Facebook: users can collect points, redeemable for what, Starbucks gift cards? (I remember seeing a Facebook option to gift people that on their birthdays). You gain points depending on the time of day you post (gotta keep them returning to the app/site...) and the topics. And how do we make money? If for example the network knows a friend that likes to read my updates is looking for a car, the network will (since e.g. Ford is paying them) tell me "Write about cars and gain extra points today! Here's a video about the new Ford to inspire you.". Hey Zuck, want to buy my idea? For a few billion dollars I don't mind corrupting the minds of the world just like you did!