5 ms·
This is the correct decision, IMO. I only use Facebook in a limited capacity (one phenomenal private group whose usefulness is unfortunately simply unmatched e
by dofm 2mo ago
This is the correct decision, IMO.
I only use Facebook in a limited capacity (one phenomenal private group whose usefulness is unfortunately simply unmatched elsewhere, one infrequently updated page and a very locked-down, minimal personal profile).
I think people need to understand what the purpose of Facebook is in terms of its function and constituent parts, in the Stafford Beer sense, and I think if enough people simply can't avoid that truth, it will eventually shrink.
Adblocking lets some people pretend Facebook isn't a privacy hellhole for everyone they talk to. There is essentially no way to use it that doesn't abuse your data privacy, for one thing, but prolonging the impression that it can be ameliorated is a mistake.
- burnte 2mo agoI only use FB for the occasional Marketplace sale/purchase because the rest of the site is a cesspool of nonsense and toxic ragebait. It's impossible to only see your friends updates now, so it's lost 99% of it's utility. Letting people see how awful it is will force folks to either leave or Facebook to fix itself, which will never happen. It seems like execs prefer to drive companies into the ground and bankruptcy court rather than change them to be more user friendly.
- dylan604 2mo agoThe vast majority of FB users see the unfiltered site, yet they are not leaving contrary to your theory. FB does not seem to be anywhere near the ground or bankruptcy court. These are very strange things you're commenting about one of the largest companies on the planet.
- dofm 2mo agoI mean, obviously Facebook is not in financial difficulty. But it is, at some level, culturally dying. It is very evident. It would not be loss of revenue that troubled Facebook, for years at least — it would be slowing engagement and lower demand for reach.
- bennettnate5 2mo agoMost people I've talked to actually use the "friends feed" in the menu that shows literally only what your friends have posted and nothing else; that could be my friend bias though
- alex1138 2mo ago> not leaving It's hard to leave a monopoly, and you can't contact your friends any other way https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 Anecdotally, someone I know deleted their account, had it reactivated (the site did this) and now they show up on People You May Know. Plenty of other people have tried deleting it and found it nigh impossible
- inigyou 2mo agoReally? You don't have their phone numbers?
- account42 2mo agoI think its more accurate to say that it seems hard, which admittedly is likely enough to get a lot of people to not try. Friends you can only contract through Facebook are not very deep friends.
- alex1138 2mo agoYes but it's like saying the only social media you need is email That's great if you already can reach everyone. But Facebook in theory is meant to cater to the lost-touch-with-person years ago thing
- freehorse 2mo ago> yet they are not leaving Are you so sure? Anecdotally, I know increasingly more people who either left the platform or stopped using it last years, and this seems to be a pattern if we believe online sources [0]. Of course many stay, but the platform gets worse and worse ime. I visit facebook only for events and some groups that I cannot avoid, so I just enter specific pages there than navigating feeds. But looking at the normal feed, it is just so bad. Complete nonsense, irrelevant stuff and more and more AI generated slop. If we exclude some groups, no real, organic people actually post (except some influencers). For those who stay, assuming they do not get the "friends feed", I am really unsure how they can tolerate that. [0] https://policy.economy.ac/news/2026/05/202605289098 https://policy.economy.ac/news/2026/05/202605289098
- stubish 2mo agoAnd thus the social media addiction lawsuits and age gating are gaining traction. It seems clear the problem isn't going to solve itself, so society is turning to regulation.
- burnte 2mo agoFB is losing users, especially amongst younger demo groups. There's a wave of AI craptent on the platform driving people away. Google also sees high profits right now but it's from squeezing, not improvement and customer happiness.
- beloch 2mo agoWhere Facebook has gone, I fear other U.S. social media is headed. Reddit recently blocked access to old.reddit.com for users who are not logged in, which suggests they're doubling down on user tracking. On top of that are the increasing privacy, censorship, and disinformation concerns that come with using any U.S.-based social media. There is clearly a need for facebook/reddit alternatives for useful groups like the one you describe. There are things like Mastodon out there, but they haven't gained much traction. What will it take to get people off of platforms that are actively hostile to their users? What is keeping existing alternatives from being used?
- eszed 2mo ago> Reddit recently blocked access to old.reddit.com for users who are not logged in They haven't for me (just tested before posting this comment), which I realize might be temporary. Have they published a policy, or did you get caught in A/B testing hell?
- anvuong 2mo agoI was blocked as well, so did my wife. A quick google search shows thousands of complaints on, ironically, Reddit itself. So it's probably not just an A/B test, more likely a gradual rollout.
- johnnyanmac 2mo agoProbably a phased rollout based on region. I was blocked almost a month ago and never got back in.
- rootusrootus 2mo agoThey did publish a policy and announced it a month or so back. Phased rollout, it took a while before it started applying to me. But now I am unable to use old.reddit at all, and I can only use new reddit on a desktop browser - and only for a little while until it covers the content and tells me I have to login to continue. I know why they did this, I get it, but they did me a favor by severely curbing the time I might otherwise waste on their web site. For that I thank them.
- not_a_bot_4sho 2mo agoI don't mean personal offense to you but I find the heavily qualified "I don't support this person/organization but I support this person/organization" doublespeak to be frustrating. Not just your comment. It's all over the place here. But maybe I shouldn't be throwing stones in my glass house. I smoked cigarettes for a few years on college, knew they were terrible for me and for those around me, but continued for too long because I frankly enjoyed the pleasure.
- dofm 2mo agoIt’s not doublespeak, just context. I am saying: I alas use it like almost everyone else, because I more or less have to. It would be a lie if I said I don’t, and my critique would be of little value if i didn’t. I do use it minimally and locked down, as I say; three family members as friends, an old page I need to manage, and a doodle for a profile photo. But I am seeing all the problems I am talking about. I don’t think people need to leave, necessarily, and I cannot urge them to do so. But I do think people should shrink their engagement with it, use it as little as is feasible, shrink their footprint, allow it less, so Facebook changes. Unfortunately it is a big part of life on the internet, it’s often people’s literal job to be there, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.
- Vinnl 2mo ago> I think people need to understand what the purpose of Facebook is in terms of its function and constituent parts Given how many people do not yet use adblockers, I don't have much reason to believe that this will lead to significant amounts of people suddenly seeing this.