3 ms·

It's funny; as I've been working on Haven[1], one of my guiding lights is what Facebook _could have been_[2]. To that end the opening section is really inspiri

by mawise 2y ago

It's funny; as I've been working on Haven[1], one of my guiding lights is what Facebook _could have been_[2]. To that end the opening section is really inspiring. This is describing a world where digital tools enhance your friendships. I think that's still possible and still a worthwhile goal--I just don't think it can be done by an entity with a corporate incentive structure. Those incentives will always tend towards enshittification[3]. [1]: https://havenweb.org https://havenweb.org [2]: https://havenweb.org/2022/11/02/facebook-lie.html https://havenweb.org/2022/11/02/facebook-lie.html [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification#

nashashmi 2y ago
> what Facebook _could have been_ In 2010, facebook changed. Twitter was cooler. Myspace was more money. So facebook took a page out of their platforms. In 2012, facebook went to Washington DC. In 2016, Washington DC went to facebook. When did facebook change? When zuck lost control of it after sandberg came on board. When did zuck get control? When zuck changed to be in alliance with the master plan… which was take control of the world… politically. Remember zuck running for election?
- ninth_ant 2y ago
  Oh my god, no. Zuck had — and I believe still has — complete control of the company. Demonizing Sandberg and lionizing Zuckerberg is a complete disservice to reality. It was the focus on growth and not money that ruined everything. Many changes occurred in this period. I was there. A big change is that ads became profitable. I think it’s fair to say this change was sudden. Facebook went from being scrappy and underfunded to being wealthy and powerful. At the same time, the growth had eclipsed competitors and Google Plus came and went. The media tone and coverage changed from “oh this startup is doing neat stuff” to a point concern for data privacy and the implosion of journalism revenue. So they became a lot more influential culturally. Being suddenly wealthy and influential but with a cultural mentality of being a scrappy and upstart— something this book accurately reflects — lead to hubris. The focus on hypergrowth which had served them well from a small startup — under the umbrella of this hubris — led to events like the Cambridge Analytica disaster. Insufficient care was being placed on how data could be collected and misused by others, growth took priority. This focus on Hypergrowth meant that changes that responded well in metrics got pushed. The longer-term damage of people not enjoying their experiences wasn’t a high enough ranked metric compared to engagement and user metrics. None of this was Sandberg’s fault. She was an extremely competent manager and is brilliant. Absolutely she was instrumental in leading Facebook to profitability but this push wasn’t a big factor in their decline. Instead, Facebook got too big way too fast and the employees and Zuck didn’t have the mindset shift needed to consider everything as it was happening. Yes, money ruined everything eventually — but that came later. The most crucial damage had already happened — people gave up on trust that Facebook could handle their data responsibly, and trust that they’d have a good experience on the site. I could go on but that’s enough.
  - mgiampapa 2y ago
    I think FB turned the corner when Mark stopped driving his Acura. I'm not sure when I last saw it at building 16, but that was the date for me.
    - ninth_ant 2y ago
      I don't think what car he was driving was a factor at all. He had incredible wealth even before this, driving a cheap old car is effectively just a stunt to promote a specific kind of public image. Which is fine, but it's somewhat irrelevant. The change happened because FB didn't internalize quickly or deeply enough that the mindset that got them to defeat MySpace wasn't the mindset they needed to become a trusted service for the long-term. Obviously yes it still exists but it's an absolute shell of what it could have been had this not been squandered -- which is the point that the parent comment was addressing.
    - gopher_space 2y ago
      I know like three people who bought cars they couldn't park near their employees in good conscience, and I think there's a point where obvious disparity starts doing things to your brain. Almost like a "I don't owe, but I should pay more, but I don't owe..." thought process that leads to moral vapor lock. I think there used to be more release valves for this pressure. There aren't any tithing billionaires, for example.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    > The most crucial damage had already happened — people gave up on trust that Facebook could handle their data responsibly, and trust that they’d have a good experience on the site. I think it was also that people were beginning to see the consequences of “over sharing” with people you’d never normally share things with. The vision of connecting everybody sounds great but not everybody needs, wants or even should hear everything everybody else says. And once such a realization comes about, away goes the linear timeline and in comes a more algorithmic approach. Suddenly your own posts get algorithmiclly ranked, sorted and filtered by every person on your friends list. And to get your post to show up on their feed you have to please an algorithm first in order to get permission. Thus comes a whole host of negative social interaction and toxicity. I dunno. Maybe the decline of things like Facebook are simply because society “figured out through lived experience” what the end game of a tool like facebook looks like.
- bagels 2y ago
  You don't think Zuck has much control over the company? What evidence do you have?

by mawise 2y ago

nashashmi 2y ago

> what Facebook _could have been_ In 2010, facebook changed. Twitter was cooler. Myspace was more money. So facebook took a page out of their platforms. In 2012, facebook went to Washington DC. In 2016, Washington DC went to facebook. When did facebook change? When zuck lost control of it after sandberg came on board. When did zuck get control? When zuck changed to be in alliance with the master plan… which was take control of the world… politically. Remember zuck running for election?

ninth_ant 2y ago
Oh my god, no. Zuck had — and I believe still has — complete control of the company. Demonizing Sandberg and lionizing Zuckerberg is a complete disservice to reality. It was the focus on growth and not money that ruined everything. Many changes occurred in this period. I was there. A big change is that ads became profitable. I think it’s fair to say this change was sudden. Facebook went from being scrappy and underfunded to being wealthy and powerful. At the same time, the growth had eclipsed competitors and Google Plus came and went. The media tone and coverage changed from “oh this startup is doing neat stuff” to a point concern for data privacy and the implosion of journalism revenue. So they became a lot more influential culturally. Being suddenly wealthy and influential but with a cultural mentality of being a scrappy and upstart— something this book accurately reflects — lead to hubris. The focus on hypergrowth which had served them well from a small startup — under the umbrella of this hubris — led to events like the Cambridge Analytica disaster. Insufficient care was being placed on how data could be collected and misused by others, growth took priority. This focus on Hypergrowth meant that changes that responded well in metrics got pushed. The longer-term damage of people not enjoying their experiences wasn’t a high enough ranked metric compared to engagement and user metrics. None of this was Sandberg’s fault. She was an extremely competent manager and is brilliant. Absolutely she was instrumental in leading Facebook to profitability but this push wasn’t a big factor in their decline. Instead, Facebook got too big way too fast and the employees and Zuck didn’t have the mindset shift needed to consider everything as it was happening. Yes, money ruined everything eventually — but that came later. The most crucial damage had already happened — people gave up on trust that Facebook could handle their data responsibly, and trust that they’d have a good experience on the site. I could go on but that’s enough.
- mgiampapa 2y ago
  I think FB turned the corner when Mark stopped driving his Acura. I'm not sure when I last saw it at building 16, but that was the date for me.
  - ninth_ant 2y ago
    I don't think what car he was driving was a factor at all. He had incredible wealth even before this, driving a cheap old car is effectively just a stunt to promote a specific kind of public image. Which is fine, but it's somewhat irrelevant. The change happened because FB didn't internalize quickly or deeply enough that the mindset that got them to defeat MySpace wasn't the mindset they needed to become a trusted service for the long-term. Obviously yes it still exists but it's an absolute shell of what it could have been had this not been squandered -- which is the point that the parent comment was addressing.
  - gopher_space 2y ago
    I know like three people who bought cars they couldn't park near their employees in good conscience, and I think there's a point where obvious disparity starts doing things to your brain. Almost like a "I don't owe, but I should pay more, but I don't owe..." thought process that leads to moral vapor lock. I think there used to be more release valves for this pressure. There aren't any tithing billionaires, for example.
- cruffle_duffle 2y ago
  > The most crucial damage had already happened — people gave up on trust that Facebook could handle their data responsibly, and trust that they’d have a good experience on the site. I think it was also that people were beginning to see the consequences of “over sharing” with people you’d never normally share things with. The vision of connecting everybody sounds great but not everybody needs, wants or even should hear everything everybody else says. And once such a realization comes about, away goes the linear timeline and in comes a more algorithmic approach. Suddenly your own posts get algorithmiclly ranked, sorted and filtered by every person on your friends list. And to get your post to show up on their feed you have to please an algorithm first in order to get permission. Thus comes a whole host of negative social interaction and toxicity. I dunno. Maybe the decline of things like Facebook are simply because society “figured out through lived experience” what the end game of a tool like facebook looks like.
bagels 2y ago
You don't think Zuck has much control over the company? What evidence do you have?