7 ms·

If you haven't yet watched Derek's earlier video about "the problem with facebook", you should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g http://www.youtube.co

by lingben 13y ago

If you haven't yet watched Derek's earlier video about "the problem with facebook", you should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g because in it he lays bare several fundamental structural issues about facebook which 99% people don't realize. Well worth the watch. Unless fb changes drastically, it will die a surprisingly fast death.

serg_chernata 13y ago
Thanks for sharing that!
- mentos 13y ago
  Yes thanks for that, I've got a much better understanding now of the roles of the the creator, consumer, advertiser inside Facebook and he makes a good comparison/contrast to YouTube.
bhartzer 13y ago
And Facebook's valuation will disappear equally as fast.
- taigeair 13y ago
  But then again, there were many alternative search engines but not many alternative social networks.
  - phreeza 13y ago
    huh? I do not understand what you are saying, care to explain?
    - hackinthebochs 13y ago
      Google had to be good because there was competition in the search space. Facebook doesn't have to be good because they're the only viable social network.
      - hobs 13y ago
        So was myspace at one point. You can certainly argue that fb has way more mindshare than myspace ever did, and be right, but nothing is eternal on the internet.
        Goladus 13y ago
        Even at its height Myspace never had users at the scale facebook has today. Baby boomers never used myspace like they use facebook.
  - taurath 13y ago
    One can be built in months if it has the right model.
    - cordite 13y ago
      What is the right model?
    - SoftwareMaven 13y ago
      The software is a trivial part of building a social network.
      - flinty 13y ago
        as shown by google with g+. Great web app but not that many users
roryhughes 13y ago
While I agree with much of what is said in the video, you are able to (at the top of the news feed) change from top stories to most recent to get the posts in order of date instead of filtered.
kevando 13y ago
The trouble is this is 100% from the content creator's perspective. From the user perspective, this ends up working out quite well.
- commandar 13y ago
  From a user perspective, I like things because I want to see content. It annoys me to no end that I know I'm missing out on updates from sources I care about because Facebook selectively decides what to show me, and effectively holds my attention hostage.
  - kevando 13y ago
    This is the argument I find confusing...You ask Facebook to curate your news feed and then get upset when they curate it.
    - commandar 13y ago
      Where am I asking Facebook to curate (in this case, read: cull) from posts that I've indicated that I want to see? I'm asking to see posts from something I've explicitly stated an interest in; I'm not asking them to pick and choose a subset that I get to see beyond that.
    - droopyEyelids 13y ago
      Do you believe it's possible for Facebook to improperly curate content?
  - lesterbuck 13y ago
    Can't someone write a browser extension that tracks what you like/have liked, and then builds your own Facebook experience, putting back the content you are missing? Running the entire Facebook data system is daunting, but running my own view of Facebook that I want should be easy to manage in a browser.
    - hnnewguy 13y ago
taigeair 13y ago
This is not good. This won't stand for long. Reminds me of Yahoo advertising based on the buyer's ignorance. Quote: I didn't realize the answer till later, after I went to work at Yahoo. It was neither of my guesses. The reason Yahoo didn't care about a technique that extracted the full value of traffic was that advertisers were already overpaying for it. If they merely extracted the actual value, they'd have made less. Hard as it is to believe now, the big money then was in banner ads. Advertisers were willing to pay ridiculous amounts for banner ads. So Yahoo's sales force had evolved to exploit this source of revenue. Led by a large and terrifyingly formidable man called Anil Singh, Yahoo's sales guys would fly out to Procter & Gamble and come back with million dollar orders for banner ad impressions. The prices seemed cheap compared to print, which was what advertisers, for lack of any other reference, compared them to. But they were expensive compared to what they were worth. So these big, dumb companies were a dangerous source of revenue to depend on. But there was another source even more dangerous: other Internet startups. http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html
KaoruAoiShiho 13y ago
The OP's video is great and identifies a real problem that should be solved. This particular video is naive and pretty bad in my opinion, really disagree.
- mikeg8 13y ago
  I thought this video was spot on as well. Can you explain how/why you really disagree with it's premise? I'm curious to hear your points...
- glomph 13y ago
  They are from the same person!
cinquemb 13y ago
What I don't understand is why doesn't facebook try to leverage it's data and serve contextual/interest ads on other sites in similar way that google does with adsense? I know I would use it with my startup. That way, they don't have to conflate the incentives of the different parties involved as much as they are doing now.
- alexwoz 13y ago
  Pretty sure that's on their roadmap: http://www.wired.com/business/2014/01/facebook-mobile-ad-test/ http://www.wired.com/business/2014/01/facebook-mobile-ad-tes...
- brandnewlow 13y ago
  Those ads typically perform pretty terribly
  - quacker 13y ago
    Something doesn't make sense here... I gathered from other threads that Google's ads are preferred over facebook's. So either Google doesn't do "contextual/interest based" ads, or contextual/interest based ads do not perform terribly (compared to what facebook is currently doing).
    - brandnewlow 13y ago
      Google's search ads perform very well. They capture people in the moment of intent. Google's 3rd party ads perform badly since they are abstracted much further away from live intent, but Google gets away with it because they are pay per click, which implies lower risk for advertisers.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        I don't disagree, but with that logic, maybe facebook could get away with it too. And I didn't suggest it as an either/or thing, just maybe something to reduce the pressure on the current revenue streams. For certain types of sites/products, facebook could give google a run for their money with a competing product.

by lingben 13y ago

serg_chernata 13y ago

Thanks for sharing that!

mentos 13y ago
Yes thanks for that, I've got a much better understanding now of the roles of the the creator, consumer, advertiser inside Facebook and he makes a good comparison/contrast to YouTube.

bhartzer 13y ago

And Facebook's valuation will disappear equally as fast.

taigeair 13y ago
But then again, there were many alternative search engines but not many alternative social networks.
- phreeza 13y ago
  huh? I do not understand what you are saying, care to explain?
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Google had to be good because there was competition in the search space. Facebook doesn't have to be good because they're the only viable social network.
    - hobs 13y ago
      So was myspace at one point. You can certainly argue that fb has way more mindshare than myspace ever did, and be right, but nothing is eternal on the internet.
      - Goladus 13y ago
        Even at its height Myspace never had users at the scale facebook has today. Baby boomers never used myspace like they use facebook.
- taurath 13y ago
  One can be built in months if it has the right model.
  - cordite 13y ago
    What is the right model?
  - SoftwareMaven 13y ago
    The software is a trivial part of building a social network.
    - flinty 13y ago
      as shown by google with g+. Great web app but not that many users

roryhughes 13y ago

While I agree with much of what is said in the video, you are able to (at the top of the news feed) change from top stories to most recent to get the posts in order of date instead of filtered.

kevando 13y ago

The trouble is this is 100% from the content creator's perspective. From the user perspective, this ends up working out quite well.

commandar 13y ago
From a user perspective, I like things because I want to see content. It annoys me to no end that I know I'm missing out on updates from sources I care about because Facebook selectively decides what to show me, and effectively holds my attention hostage.
- kevando 13y ago
  This is the argument I find confusing...You ask Facebook to curate your news feed and then get upset when they curate it.
  - commandar 13y ago
    Where am I asking Facebook to curate (in this case, read: cull) from posts that I've indicated that I want to see? I'm asking to see posts from something I've explicitly stated an interest in; I'm not asking them to pick and choose a subset that I get to see beyond that.
  - droopyEyelids 13y ago
    Do you believe it's possible for Facebook to improperly curate content?
- lesterbuck 13y ago
  Can't someone write a browser extension that tracks what you like/have liked, and then builds your own Facebook experience, putting back the content you are missing? Running the entire Facebook data system is daunting, but running my own view of Facebook that I want should be easy to manage in a browser.
  - hnnewguy 13y ago

taigeair 13y ago

This is not good. This won't stand for long. Reminds me of Yahoo advertising based on the buyer's ignorance. Quote: I didn't realize the answer till later, after I went to work at Yahoo. It was neither of my guesses. The reason Yahoo didn't care about a technique that extracted the full value of traffic was that advertisers were already overpaying for it. If they merely extracted the actual value, they'd have made less. Hard as it is to believe now, the big money then was in banner ads. Advertisers were willing to pay ridiculous amounts for banner ads. So Yahoo's sales force had evolved to exploit this source of revenue. Led by a large and terrifyingly formidable man called Anil Singh, Yahoo's sales guys would fly out to Procter & Gamble and come back with million dollar orders for banner ad impressions. The prices seemed cheap compared to print, which was what advertisers, for lack of any other reference, compared them to. But they were expensive compared to what they were worth. So these big, dumb companies were a dangerous source of revenue to depend on. But there was another source even more dangerous: other Internet startups. http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html http://paulgraham.com/yahoo.html

KaoruAoiShiho 13y ago

The OP's video is great and identifies a real problem that should be solved. This particular video is naive and pretty bad in my opinion, really disagree.

mikeg8 13y ago
I thought this video was spot on as well. Can you explain how/why you really disagree with it's premise? I'm curious to hear your points...
glomph 13y ago
They are from the same person!

cinquemb 13y ago

What I don't understand is why doesn't facebook try to leverage it's data and serve contextual/interest ads on other sites in similar way that google does with adsense? I know I would use it with my startup. That way, they don't have to conflate the incentives of the different parties involved as much as they are doing now.

alexwoz 13y ago
Pretty sure that's on their roadmap: http://www.wired.com/business/2014/01/facebook-mobile-ad-test/ http://www.wired.com/business/2014/01/facebook-mobile-ad-tes...
brandnewlow 13y ago
Those ads typically perform pretty terribly
- quacker 13y ago
  Something doesn't make sense here... I gathered from other threads that Google's ads are preferred over facebook's. So either Google doesn't do "contextual/interest based" ads, or contextual/interest based ads do not perform terribly (compared to what facebook is currently doing).
  - brandnewlow 13y ago
    Google's search ads perform very well. They capture people in the moment of intent. Google's 3rd party ads perform badly since they are abstracted much further away from live intent, but Google gets away with it because they are pay per click, which implies lower risk for advertisers.
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      I don't disagree, but with that logic, maybe facebook could get away with it too. And I didn't suggest it as an either/or thing, just maybe something to reduce the pressure on the current revenue streams. For certain types of sites/products, facebook could give google a run for their money with a competing product.