30 ms·

> Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. Well, I suppose that's one take on it. I would argue that people

> Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. Well, I suppose that's one take on it. I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works. You could call it a rugpull, I would call it US business practices.

ecb_penguin 1y ago
> Well, I suppose that's one take on it. It's the correct take. Facebook had 800M users on the day Messenger was released. > I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Why would you argue a nonsense point? Literally all you have to do is Google "when was messenger released" and "number of facebook users in August 2011" Unless you think those 800M users were just waiting for a shitty messenger?
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  This judgement is about Instagram, specifically. Messenger pre-dates Instagram (and very significantly pre-dates the Facebook acquisition of Instagram).
Aurornis 1y ago
> I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. It came long after Facebook was popular. I should have known better than to step into a conversation about Facebook on HN. Doing anything other than blindly agreeing with anti-Facebook comments, even if they’re factually incorrect or illogical, attracts downvotes and more illogical arguments.
- inetknght 1y ago
  > Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. I didn't say it was. Remember, my statement was: ... that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Indeed, I remember using Facebook just for messages. So when Facebook Messenger came out, I used that exclusively. Now, I've long since moved off of Facebook and Facebook Messenger. Some of my family still use it though, and I've seen it. It's not what it used to be. So, I then expanded on that to say: Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works > they’re factually incorrect or illogical So, where's the factually incorrect or illogical argument? The final straw for me to move off of Facebook was Cambridge Analytica. Once I realized how terrible not just Facebook was for not only permitting that kind of shit, but practically inviting it as a feature... that was very telling. And I've since stopped using nearly all social media, present website excluded.
snoman 1y ago
This idea that if you change your app in a way that some people don’t like, then the government legislate your features for you, is just mind boggling to me.
- swiftcoder 1y ago
  I think this really only becomes an issue if the changes you made to your app is in some way affecting democratic elections in that country (and in that case, seems well within the purview of legislation)

ecb_penguin 1y ago

> Well, I suppose that's one take on it. It's the correct take. Facebook had 800M users on the day Messenger was released. > I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Why would you argue a nonsense point? Literally all you have to do is Google "when was messenger released" and "number of facebook users in August 2011" Unless you think those 800M users were just waiting for a shitty messenger?

swiftcoder 1y ago
This judgement is about Instagram, specifically. Messenger pre-dates Instagram (and very significantly pre-dates the Facebook acquisition of Instagram).

Aurornis 1y ago

> I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. It came long after Facebook was popular. I should have known better than to step into a conversation about Facebook on HN. Doing anything other than blindly agreeing with anti-Facebook comments, even if they’re factually incorrect or illogical, attracts downvotes and more illogical arguments.

inetknght 1y ago
> Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. I didn't say it was. Remember, my statement was: ... that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger Indeed, I remember using Facebook just for messages. So when Facebook Messenger came out, I used that exclusively. Now, I've long since moved off of Facebook and Facebook Messenger. Some of my family still use it though, and I've seen it. It's not what it used to be. So, I then expanded on that to say: Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works > they’re factually incorrect or illogical So, where's the factually incorrect or illogical argument? The final straw for me to move off of Facebook was Cambridge Analytica. Once I realized how terrible not just Facebook was for not only permitting that kind of shit, but practically inviting it as a feature... that was very telling. And I've since stopped using nearly all social media, present website excluded.

snoman 1y ago

This idea that if you change your app in a way that some people don’t like, then the government legislate your features for you, is just mind boggling to me.

swiftcoder 1y ago
I think this really only becomes an issue if the changes you made to your app is in some way affecting democratic elections in that country (and in that case, seems well within the purview of legislation)