Facebook Research Warned of ‘Tipping Point’ Threat to Core App(theinformation.com)
theinformation.com
Facebook Research Warned of ‘Tipping Point’ Threat to Core App
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facebook-secret-research-warned-of-tipping-point-threat-to-core-app?pu=hackernewsotjyc7&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock&utm_content=facebook-secret-research
170 comments
Enjoy insta while it lasts. They are having more and more sponsored posts creep into the feed. I don’t expect this trend to reverse. It’s how they make money.
Somehow I have zero ads on instagram. I don't know how that happened, but I suspect it has to do with a period of time on facebook where I was just marking every ad as not relevant to me. Everytime I visited, I'd let their system know that any type of ad doesn't suit me.
So maybe that tricked the system? My only other theory would be that they somehow know I wouldn't use the service at all if it had ads. I'm a fickle user who happens to produce some quality, original artwork for their service.
So maybe that tricked the system? My only other theory would be that they somehow know I wouldn't use the service at all if it had ads. I'm a fickle user who happens to produce some quality, original artwork for their service.
Indeed it seems that half the things I see are sponsored posts when just a year or two, they were few and far between. Also, the quality of the content has decreased dramatically.
I like replying to sponsored posts with comments that the sponsor would probably not classify as a 'positive engagement' ;-)
I'm not actually a big fan of Instagram. Its format restrictions and mobile-only upload may be contributing to it having more interesting content for the moment, but I'm convinced Facebook could achieve a more interesting feed by changing the algorithm as well.
I don't mind terribly if there are a few sponsored posts in any of my social media feeds. I suspect the acceptable rate is somewhere around one per five original content posts.
I don't mind terribly if there are a few sponsored posts in any of my social media feeds. I suspect the acceptable rate is somewhere around one per five original content posts.
The thing I enjoy most about the sponsored posts is seeing people rip into the product in the comments.
Confirmed. Last time I checked, every 6th post was an ad. Just checked and it’s now every 5th.
There’s several large magazines that are 50% ad content. I bet that’s the ceiling.
There’s several large magazines that are 50% ad content. I bet that’s the ceiling.
Just checked mine. Every third post was a sponsored ad. This is why I have mostly stopped going on Instagram.
I see. It’s at least every fifth for me. An there’s some cases where it’s 3 or 4. Depends on what content they’re sandwiching.
Second post is always an ad. There’s an ad before they tell you you’re all caught up. And it looks like followed tags effect that ratio as well.
Second post is always an ad. There’s an ad before they tell you you’re all caught up. And it looks like followed tags effect that ratio as well.
For a print publication, maybe.
If you go above 50% ads, some print pages will be ads on both sides, and both may easily be ripped out and discarded--the earliest ad-blocker tech.
If you go above 50% ads, some print pages will be ads on both sides, and both may easily be ripped out and discarded--the earliest ad-blocker tech.
Back in the late 80s and 90s, there was the magazine Computer Shopper that was easily 90%+ advertising. It was incredibly popular.
That was because it was the only way people could buy computers that weren't pre-selected by Compaq, Dell or IBM. It was a 100% paid-placement catalog.
Pretty quickly I figured out that articles by Steven J Vaughan-Nichols were worth reading and the rest were generally not. But the ads were what we were looking for.
Pretty quickly I figured out that articles by Steven J Vaughan-Nichols were worth reading and the rest were generally not. But the ads were what we were looking for.
Adorable that you think they would be satisfied at 50% ad content!
I have mentioned this before here - instagram ads are a bit too creepy. I have had multiple personal ads that were eerily accurate and I hadn’t even discussed these things over any written form. I’m not paranoid to think they are listening to the microphone but the coincidence is super uncanny. It crossed the line for me twice in the past few months alone.
You should be, the Facebook app explicitly does listen to the mic unless you opt out. It has also come out that Google and Amazon are storing people's personal voice requests, and aside from that the mics are always on waiting to hear the trigger words. This means by default that the apps are listening and analyzing everything, though how much of the non word-triggered speech gets recorded is unknown.
Facebook's initial foray into the app/mic biz was troubled and their statement was "we only listen for popular music / TV in the background in order to help you." It also came out that they mine personal messages between users.
"I’m not paranoid to think they are listening to the microphone but the coincidence is super uncanny."
We need to get past the block where we label people as paranoid for thinking these big corps might invade user's privacy.
Facebook's initial foray into the app/mic biz was troubled and their statement was "we only listen for popular music / TV in the background in order to help you." It also came out that they mine personal messages between users.
"I’m not paranoid to think they are listening to the microphone but the coincidence is super uncanny."
We need to get past the block where we label people as paranoid for thinking these big corps might invade user's privacy.
The Facebook app, on iPhone at least, requires you to opt in to giving it microphone access.
I've seen the myth that Facebook is targeting ads based on what it hears debunked several times. Do you have a source that shows that it is in fact listening?
I think it's more likely that the same reason someone is talking about something (they're in a demographic interested in that thing) is the reason that Facebook gives you ads for that thing. Add in the Baader-Meinhof effect and it seems like Facebook is listening to your conversations.
I've seen the myth that Facebook is targeting ads based on what it hears debunked several times. Do you have a source that shows that it is in fact listening?
I think it's more likely that the same reason someone is talking about something (they're in a demographic interested in that thing) is the reason that Facebook gives you ads for that thing. Add in the Baader-Meinhof effect and it seems like Facebook is listening to your conversations.
I am so frustrated by this "debunking", because it defies logic and experience.
Let's say Facebook NEVER listens to you... I'm 100% on board with them and their honesty. It still doesn't matter.
If you let ANY third party app listen to you, and identify you, for example the latest Candy Crush game, then your information along with preferences are being uploaded to databases for re-targeting.
When I do a big campaign in Facebook, or any sophisticated marketer does, I don't ask Facebook for users who like Cats and are looking for brands of organic cat food. I PROVIDE them a pre-vetted list of people looking for cat food that I generated and the emails associated with those Facebook accounts.
Facebook has NO WAY to know how I came up with my list, and no possible way to find out. It could have been from listening to conversations while someone played Candy Crush, or it could have been from a form submitted on my website.
One of these days I'm just going to actually document myself doing this and publish it to a website so more people understand what is happening and how easy it is to use data from people's conversations.
TLDR: Any time you buy a list of potential customers from a market research company, that data could have been gathered with conversation tracking. It's not Facebook's fault, it's just the reality.
Let's say Facebook NEVER listens to you... I'm 100% on board with them and their honesty. It still doesn't matter.
If you let ANY third party app listen to you, and identify you, for example the latest Candy Crush game, then your information along with preferences are being uploaded to databases for re-targeting.
When I do a big campaign in Facebook, or any sophisticated marketer does, I don't ask Facebook for users who like Cats and are looking for brands of organic cat food. I PROVIDE them a pre-vetted list of people looking for cat food that I generated and the emails associated with those Facebook accounts.
Facebook has NO WAY to know how I came up with my list, and no possible way to find out. It could have been from listening to conversations while someone played Candy Crush, or it could have been from a form submitted on my website.
One of these days I'm just going to actually document myself doing this and publish it to a website so more people understand what is happening and how easy it is to use data from people's conversations.
TLDR: Any time you buy a list of potential customers from a market research company, that data could have been gathered with conversation tracking. It's not Facebook's fault, it's just the reality.
You're not wrong. "Data laundering" is a thing. There's a lot of industry concern around the quality/accuracy of 3rd party data segments from various brokers, DMPs and DSPs, but often times they are complete black boxes in terms of their source data.
same on Android .. and microphone is among the permissions I very rarely give to any app.
Thinking about it, I might just remove it from Google as well since I don't really use voice search.
Thinking about it, I might just remove it from Google as well since I don't really use voice search.
> The Facebook app, on iPhone at least, requires you to opt in to giving it microphone access.
I just double-checked, and I have mine turned off. So, "requires"?
I just double-checked, and I have mine turned off. So, "requires"?
"You should be, the Facebook app explicitly does listen to the mic unless you opt out."
Evidence? Every time someone claims this it gets debunked.
Evidence? Every time someone claims this it gets debunked.
Give me one reliable source for any of your claims.
You may not have put in anything directly but they have stuff about a lot of the people you follow, recommendations to you and ML that analyzes your habits to better find info about you. Who knows what computers can infer based on all these inputs? At this point they own so much data based on all these connections they likely do not need to listen. It would be good if these companies had to be a little more transparent about how they connect all the dots.
Does the quality of the ads you see really make you confident that they're paying attention to all of these data points and have an amazing algorithm that ties it all together?
For me this only started happening after I offered feedback aka "Don't show me ads like this any more."
Of course I realized shortly thereafter: "Do I really want better targeted ads on my Instagram feed?"
It's a little too late now but if I had to do it over again I would let it guess, mostly poorly, and that makes it easier to filter out the sponsored content.
Of course I realized shortly thereafter: "Do I really want better targeted ads on my Instagram feed?"
It's a little too late now but if I had to do it over again I would let it guess, mostly poorly, and that makes it easier to filter out the sponsored content.
You can always give it incorrect data to train with :) I've been muting ads from the twitter account of every ad I've seen on twitter and the tweets I get are really, really weird and often more interesting than the tweets it gave me to begin with (because now I'm mostly down to the ads that some random person spent $5 promoting as a joke). But there was a weird 2 month period where twitter was trying to determine what I did want to see and actually had real inventory to play with, and it was hilarious how wrong it would get me sometimes. As far as I can tell, this is the only way to keep your privacy - to confuse the algorithms by overloading them with random data.
Along these lines I don't have a Facebook, have tracker blockers, and other stuff. Spotify used to give me the strangest ads. I'd get some for super cuts. Then an ad about hair loss (I'm under 30 and my dad still doesn't have gray hair). Then ads in Spanish from Jared's (not even dating anyone. Plus these seemed to be targeted at women). Also I'd get TONs of ads for Spotify premium. Those were literally all the ads I got. (stopped using Spotify because after I started paying, maybe those ads worked, their Linux app broke and they said they didn't care about fixing it)
[deleted]
Perhaps other people have been discussing your personal issues in written form?
Honest question. Would you actually rather have them send false hits and hide how much they're tracking?
I ask this because in that infamous Forbes article about Target and the pregnant girl they mention how they now add ads for things they don't think you are interested in, in an effort to creep people out less. (To me this feels a little worse) Plenty of groups do purposefully send false hits to make it less creepy to the target.
I ask this because in that infamous Forbes article about Target and the pregnant girl they mention how they now add ads for things they don't think you are interested in, in an effort to creep people out less. (To me this feels a little worse) Plenty of groups do purposefully send false hits to make it less creepy to the target.
Someone did an experiment where they talked Spanish into their phone, cold, and the ads started showing up in Spanish later.
They are all over the place for me. I also get a ton of strange ones that are made to look like regular people just taking pictures of themselves, I guess aspiring models? I don't even engage with IG models...I swear.
Instagram thinks that I have influence over jet fighter buying decisions, they're not that good (despite the invasive methods that they surely use).
I've had the opposite experience with ads on Instagram. It shows me ads for cat products (I don't have a cat), code bootcamps (I have decades of programming experience), and for a while repeatedly showed the same ad for a job as a flight instructor (I have no qualifications for such a job).
I don't know how anyone still uses Instagram. It was an amazing app pre-aquisition, and Facebook managed to completely destroy everything that was good about it
You may believe that, and I'm sure it's true to a certain degree, but Instagram has seen absurd growth since the Facebook acquisition. Without Instagram, Facebook would likely be in a crisis right now over its aging userbase and decelerating growth. The Instagram app is probably nearly as valuable as the Facebook app at this point.
I'm not arguing that it isn't successful, but Facebook still managed to modify it the point that it lost 100% of its usefulness to me.
It was at its best when you could follow accounts, all of the posts of the people you follow would be displayed chronologically, and clicking on a hashtag would also display all posts under that tag chronologically.
Facebook removed the chronological order of the timeline, made it so you will not see all posts from the people you follow, started injecting posts and ads from accounts I do not follow, and did the same with hashtags where you will only see posts facebook decides you should see via their algorithm. Also, engagement with my page decreased 100-500% across the board and my consistent growth stopped entirely as I was not an "influencer" so people that followed me and checked my hashtags would rarely even see my posts
Facebook changed Instagram from an extremely functional social app that allowed you to easily interact with and become parts of niche communities, to a useless ad platform that limits your interactivity and connectivity to anything that you actually want to see to push you to whoever pays Facebook or whatever the algorithm decides what should be popular which ends up being the same garbage content that has plagued Facebook for years
It was at its best when you could follow accounts, all of the posts of the people you follow would be displayed chronologically, and clicking on a hashtag would also display all posts under that tag chronologically.
Facebook removed the chronological order of the timeline, made it so you will not see all posts from the people you follow, started injecting posts and ads from accounts I do not follow, and did the same with hashtags where you will only see posts facebook decides you should see via their algorithm. Also, engagement with my page decreased 100-500% across the board and my consistent growth stopped entirely as I was not an "influencer" so people that followed me and checked my hashtags would rarely even see my posts
Facebook changed Instagram from an extremely functional social app that allowed you to easily interact with and become parts of niche communities, to a useless ad platform that limits your interactivity and connectivity to anything that you actually want to see to push you to whoever pays Facebook or whatever the algorithm decides what should be popular which ends up being the same garbage content that has plagued Facebook for years
I quit Instagram for a couple of months or so, and came back last week, and now I'm shown one ad every 2-3 posts, no exceptions. It was so overbearing that I started counting, and I did not get a single stretch of more than three posts without an ad thrown in. So I just uninstalled it.
If you have a content blocker turned on in iOS, install the PWA version of Instagram - it will remove all sponsored posts.
The PWA version is almost as good as the native app. It lacks a pull to refresh feature as far as I can tell, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The PWA version is almost as good as the native app. It lacks a pull to refresh feature as far as I can tell, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
What I would love on iOS would be an isolated container like the Multi-account Containers on Firefox desktop. With a PWA, how are the cookies (and local storage) stored and handled? Do they all live with Safari's cookies? Or do they have their own cookie container that's isolated from the rest of the system? If it were the former, I wouldn't want that.
I regularly use Firefox Focus (which is also the system wide content blocker for me), but it doesn't seem like its blocking rules are updated often. Not sure if that's because of some limit in the number of rules allowed per blocking extension.
I regularly use Firefox Focus (which is also the system wide content blocker for me), but it doesn't seem like its blocking rules are updated often. Not sure if that's because of some limit in the number of rules allowed per blocking extension.
Great suggestion. It’s actually a pretty solid experience. Only other difference is that it does not auto play videos on feed or story.
Maybe that’s a feature for some though.
Maybe that’s a feature for some though.
This has been my experience as well.
Equally annoying are the notifications menu (the actual notifications, I disabled a long time ago). I've been relying on them since the feed is useless but now they too have become cluttered with things like "posts you may have missed".
I would love a platform that is just original content (text and original media), and where any links are just text WITHOUT previews. Kinda like how Twitter used to be… but they seem to be heading in the same direction as FB, just less aggressively.
Equally annoying are the notifications menu (the actual notifications, I disabled a long time ago). I've been relying on them since the feed is useless but now they too have become cluttered with things like "posts you may have missed".
I would love a platform that is just original content (text and original media), and where any links are just text WITHOUT previews. Kinda like how Twitter used to be… but they seem to be heading in the same direction as FB, just less aggressively.
My problem with twitter has always been that it tries very hard to discourage content with much depth. There are more ways around the fact that every tweet has to be bite-size than there used to be, and the character limit is higher, but the fundamental model remains the same.
Facebook has taken some steps in the same direction too, hiding any long post or comment behind a "read more" link and offering flashy backgrounds for 130 characters or less (plus enlarged text for 85 characters or less).
This comment doesn't fit in a tweet. It doesn't even fit into two tweets.
Facebook has taken some steps in the same direction too, hiding any long post or comment behind a "read more" link and offering flashy backgrounds for 130 characters or less (plus enlarged text for 85 characters or less).
This comment doesn't fit in a tweet. It doesn't even fit into two tweets.
The entire purpose of twitter seems to be to say the most outrageous thing possible to gain the most attention and the most retweets and popularity to drive 'engagement'. It is the exact opposite of what I want out of social media. The loudest, most obnoxious voices are the ones I care about the least.
> I would love a platform that is just original content (text and original media), and where any links are just text WITHOUT previews.
I've got this vague idea in my head of a WordPress plugin that cooperates with other WordPress installations with the plugin, such that your own blog could turn into a social network. So you publish content to your blog, and your blog pulls content from your friends' blogs with the plugin, and you can all comment on each other's posts and stuff. Tack on some kind of slick mobile app for uploading pictures and the like. I dunno.
I've got this vague idea in my head of a WordPress plugin that cooperates with other WordPress installations with the plugin, such that your own blog could turn into a social network. So you publish content to your blog, and your blog pulls content from your friends' blogs with the plugin, and you can all comment on each other's posts and stuff. Tack on some kind of slick mobile app for uploading pictures and the like. I dunno.
Did you just invent webrings and RSS?
Hahah! Well, modern tech is all about re-inventing what we already had in the 90s isn't it?
But seriously what I have in mind is a lot more interactive than that. Roughly, your blog becomes your "account". You can follow other "accounts" (blogs), and you give other "accounts" permission to post on your blog in the form of comments, etc. When you change details on your account, like a profile image or whatever, it will get updated on all the linked accounts that follow you. I dunno, it all works pretty elegantly in my head.
But seriously what I have in mind is a lot more interactive than that. Roughly, your blog becomes your "account". You can follow other "accounts" (blogs), and you give other "accounts" permission to post on your blog in the form of comments, etc. When you change details on your account, like a profile image or whatever, it will get updated on all the linked accounts that follow you. I dunno, it all works pretty elegantly in my head.
Look into the Indieweb[1] and Webmentions[2]. Still really early days, but they're what you're after, I think. Well, if you're talking about commenting on others' posts. I'd think to follow, you'd use RSS or ActivityPub.
[1]: https://indieweb.org/ [2]: https://indieweb.org/Webmention
[1]: https://indieweb.org/ [2]: https://indieweb.org/Webmention
It was called "trackback", and it never quite solved the spam problem.
That's how platform would eventually make money. First hook the users on original content then serve the ads until everyone gets tired of that and stops using the app.
I believe that non-comercial social networks like Mastodon are then only places that can consistently show original content without eventually turning bad.
Unfortunately there is not a lot of people hanging out there, personally it's been hard for me to pull my friends away from twitter.
I believe that non-comercial social networks like Mastodon are then only places that can consistently show original content without eventually turning bad.
Unfortunately there is not a lot of people hanging out there, personally it's been hard for me to pull my friends away from twitter.
I find that IG has at LEAST as many ads as FB. I use both regularly; I prefer Facebook because of the "community of friends and family" feel to it, but I'm sure I use it less than I used to. Part of the problem for me was engaging with groups more. They're easier to 'ignore' for a week and not feel like you missed anything, and if your feed is more and more group stuff it's easy to feel like you don't have 'time' for it, where the friends+family stuff beckons to me more.
Twitter is basically complete toxic trash and I don't touch it.
Twitter is basically complete toxic trash and I don't touch it.
I've had a similar experience. Back in the days I used to have interesting talks with a bunch of people from overlapping networks, and met a lot of friends that way. Nowadays I'm just spammed by all the rubbish posted by people I shallowly know while the people I want to keep in touch with are invisible. It's been years since I've actually met somebody interesting on FB.
They're actively obfuscating valuable content for their users to force-feed them with content that's valuable to themselves.
Exactly this -- it's gotten to the point for me that anytime I see a post that isn't original, I click the little drop-down arrow (in the upper right-hand corner of the post) and click 'Hide all Posts from [Spammer Name]'.
There's a few friends that I've considered un-following completely because of how many times I've had to do this on their posts. One of them is my brother-in-law -- I called him out on it the last time I saw him, he admitted it's gotten out of hand.
It's baffling how many dumb meme pages there are. But even more baffling, is how many people actually have the motivation to maintain those meme pages. The people that are willingly following them, well, I've lost hope for them.
There's a few friends that I've considered un-following completely because of how many times I've had to do this on their posts. One of them is my brother-in-law -- I called him out on it the last time I saw him, he admitted it's gotten out of hand.
It's baffling how many dumb meme pages there are. But even more baffling, is how many people actually have the motivation to maintain those meme pages. The people that are willingly following them, well, I've lost hope for them.
I'm starting to struggle with this on Twitter. Got frustrated enough to uninstall it a few weeks ago, still haven't put it back (though I continue to be tempted).
So many promoted tweets and the uncanny feeling that my feed is being shaped in strange and unwanted ways.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the banner where twitter declared that it was doing more tracking and targeting so that I would be served better ads, both on AND off of twitter. "Great!", "Learn more" were the two buttons.
I want my mindshare and my thought direction to be in my own control. The feeds are stealing my self control over my own thoughts. I hate it.
So many promoted tweets and the uncanny feeling that my feed is being shaped in strange and unwanted ways.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the banner where twitter declared that it was doing more tracking and targeting so that I would be served better ads, both on AND off of twitter. "Great!", "Learn more" were the two buttons.
I want my mindshare and my thought direction to be in my own control. The feeds are stealing my self control over my own thoughts. I hate it.
If I didn’t have a good third party client (no ads, no sponsored tweets, all chronoligical) I would have left Twitter long ago. I don’t get how people can stand using the official apps.
This happened a while ago and while that was not the reason I quit Facebook it was the reason I hated visiting the site. I distinctly remember trying to raise this feedback. But at the same time I noticed two things - 1) I had more things to look at and there were fresh content every time I went back 2) People shared a lot more. An indication to me that they are spending more time on Facebook.
I read it at the time as a lesson on how data backed decisions can be misleading. I’m sure the PMs at Facebook reading the data would have been elated by the increased engagement.
I actually browse Facebook just for the ads.
I used to get awful ads on Facebook and then I noticed that my wife had all these fun or interesting ads. Lots of meme-sized content, not just funny stuff but fun baking or crafting videos 30 seconds long. They all said something like “suggested based on posts you’ve interacted with.”
So, I waited and waited and eventually Facebook showed me an interesting ad instead of the non-stop barrage of Blue Apron clones. I interacted with the ad and overnight Facebook ads transformed into a better Reddit.
So, I waited and waited and eventually Facebook showed me an interesting ad instead of the non-stop barrage of Blue Apron clones. I interacted with the ad and overnight Facebook ads transformed into a better Reddit.
This resonates with me, but what caused me to definitively stop using the app was the spam notifications which literally cannot be turned off. That was the last straw of user-hostility that made the app too unpleasant to use. I switched off every last email notification in order to keep that stuff out of my email inbox (nothing less was sufficient to stop it), which made it very easy to permanently ignore the app.
I'm sure the spam notifications A/B tested well for engagement though, /eyeroll.
I'm sure the spam notifications A/B tested well for engagement though, /eyeroll.
Concerns like these and others people have with FB are surely what repel people away. Although its also something that FB can't fix, even when they are ware of it, due to stakeholders/market that constantly want's a company to make more and more profit. Its the markets infatuations with growth that convert companies into evil, a sad truth for non-community owned companies.
This is what people used to call "selling out". There's no money in original content between friends, facebook doesn't care that they no longer serve this need for you. Their new job is to show ads for fortune 500 companies so that the pension funds invested in the facebook stock can continue to make money.
I will spend more time on Facebook, potentially looking at ads it wants to show me if it does a better job keeping me in touch with people I know.
Of course there's money in original content. You need that to keep people coming back to the feed to make any money on the ads.
What you're seeing is the results of dozens of teams individually optimizing against growth goals, which are actually inputs to a complex system that is difficult to predict.
What you're seeing is the results of dozens of teams individually optimizing against growth goals, which are actually inputs to a complex system that is difficult to predict.
This is exactly what happens. Each team has their metrics that need to grow. Taken individually, it probably is the right move but when multiple groups optimize their little space, they end up drowning each other.
This is true of any large organization really. It's just that the blind insistence on data at the micro level makes the effect far more profound.
This is true of any large organization really. It's just that the blind insistence on data at the micro level makes the effect far more profound.
Another thing is Facebook provided options for selecting what to display -- just status, just photos, and something else before this was stripped away. I definitely used to use Facebook similarly to how I use Instagram today.
They could increase engagement if they simply put this back -- providing filters for original content versus external.
I, too, only want to see original content from people I actually care about. However, "care about" is very loose here, because for people with few connections, this probably doesn't matter much, but for users that have many connections and pages, etc, it makes sense to condense and perhaps rank content that a user likes from their connections higher.
Facebook is more of a visual Twitter for me -- people post articles and we have discussions as Twitter's format doesn't facilitate discussions nearly as well.
They could increase engagement if they simply put this back -- providing filters for original content versus external.
I, too, only want to see original content from people I actually care about. However, "care about" is very loose here, because for people with few connections, this probably doesn't matter much, but for users that have many connections and pages, etc, it makes sense to condense and perhaps rank content that a user likes from their connections higher.
Facebook is more of a visual Twitter for me -- people post articles and we have discussions as Twitter's format doesn't facilitate discussions nearly as well.
My FB top-20 (viewed via web page, not app, which I don't use)
6 friends photos, 4 ad, 3 friends post, 3 marketplace listing, 3 memory (from friend’s feed), and 1 “Stories” widget???
<50% is new content from friends. 20% is ads. And 15% is marketplace (groups I can hide, I think). The value proposition isn't all that great.
There are two things keeping me on FB's main app - 1 - parents and other older relatives/friends - 2 - a small number of friends use it for event planning/invites.
Instagram is 100% friends posts (again, webpage, not app). When viewed through the app, Instagram is about 25% ads, with 2 "stories" widgets, and the rest is new content. Slightly better content/noise ratio, but the web page is better.
<50% is new content from friends. 20% is ads. And 15% is marketplace (groups I can hide, I think). The value proposition isn't all that great.
There are two things keeping me on FB's main app - 1 - parents and other older relatives/friends - 2 - a small number of friends use it for event planning/invites.
Instagram is 100% friends posts (again, webpage, not app). When viewed through the app, Instagram is about 25% ads, with 2 "stories" widgets, and the rest is new content. Slightly better content/noise ratio, but the web page is better.
Exactly this. The only explanation must be that Fb isn’t economically viable with more than a tiny fraction of original content (our friends showing cat pics to us doesn’t make money) but at the same time it isn’t a good product without a much higher, fraction of original content. And if that’s the case then Facebook will implode. My guess is they can’t watch their other apps cannibalize the blue app, so mergers will take place.
That is exactly what made me leave FB in the first place. 90 percent of it was the sheer amount of videos and articles posted over content friends shared. If I wanted news I would have come to Ycombinator or Reddit. I miss seeing what my old friends are up to, but I wouldn't have seen their updates anyway
I want them to give less ads to people who don't click on them.
It won't effect their statistics and a larger group get's ( perhaps) a little bit less demotivated to go on Facebook.
The people that click on all says ads, nothing changes.
It won't effect their statistics and a larger group get's ( perhaps) a little bit less demotivated to go on Facebook.
The people that click on all says ads, nothing changes.
I am happy that we have Snapchat and iMessage as competitors to the Facebook Apps. I very much dislike their business practices of sucking up all the data they can get their hands on e.g. during the acquisition of WhatsApp where they had to promise to European [1] regulators to not combine the user data with facebook‘s and then did it anyway.
Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead.
All in all I know many people who really dislike FB and would leave it if they could, but the network effect keeps everybody locked in to WhatsApp at least in Europe/Germany.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...
Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead.
All in all I know many people who really dislike FB and would leave it if they could, but the network effect keeps everybody locked in to WhatsApp at least in Europe/Germany.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215143/facebook-whatsapp...
The reliance on facebook where I live now in Denmark is disgusting. I lived in SV for 4 years, and basically any information of importance reached me by word-of-mouth or mailing list. Craigslist is also used and awesome.
Worst is that information meant for public dissemination, like training times or open event details, are now de facto private and require login. I've gone from logging in once every 3 months to once a week. AND messenger on mobile requires mbasic.facebook.com. /rant
Worst is that information meant for public dissemination, like training times or open event details, are now de facto private and require login. I've gone from logging in once every 3 months to once a week. AND messenger on mobile requires mbasic.facebook.com. /rant
FB Messenger is the standard messaging service in Denmark, nothing else comes close. At least for everyone I know, it has completely replaced anything else they previously used, and ordinary text messages are seen as old-fashioned and obsolete.
I've tried to get people to use Signal instead, but nobody cares enough to make the switch. "Everyone else is on Messenger, and I have an account already" is the most common reasoning.
I've tried to get people to use Signal instead, but nobody cares enough to make the switch. "Everyone else is on Messenger, and I have an account already" is the most common reasoning.
I've seen a shift towards Slack and Discord, which seems good.
I think part of the problem here is that the UI/UX of Signal (and Telegram) are just not very good.
Both are off-putting experiences and in turn do little to motivate people to switch to them.
Both are off-putting experiences and in turn do little to motivate people to switch to them.
Seriously, Telegram UI/UX isn't good? That's the best user experience I know for a chat application and the main reason why I use it.
Yeah, hearing TG's UI/UX described as not good made me do a double take. It's the best UI I've ever seen in a chat app, and I've probably used at least a dozen by now.
I find the UI/UX of Signal to be good enough that I used it as my default messaging app, even though I only have a few contacts who use(d) Signal.
It took until Oreo/Pie for the stock messaging app to become equally good or better, and by then none of my contacts bothered with using Signal anymore. It's now 0% Signal, 0.1% text messages, 0.1% WhatsApp, 99.8% FB Messenger, which is really depressing.
It took until Oreo/Pie for the stock messaging app to become equally good or better, and by then none of my contacts bothered with using Signal anymore. It's now 0% Signal, 0.1% text messages, 0.1% WhatsApp, 99.8% FB Messenger, which is really depressing.
You can't export chats on Signal iOS, which sucks.
What does it mean to "export chats" and why would you want to do it?
Open event details should be public without logging in. I help run an event series that has our website link to FB for per-event details, and no account is needed.
> Also sad that they were so successful in copying Snapchat’s story feature - it made Snapchat so unique. Now nobody is using Snapchat for it anymore and everybody is on IG instead.
I don't see what's sad about that, if the only thing that made SC unique is a feature that was so easily copied into EVERY FB app (messenger, instagram, even FB itself) then SC was anything but unique.
Ultimately execution is what matters, and snapchat had a terrible app (at least on android) forever.
I don't see what's sad about that, if the only thing that made SC unique is a feature that was so easily copied into EVERY FB app (messenger, instagram, even FB itself) then SC was anything but unique.
Ultimately execution is what matters, and snapchat had a terrible app (at least on android) forever.
Snapchat (the app) was the only app which had stories so it was unique by definition. The main problem though is that I’m uncomfortable using Facebook‘s apps because of their disrespect for user’s privacy and data.
Also, Snapchat’s app has a unique feel (and works performant enough at least on iOS) which makes it more pleasurable to use than lets say WhatsApp which is the most popular in Europe
Also, Snapchat’s app has a unique feel (and works performant enough at least on iOS) which makes it more pleasurable to use than lets say WhatsApp which is the most popular in Europe
> Ultimately execution is what matters, and snapchat had a terrible app (at least on android) forever.
Take this with a grain of salt, but:
https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel-only...
Take this with a grain of salt, but:
https://variety.com/2017/biz/news/snapchat-evan-spiegel-only...
The same feature is now also on YouTube, for some reason. I guess short video clips are just what the youth are into these days (Vine, TikTok, stories).
I wonder if they're regretting not taking the 30 billion Google was offering. Ephemeral image/video/message sharing has become a pretty oversaturated market since their popularization of it, and there isn't really that much more innovation that can be done in that area, I think. And it doesn't seem like they're trying other kinds of things beyond ephemeral communication. They may be in a Foursquare-like situation, except Foursquare actually did manage to pivot from a gimmick to more of a sustainable business (as far as I can tell).
I wonder if they're regretting not taking the 30 billion Google was offering. Ephemeral image/video/message sharing has become a pretty oversaturated market since their popularization of it, and there isn't really that much more innovation that can be done in that area, I think. And it doesn't seem like they're trying other kinds of things beyond ephemeral communication. They may be in a Foursquare-like situation, except Foursquare actually did manage to pivot from a gimmick to more of a sustainable business (as far as I can tell).
> I wonder if they're regretting not taking the 30 billion Google was offering.
I know this was Google's "we need to turn into a social thing, G+ all the way" era and everything but good god, 30 billion, that figure was insane. Even if you go with "but major social app are worth a lot" just comparing it with how much was paid for whatsapp and instagram makes it even crazier.
I know this was Google's "we need to turn into a social thing, G+ all the way" era and everything but good god, 30 billion, that figure was insane. Even if you go with "but major social app are worth a lot" just comparing it with how much was paid for whatsapp and instagram makes it even crazier.
I think the only thing even more insane than that is the creator of an app that lets you set a timeout when you send images and videos thinking $30 billion was a lowball insult and that they're clearly worth far more.
Quote? From what I read it wasn’t about the money for the founders but they thought they had something unique going for them which they wanted to have control over instead of selling. At least that’s what they said when Facebook made multiple offers
I was definitely heavily hyperbolizing and assuming. I have no idea what their actual thought process or response was. I just think you probably have to be pretty arrogant to deny 30 billion from Google for your gimmick fad app, even if you really don't care about making money. It seems arrogant to think that that business could really grow beyond such a valuation. Why not take the 30 billion and spend it on a new company you want to make, or something? Is the Snap brand truly that powerful to them? Even if you're totally happy living modestly, you can do a lot with that money.
It might be hindsight bias on my part, though. The hype at the time was very high, and maybe it was actually rational for them to think they had serious longevity. But still, I'm not really seeking money, and I don't see how I could've turned down that offer.
For Zuckerberg, it made more sense to reject early offers, because he could see the mega-monopoly in the distance. I don't see how Snap could think they could make a monopoly out of their app. For one, the app's not really even a social network.
It was a good idea and good execution, but like so many startup founders, I think the success of the app may have gone to their heads. Users aren't buying into the Snap brand / ecosystem / network, they just like to send ephemeral photos and videos to their friends with minimal friction. This is not a new paradigm in itself; it's a feature. Like many startups, Snap is a cool new feature dressing itself up as a serious corporation, and features only remain new for so long.
One could say the same of Instagram, but the difference is they managed to get the social network stuff right, so they could sustain exponential growth. Maybe Snap could've done the same if they were more willing to branch off from their original feature earlier on in their company's existence. I'm not totally sure why Snap failed to evolve from a sexting app to a social network, but it was clearly their plan, and it flopped.
It might be hindsight bias on my part, though. The hype at the time was very high, and maybe it was actually rational for them to think they had serious longevity. But still, I'm not really seeking money, and I don't see how I could've turned down that offer.
For Zuckerberg, it made more sense to reject early offers, because he could see the mega-monopoly in the distance. I don't see how Snap could think they could make a monopoly out of their app. For one, the app's not really even a social network.
It was a good idea and good execution, but like so many startup founders, I think the success of the app may have gone to their heads. Users aren't buying into the Snap brand / ecosystem / network, they just like to send ephemeral photos and videos to their friends with minimal friction. This is not a new paradigm in itself; it's a feature. Like many startups, Snap is a cool new feature dressing itself up as a serious corporation, and features only remain new for so long.
One could say the same of Instagram, but the difference is they managed to get the social network stuff right, so they could sustain exponential growth. Maybe Snap could've done the same if they were more willing to branch off from their original feature earlier on in their company's existence. I'm not totally sure why Snap failed to evolve from a sexting app to a social network, but it was clearly their plan, and it flopped.
on the one hand I agree that there’s nothing nefarious about copying a public feature of a competitor, while on the other hand I question if the massive monopolistic network effects of FB prevent new startups from having a chance to scale to a point of being able to adequately compete.
Also Telegram (unless I missed the type of apps you're comparing ? I really only use messaging aspect of all of these)
I think he meant app that was a competitor on features but ALSO with a significant user base amongst the non-tech non-domain-specific population.
I think Line, WeChat and a few others like that could qualify too, although they all seem very regional.
I think Line, WeChat and a few others like that could qualify too, although they all seem very regional.
Telegram reported 200 million active monthly users 1 year ago. It's not at the WhatsApp or Facebook messenger level, for sure, but that's clearly a significant user base.
https://telegram.org/blog/200-million
https://telegram.org/blog/200-million
Right. I just don’t really use telegram that’s why I didn’t mention it, although of course it is a good app! It is just doing exactly what WhatsApp is doing (feature wise) minus the big user base, which is it‘s downfall
The thing about these sorts of apps is that if your network doesn't use it, then its _not_ good.
Snapchat is not any better. Given their financials I am sure they are selling my data to anyone who is willing to pay for it.
Source to back that up? From my understanding Snap's entire spiel is user privacy
He's offering his opinion, how can there be any source?
He basically said it's based only on financials. Perhaps better to say why you feel he should change his opinion, just need on Snap's spiel?
Between the two I'm more inclined to believe "industry practice + financials" than "marketing spiel".
Do you (or above else) have anything better to go on?
He basically said it's based only on financials. Perhaps better to say why you feel he should change his opinion, just need on Snap's spiel?
Between the two I'm more inclined to believe "industry practice + financials" than "marketing spiel".
Do you (or above else) have anything better to go on?
s/spiel/shtick/so when they do these sponsored filters, say the taco bell one? I wonder what metadata they send to taco bell saying hey look all these people used the your filter.. I mean I doubt it's just a number, taco bell would want some uniqueness? If would be nice if snapchat published the metadata fields so users can see what they expose by using sponsor filters n such? This is my basic understanding though I don't know that much abotu snapchat
While I have a facebook account I'm not a big user, it's mostly for a few contacts that are only on messenger. I don't look at my "stream" a lot, and when I do it's mostly useless content like meme, self-centered post and whatnot that I personnaly have zero interest in, with maybe 1% of actually interesting thing in between like birth annoncement from acquaintances etc ...
I don't plan to delete my account because I want to keep the ability to be in touch with those few friends, and I haven't reached the point where I want to delete the messenger app, but the main FB/messenger duo just doesn't fill any major need for me.
But two things that struck me recently:
1. When opening my stream just to gloss over, there is A TON of ads. Like, the first 4/5 posts are real, then it's one post one ad one post one ad. And the targeting is abysmal. The only ones that are kind of on target are the amazon retargeting, except in typical amazon retargeting fashion it advertises to me stuff that I have already bought (on amazon no less). At least google has the decency to show me stuff I may be interested in, if vaguely.
2. I'm not sure when this was added to android, or if this is a specific samsung thing, but I had a weird warning that I had never seen before: my phone warned me that messenger, while not being open, was trying to access the "microphone" permission. Kudos to android for blocking it and warning me, so I could disable that permission for good. I can't think of a single reason for that app to do it that isn't super evil.
I'm also 99,9% certain it's not even legal where I live (France), I can't record my customers without asking or warning them on each instance of a conversation and with a clear non hidden message, so I doubt they can do that no matter what's in their TOS.
I don't plan to delete my account because I want to keep the ability to be in touch with those few friends, and I haven't reached the point where I want to delete the messenger app, but the main FB/messenger duo just doesn't fill any major need for me.
But two things that struck me recently:
1. When opening my stream just to gloss over, there is A TON of ads. Like, the first 4/5 posts are real, then it's one post one ad one post one ad. And the targeting is abysmal. The only ones that are kind of on target are the amazon retargeting, except in typical amazon retargeting fashion it advertises to me stuff that I have already bought (on amazon no less). At least google has the decency to show me stuff I may be interested in, if vaguely.
2. I'm not sure when this was added to android, or if this is a specific samsung thing, but I had a weird warning that I had never seen before: my phone warned me that messenger, while not being open, was trying to access the "microphone" permission. Kudos to android for blocking it and warning me, so I could disable that permission for good. I can't think of a single reason for that app to do it that isn't super evil.
I'm also 99,9% certain it's not even legal where I live (France), I can't record my customers without asking or warning them on each instance of a conversation and with a clear non hidden message, so I doubt they can do that no matter what's in their TOS.
The microphone permission is used for you to be able to record a voice message to send to someone.
I don't know why it would suddenly ask but I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past. Or maybe it's just something the app requests globally on newer versions.
I don't know why it would suddenly ask but I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past. Or maybe it's just something the app requests globally on newer versions.
I was not asking why the microphone permission is needed, but why it would be used with the app in the background, not being used.
> I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past
App in the background. It's not due to a keypress or to do any user-initiated action. Googling it, seems it's not a one off and that the app does indeed access the microphone from the background from time to time to do god knows what
> I have pressed that voice message / microphone button by accident in the past
App in the background. It's not due to a keypress or to do any user-initiated action. Googling it, seems it's not a one off and that the app does indeed access the microphone from the background from time to time to do god knows what
I 've heard thag Facebook uses microphones in smartpones to correlate users with TV or billboard ads. They use ultra or infrasound to broadcast information to nearby phone microphones so Facebook (or others) now that you watched the add
The targeting of ads on Facebook is complete garbage. But it seems to have improved in the sheer quantity. It wasn't even one to one, more so two ads for one bit of content from friends I actually was interesting.
My usage went way down from hours a week to maybe ten minutes. I don't know how the the algorithms work but I just started hitting the report button on ever single ad. There are still some of those insidious ads that pretend to be legitimate posts but my usage is up. I actually get to see interesting content from friends and family.
My usage went way down from hours a week to maybe ten minutes. I don't know how the the algorithms work but I just started hitting the report button on ever single ad. There are still some of those insidious ads that pretend to be legitimate posts but my usage is up. I actually get to see interesting content from friends and family.
I think the focus on Stories is a huge mistake. Disclaimer: I'm too old to "get it". I've only used stories a few times, they feel like a huge time sink vs a normal FB/IG post, and that investment seems less worthwhile for something that doesn't stick around like a vacation photo album that I or someone else might refer back to later. I've only used stories when (say) traveling solo, and I want to post more mundane shit because I don't have a ton going on. Keeps folks at home more apprised of what I'm up to, but not the kind of content that's 'important/curated' enough to keep forever.
So on to why I think it's a mistake. Yes, both the core business and the stories rely on the network effects of social networks to gain/maintain popularity. But encouraging users to share ephemeral content makes the switching costs much lower. If some new "yourspace" competitor came along, I'd be hesitant to switch because I LIKE the library of content myself and my friends and family have built up over the years. If literally all that prevents me from switching is where my friends are, I can use both until everyone switches, and then just drop the one entirely.
Don't get me wrong, Facebook is still almost worthless to users without friends using it, but the switching costs are still higher when there's old content.
So on to why I think it's a mistake. Yes, both the core business and the stories rely on the network effects of social networks to gain/maintain popularity. But encouraging users to share ephemeral content makes the switching costs much lower. If some new "yourspace" competitor came along, I'd be hesitant to switch because I LIKE the library of content myself and my friends and family have built up over the years. If literally all that prevents me from switching is where my friends are, I can use both until everyone switches, and then just drop the one entirely.
Don't get me wrong, Facebook is still almost worthless to users without friends using it, but the switching costs are still higher when there's old content.
Ephemeral content means you must check all the time. If you are like me and you want to check your friends original content or some event calendar once every 48h or less, you are probably not in the user group they see as “profitable”
This is why, as Ben Thompson points out in his Stratechery emails, we should focus more of our anti-trust efforts on blocking mega-acquisitions than on regulating the giants. If Facebook were currently competing with Instagram and WhatsApp, it would be in a lot more trouble.
just curious, this assumes that companies being in more trouble would be a good thing. why is that the case?
Because they would be inclined to offer a better service as their competitors? They'd have to make more effort to please users. My guess is this would mean show less ads.
Independent Instagram or WhatsApp could push FB to reduce its reliance on non-original posting, could move into privacy as a competitive advantage, could steal new users, could steal people leaving FB. As it is currently, FB can herd users into using its other apps without improving its core business. They can be dodgy because people "leaving" them are just returning to them, if they go to Insta or WhatsApp.
What all the other posters said. If Facebook had real competition then it’s likely they wouldn’t be soaring in the stock market while in the midst of so much controversy and negative attention. It’s more likely that their competition would be pouncing on them by offering more distinct alternatives, forcing Facebook to either reform or fade away.
To state the obvious, because abuse (of users privacy, etc.) would then have a bigger negative impact on the company (FB) which would be an incentive to improve this behavior?
I was talking to my 15yo niece, and I already suspected that Facebook is losing young people. So I asked on which platforms she spends her time. "No Facebook, mainly WhatsApp groups, and also private Instagram".
Facebook is dead, long live Facebook.
I must say that their aquisition strategy is impressive.
Facebook is dead, long live Facebook.
I must say that their aquisition strategy is impressive.
Soon these youngsters realize they need an event planning/calendar thing for WhatsApp, or a “page” for their business. And Fb can add it. Next, their own kids will get devices, and they’ll be on platform X that their parents aren’t on. And Facebook will quickly buy it. Repeat.
Isn’t it fairly well known at this point that FB isn’t used by young people?
Yes, but the impressive thing for me was that she and her group of friends swithed to other Facebook owned platforms. Not SnapChat or some other competitor.
Interesting to see that Facebook, being big tech+data driven company, needs a year to gather such statistics.
I would imagine it to be almost real time there...
I would imagine it to be almost real time there...
There's probably a TONNE of cleaning/reconciling/deduping that needs to go on if they are trying to connect cross-platform users (like WhatsApp and Facebook) - especially over historical data. Sure, maybe going forward refreshing these reports might be quick but don't underestimate the inertia of having to go through that pain of integrating the data for the first time.
Any analysis worth its salt will also need to go through rounds of sense-checking + checks for statistical robustness: this all takes time
Any analysis worth its salt will also need to go through rounds of sense-checking + checks for statistical robustness: this all takes time
Facebook is kind of like my email Spam folder now. I check it once or twice a month to see if anything useful was caught there but I otherwise ignore it.
It took me way too long to notice, but facebook stopped being an enjoyable thing a long time ago.
It took me way too long to notice, but facebook stopped being an enjoyable thing a long time ago.
I miss why this considered bad news.
Facebook spent billions pickup up Whats-app and Instagram (and probably a fair chunk developing and maintaining messenger).
This wasn't solely to pick up untold millions of new users who'd never used "original blue facebook" - if it had been, you'd need a facebook account to use Whats-app. Point was to ensure you didn't stray from the blue-app, onto something Facebook didn't own/control.
In my humble view, the keeping of messenger and whats-app separate by Facebook is smart - as they have two offerings that appeal to different people (and to many people that happily use both).
You know from all the rumours of "ads on Whatsapp" that internally in facebook they're trying to work out how to leverage all our eyeballs on all those different apps - but the reason they haven't merged them all, is they've worked out they keep more people if they keep the apps separate.
To take my favourite anecdotal example, I used to use latitude on google maps to work out where my friends were (I'm in the pub, when are you turning up?). Then google killed that functionality to try to make us all move to google+.... We didn't, it died.
Now, if a few of us are trying to co-ordinate say a drink after work, we'll use whatsapp. Google lost that feature I use to Facebook.
Facebook spent billions pickup up Whats-app and Instagram (and probably a fair chunk developing and maintaining messenger).
This wasn't solely to pick up untold millions of new users who'd never used "original blue facebook" - if it had been, you'd need a facebook account to use Whats-app. Point was to ensure you didn't stray from the blue-app, onto something Facebook didn't own/control.
In my humble view, the keeping of messenger and whats-app separate by Facebook is smart - as they have two offerings that appeal to different people (and to many people that happily use both).
You know from all the rumours of "ads on Whatsapp" that internally in facebook they're trying to work out how to leverage all our eyeballs on all those different apps - but the reason they haven't merged them all, is they've worked out they keep more people if they keep the apps separate.
To take my favourite anecdotal example, I used to use latitude on google maps to work out where my friends were (I'm in the pub, when are you turning up?). Then google killed that functionality to try to make us all move to google+.... We didn't, it died.
Now, if a few of us are trying to co-ordinate say a drink after work, we'll use whatsapp. Google lost that feature I use to Facebook.
Facebook’s superpower was that everyone was on it. If half their users are on Insta and the other half on WhatsApp and the other half left for other random networks, then they’re just a holding company for brands with less network effects.
I think FB caught onto this a long, long time ago. Back when they saw the adoption & activity rates of the then competing WA & Instagram. The only difference being at the time of this analysis FB owns most of the apps people are migrating to.
Its not that threatening - as they already proved they know how to counter through acquisition or competition and have a good track record of being able to monetise new properties.
Its not that threatening - as they already proved they know how to counter through acquisition or competition and have a good track record of being able to monetise new properties.
Is this really surprising?
The strength of a network is n^2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
It makes sense that the more people leaving a network then the utility of said network will decline.
What seems odd is why they care if people move to Insta or WhatsApp, since FB owna both.
The strength of a network is n^2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law
It makes sense that the more people leaving a network then the utility of said network will decline.
What seems odd is why they care if people move to Insta or WhatsApp, since FB owna both.
This, I removed FB a few years ago and never even tried Instagram, but my gf has both, and we speak everyday on Whatsapp, and I have a picture on Whatsapp, so they still know pretty much everything about me if they scrap the conversations for keywords or something more advanced.
Tried removing Whatsapp for something like Telegram but couldn't since I need to convince my parents and sisters and gf and friends to move there too.
Tried removing Whatsapp for something like Telegram but couldn't since I need to convince my parents and sisters and gf and friends to move there too.
Have you tried to tell them that they are constantly being watched? How receptive were they about recent articles on data breaches in facebook? What would happen if you only reply to them over SMS or Telegram?
I'm also struggling with this issue and I've been contemplating about either moving all of my interactions on a mailing list or a mastodon instance. I don't know how to move the network of my friends into that space.
I'm also struggling with this issue and I've been contemplating about either moving all of my interactions on a mailing list or a mastodon instance. I don't know how to move the network of my friends into that space.
They probably make more money with the amount of advertising they have on FB as compared to Instagram. That will probably change over time but is likely true today, hence why they are worried about a FB exudes.
I used to think they would follow the xanga / myspace train and be blown out of the water by something but that's not the case anymore. They have proven they can just buy any competitors or quickly copy their features, and "all my friends are on fb/insta/whatsapp" will keep the vast majority of the users entwined in one way or another. Regardless of usage metrics, if you only use their apps for social, that's a win in itself.
This should be at the very least a reminder to try and use wrappers and disable/uninstall as much as you can from your phone facebook.
I sometimes try to use the Facebook (“blue”) app to do messages and then I remember Facebook nerfed it’s own app so it can’t send messages and then I give up.
Is it just me, or do "secret" have negative connotation? Because for me it does, and I am really sad from journalist when they use "secret" or "secretly" in headlines, when it just mean internal, or just not disclosed. What is interesting that the article does not contain word secret, and they always use the word internal.
the content is the responsibility of the author, but the headline is the responsibility of the marketing department.
Ok, we've taken secrecy out of the title above.
Is "secret" not one of the classifications for internal documents? "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "restricted". While this classification is usually used to classify access to documents of the state, it could also apply to internal documents in large organizations.
It can be but I’d be surprised if that document had anything like it. Very few things are confidential internally at Facebook. Compensation, seniority level and review are the most common “Confidential” category but they are typically marked as “personal and confidential”. A few things are permission-access-controlled (think things involving the Police where rules of evidence apply) but I don’t remember if they had a name; “Talk to legal” was the short-hand.
Source: I used to work at Facebook & I know Tom C. personally. I’ve written similar documents four years ago. There were publicly visible internally. Few people really cared outside of senior Product people.
Source: I used to work at Facebook & I know Tom C. personally. I’ve written similar documents four years ago. There were publicly visible internally. Few people really cared outside of senior Product people.
How can seniority level be secret?
"seniority level" an in "what level have you been promoted to".
At Google you don't have to disclose your level, but most people do and most of my coworkers know I'm L5. At Facebook my understanding is they've tried to build a culture where people don't know each other's levels, to focus more on "what can you do" instead of "what does management think you can do".
At Google you don't have to disclose your level, but most people do and most of my coworkers know I'm L5. At Facebook my understanding is they've tried to build a culture where people don't know each other's levels, to focus more on "what can you do" instead of "what does management think you can do".
Then why have different levels at all and just pay more or less? Why hide someone's position/level.. why even have levels? Is this a shield for management.. you shouldn't know Jim is more valuable.. easier to pull the wool over employee eyes?
You have levels to guide HR in making compensation decisions relative to the rest of the market. For example, Google might set their target at 105% of the top range of the market in order to retain the best employees. 105% of a fresh graduate's salary is very different from the same rate for a top-of-field industry recognized veteran. Even in those cases, that's a guide so exceptions are made as merited.
And no, I don't work at Google :)
And no, I don't work at Google :)
I greatly doubt that culture actually exists. There is either a formal known hierarchy or an informal one with a lot of backstabbing and power plays. In the latter you may not know who is doing it.
Plus as you said people will disclose it anyways. People know their level and others even if it is a "secret". People know others salaries too. So the entire concept is rendered moot
Plus as you said people will disclose it anyways. People know their level and others even if it is a "secret". People know others salaries too. So the entire concept is rendered moot
I'm not aware of any private sector companies that have more than 2-3 formal "classification" markings, and they're usually more like "internal use only" and "confidential" rather than "secret". For particularly sensitive documents there would of course be additional restrictions, but I'd be surprised if there were companies using the marking "top secret" for that purpose...
I have seen companies with 5. Along the lines of:
1. Public: Public information
2. Internal Use: Confidential business information
3. Confidential: Information that customers consider confidential
4. Sensitive: Personal and Private Information (PII), information that THE LAW considers confidential
5. Highly Sensitive: Encryption keys, server secrets, staff/admin passwords
This list is from a blog I wrote at https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classificatio.... It was adapted from something I originally saw while a student at Georgia Tech. I've consulted with companies that separately developed a substantially similar 5 point list.
This list is from a blog I wrote at https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classificatio.... It was adapted from something I originally saw while a student at Georgia Tech. I've consulted with companies that separately developed a substantially similar 5 point list.
Yes. Categories I've encountered at the big tech company I work at include:
* Public
* Company confidential (most things)
* Need to know (only finance people can see some kinds of financials, only people working on a service can see it's logs)
* Legal stuff
* Personnel stuff
* Highly valuable IP (spam detection algorithms etc)
* Public
* Company confidential (most things)
* Need to know (only finance people can see some kinds of financials, only people working on a service can see it's logs)
* Legal stuff
* Personnel stuff
* Highly valuable IP (spam detection algorithms etc)
It's the headline, and "secret research" sounds sexier than "internal research," at least to me.
I was just going to say the same thing: It's clickbait-phraseology.
I don’t think of secret as having a negative connotation.
Secret Santa, secret key exchange, etc it’s just descriptive.
Secret Santa, secret key exchange, etc it’s just descriptive.
Context is everything. The things you're talking about are innocuous with no negative loading or reputation.
Facebook isn't innocuous and has a high negative load and reputation. Tack the word "secret" in front of some internal research they did and it puts a darker shade on something every company does (internal research).
Facebook isn't innocuous and has a high negative load and reputation. Tack the word "secret" in front of some internal research they did and it puts a darker shade on something every company does (internal research).
Doesn’t that just mean it’s Facebook with the negative connotation not secret?
Something like ‘Secret Facebook network architecture’ is rather neutral.
Something like ‘Secret Facebook network architecture’ is rather neutral.
“Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better”
“Tesla’s secret battery program”
Neither has negative connotation to me.
Like you said, I think it’s because Facebook regularly acts unethically in public view. Anything they do in secret or private will be viewed with even more suspicion.
“Tesla’s secret battery program”
Neither has negative connotation to me.
Like you said, I think it’s because Facebook regularly acts unethically in public view. Anything they do in secret or private will be viewed with even more suspicion.
I cant explain it, but
> Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better
to me, this sounds negative
> Tesla’s secret battery program
to me this does not sound negative.
> Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better
to me, this sounds negative
> Tesla’s secret battery program
to me this does not sound negative.
I think it's the interplay between both the words, especially considering that Facebook's scandals are privacy related, it might subconsciously trigger some sort of negative reaction when you hear that they are keeping secrets (though that's obviously not what's going on here)
Internal doesn't necessarily mean "not public" though. "Private" is perhaps a better term.
people don't typically call reports "internal" if they are released to the public. what would "internal" mean in that context?
the intended audience is inside the company. A US Gov GAO report on (eg) transport spending might be called 'internal' to the govt since its primarily public policy recommendations generated by and for the govt, but the report still has to be publicly accessible
A decade or so ago, most of the content I saw on Facebook was original content from people I know. Most posts were either text written by someone I knew, or a photo taken by someone I knew. Perhaps not everybody shares this position, but what I most want from Facebook is to keep up with people I actually know. Here are the first 20 posts I see now:
7 shared images from strangers/pages. 1 screenshot from a TV show uploaded by a friend. 1 page updated its website. 1 shared video from strangers/pages. 2 "suggested" videos from a page. 1 photograph taken by a friend. 1 "memory" containing text written by the person who shared it. 3 links to a news story. 3 posts by a page.
That's 2/20 posts of original content from people I know. I've noticed that if I post original content, my friends are less likely to interact with it than a few years ago, probably because they, too are presented with such a huge amount of other content.
I know I can opt in to something like the old experience with the "friends feed" feature. Well, I can on the desktop site (if I bookmark it, click it each time, or use a browser extension); it appears to be missing from the mobile site and the Facebook Lite app. Anything I post is still disadvantaged though, because most people are using the default algorithmic feed.
On Instagram, every one of the first 20 posts I see is original content by a person or page I follow. 16 of those are individual people. I see shared third-party content on Instagram fairly rarely, probably because its UI doesn't encourage that.
What would get me to use Facebook more actively is a change to the algorithm that advantages original content over shared third-party content.