3 ms·

> Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't beca

by rsolva 3y ago

> Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't because they are better than the alternatives. That isn't a bad thing, for anyone. My argument is the network effect and the lock in. As an individual user, there are no way to leave without being cut of from your groups and friends. The product is not that great in itself, the group functionality in Facebook is a mess, and many other chat apps can do all the important things that Messenger can do. It's the lock-in effect that makes it super inconvenient to leave for most people. I don't have kids and stopped using Facebook in 2018 without to much trouble. I joined the fediverse in 2017 and quit Twitter when Musk blocked me from mentioning my fediverse handle in my bio. But I have cared about this for quite a while, so I saw the writing on the wall and was mentally prepared to jump ship. Most people are not – although that might be changing now, actually.

roenxi 3y ago
I feel your argument that people are locked in to Facebook is undermined somewhat if you quit using it in 2018 and moved to an alternative.
- piva00 3y ago
  Some people do not have this alternative without paying the price of being alienated from activities that are only discussed through Facebook groups or FB Messenger. Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, but now you are not part of the groups interactions there. Your friends and family that don't share the same ideological drive won't increase their friction on communication just because, they will keep using whatever is providing a low friction interaction and network effects increase the friction on leaving a lot. Network effects are huge, when it tips the scale on the friction effort to get rid of the platform they have won, the only way to quit one is if everyone else you care about also move to a different one, that's a massive effort.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal... Sorry, I've missed a step in the thinking here. Why would you do that?
    - piva00 3y ago
      If you oppose closed non-interoperable platforms and prefer open protocols. I'd love to quit at least WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, I don't want Meta snooping on my communications to accumulate data but unfortunately my whole family uses WhatsApp, and in Sweden for some reason people use Facebook Messenger so quitting both would alienate me from communication with 95% of the people I care about. I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it.
      - auggierose 3y ago
        You are complaining that these apps locked people in by making everybody using them. That's hilarious because it is contradictory. The value you derive from these apps is that the people you care about are on them. They wouldn't be if not for "growth hacks".
        piva00 3y ago
        They could work on an interoperable protocol, that's the very clear core component of my complaint which I brought up completely spelled out, think you need to read it once more to help your reading comprehension: the main issue is making those apps not interoperable through a common protocol so I can jump ship when the client goes to shit without losing access to the network of people I care about. You can read it again: > I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it. Is that clearer? It's hilarious you missed that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rsolva 3y ago
  I quit after a few years of preparation, moving communications with my friends and family over to other messaging apps. It took time, and I had to accept that my extended network was still locked up in Facebook. If I had kids I fear that this would have been much harder.

by rsolva 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

I feel your argument that people are locked in to Facebook is undermined somewhat if you quit using it in 2018 and moved to an alternative.

piva00 3y ago
Some people do not have this alternative without paying the price of being alienated from activities that are only discussed through Facebook groups or FB Messenger. Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, but now you are not part of the groups interactions there. Your friends and family that don't share the same ideological drive won't increase their friction on communication just because, they will keep using whatever is providing a low friction interaction and network effects increase the friction on leaving a lot. Network effects are huge, when it tips the scale on the friction effort to get rid of the platform they have won, the only way to quit one is if everyone else you care about also move to a different one, that's a massive effort.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal... Sorry, I've missed a step in the thinking here. Why would you do that?
  - piva00 3y ago
    If you oppose closed non-interoperable platforms and prefer open protocols. I'd love to quit at least WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, I don't want Meta snooping on my communications to accumulate data but unfortunately my whole family uses WhatsApp, and in Sweden for some reason people use Facebook Messenger so quitting both would alienate me from communication with 95% of the people I care about. I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it.
    - auggierose 3y ago
      You are complaining that these apps locked people in by making everybody using them. That's hilarious because it is contradictory. The value you derive from these apps is that the people you care about are on them. They wouldn't be if not for "growth hacks".
      - piva00 3y ago
        They could work on an interoperable protocol, that's the very clear core component of my complaint which I brought up completely spelled out, think you need to read it once more to help your reading comprehension: the main issue is making those apps not interoperable through a common protocol so I can jump ship when the client goes to shit without losing access to the network of people I care about. You can read it again: > I would prefer using a communication app that relies on a common protocol and can interoperate with different clients, so I could move clients in case one starts to act shady (in this case, Telegram can be a bit shady at times), those don't exist anymore, XMPP is basically dead and nothing has replaced it. Is that clearer? It's hilarious you missed that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rsolva 3y ago
I quit after a few years of preparation, moving communications with my friends and family over to other messaging apps. It took time, and I had to accept that my extended network was still locked up in Facebook. If I had kids I fear that this would have been much harder.