The comment sections are either empty, used as a notifier for friends or are right-wing/left-wing troll battle fields. Everyone seems overly emotional to get the most likes and bubble to the top. I removed subscriptions for newspapers to not accidentally have to stumble upon the inanen comments, something I dreaded only with youtube comments so far. Have the social network aspects of Facebook (and youtube) been destroyed by fatigue, other ways (WhatsApp?) of exchanging stuff immediately and ideological troll battles?
A. Becoming more computer-literate and going straight to sites as opposed to always Googling it before clicking, even once familiar with the URL, which won't correlate to usage
B. Visiting the site enough for AutoFill to take effect, which is ever-so-slightly inverse in correlation in terms of search popularity to site popularity
Here's a FB-related search term people will still use, even with AutoFill for Facebook, as some evidence. The rise is a similar pattern, but lacking the major drop: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Facebook...
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Google
What's actually happened is that fewer people are using search engines as their app launcher, because they are using the smartphone home screen instead.
1 Tunisia 100
2 Turkey 95
3 Venezuela 95
4 Ecuador 87
5 Peru 86
6 Algeria 84
7 El Salvador 81
8 Serbia 77
9 Colombia 75
10 Dominican Republic
Notice that none of the developed economies are showing up in the top 10. The dollar per user must be falling as users are increasingly coming from smaller economies which means less amount of ad revenue dollars.
It makes sense why Zuckerberg is crazy for China. Without another spurt of user base growth, Facebook's share price will not be sustainable.
However, the "Interest by region" is amusingly topical.
I've seen the point made with the railroad, and with the internet.
If you look at other tech terms, they are all "declining":
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=mobile,c...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly...
"Peak air travel" by aircraft departures occurred in 2001, and by total passenger miles, I believe hit around 2007. There's some wiggling around that, in that load factors and seat pitches allow for aircraft to carry more passenger miles on average. But the US DOT's 2000 forecasts for aviation fuel were high by a factor of 50% or so for ~2013. (I've not checked the data since.)
"Peak car", by passenger miles driven seems to have hit much of the US also around the 2007-8 financial crisis. But if you look at underlying trends, as early as 1990 or thereabouts ownership and miles driven were softening markedly particularly in the Pacific Northwest.
"Peak Computer", in terms of traditional desktop (and laptop) sales is well behind us. Mid-to-late 2000s IIRC. Several factors at play, including market saturation, a stagnation in computer capabilities (CPU speed, RAM, disk, and a bunch of other factors have more-or-less been in a holding pattern, though energy usage has fallen markedly), and the increased convenience of the Internet in your pocket making mobile devices far more attractive. We may be seeing backlash to that (security, privacy, burnout, etc.). There remains the point that computing devices are fundamentally difficult for much of the population to use.
Social networks can grow quickly, but also crash with devastating speed. Understanding just what it is which makes them attractive ... and unattractive ... is a key point to understanding their strength. Or weakness.
A similar question would read "Have we reached peak AOL?" or "Have we reached peak Windows?"
Facebook's main asset is its social graph and cross device map, which only Google currently has anything comparable too.
Any time a new type of app, ad unit or social trend becomes popular (group chat replacing FB groups for instance), they will buy it before it gets traction. Instagram has a much nicer ad unit format than Facebook, and appeals to a more upscale audience.
Combating this is partly why Facebook bought WhatsApp and spun out Messenger into its own app.
While he frames it in terms of being a good actor as opposed to making a profit, I can't fault him for this in what is essentially a PR post. At least it acknowledges common criticisms of Facebook's moderation, content policy, and editorial behavior, and displays an awareness that hurried knee-jerk hotfixes won't allay all concerns, but that they need a strategies to stay relevant.
I'm no fan of Facebook the product, or their business model being an elaborate data harvesting scheme, but place criticism where it's due, not on long-form PR blog posts that admit they fucked up a few times and they can do better -- even if they play up examples where FB being in the right place at the right time with the right marketshare has has helped people.
Let’s not forget, Facebook isn’t exactly being exploited by shady actors like Cambridge Analytica—it's profiting from them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
I don't just mean that as a snarky crack. It's worth pondering the idea a bit. They've been headed in this direction for a while, but it's becoming undeniable.
(Remember, Facebook is more than just America. They and their stock valuation aspire to be global.)
This works since the beginning of humanity, I don't see why it surprises people that new technology resorts to proven methods.
FB has changed so much for the better for me since I've joined an AutoRetro group featuring cars at least 25 years old and since I've started like-ing that group's posts. Now almost half of my feed is filled with photos of old Trabant, Lada or Opel Kadett cars, and I love that. The other half is indeed filled by mothers sharing their kids' stuff, which I don't give a crap about, and some fiery political stuff, which I care about but which I generally ignore, the reason being that there's not that much that I can change, politically-wise, by commenting on the Internet.
I've also found out that I've been a lot more relaxed and generally better off since I've stopped checking my feed on the phone when in public places (tramway, waiting in line at the Post office or at a general store). For those situations I always carry a magazine (the Economist folds really well) or a pocket book with me, and it's been for the best.
This is why some of my friends prefer Instagram as their primary social network. It's mostly hobbies, food, very little politics.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/zuckerberg_publishe...
Am I being too critical for thinking someone writing an article like this should know that Google searches / suggestions are personalized? Just because its suggested for them does not mean its universal.
If IP address X does a query, then a moment later the same IP does the same query but just doesn't send any cookies, I am pretty sure Google knows it's the same person.
In my google search suggestions, it falls behind "how to leave a group chat" and "how to leave a meetup group". Therefore it must be true that more people are trying to figure out how to get out of group chats or break it off with their meetup group than leaving facebook. This also must be a sign of the demise of group chat.
The other questions, hmm.
Another way to bypass customized results is to use StartPage. The only suggestion I get from there is "how to leave town"
> how to leave a group text on iphone
> how to leave a google review
> how to leave a review on etsy
> how to leave a group chat
El Rag agrees with you.
Facebook makes the most obvious choice of algorithms. An alternative choice of algorithms (e.g. deliberately exposing you to views you don't like) would create a much bigger backlash.
Anyway facebook has a long history of "huuuge outcry" every time they make a change, but its users have the attention span of a fruitfly.
"Rationalist"?? What's rational about him? The guy did not have any political existence 6 months ago, has no party, has no program, tells everyday the opposite of what he told the previous day because the audience is different, and yet gets more than 20% in opinion polls. That's a rationalist, uh?
If you want to persuade someone, telling them what they want to hear is an essential first step. It would be irrational to do othwise given his goals.
However, I have found it is not practical to remove Facebook because I use Messenger to talk with friends (either chat or voice). Much easier and cheaper than doing it with text (and it's way too easier for international friends). I removed the Messenger App from my phone though because it is abusive. I'm trying to find a way to communicate (P2P) with friends without facebook but it is too hard to convince them to install something else.
FYI you can deactivate Facebook without deactivating messenger. That is what I did. My messenger still works (although oddly, sharing links with friends has become a little worse ) and my Facebook profile is deactivated.
Mark, please! You're a spam-your-friends-with-fake-news-and-baby-photos service at best. The world will go on long after Facebook ceases to exist. Please stop pretending that you're Mother Teresa here.
The scary thing is, I think a lot of people on the industry actually believe their own BS...
Whether it's true or not, it's a useful illusion. People who believe that it's all meaningless tend to sit on message boards and shit on others instead.
The grandiose self-vision is annoying PR, but at least some of the companies have a fair amount to back it up with. Facebook is just the next iteration of Microsoft in my opinion -- they took a huge early lead with a superior product in a new industry, but now they're kind of evil and they will ride their market share for many decades.
The funny part is that Mother Teresa wasn't a good person, but made a lot of money from her image of nicety. I think its the same way with these individuals who are trying to act 'noble'. The most noble thing you could do is bring consumer trust back and invest into people.
I would argue that a lot of problems that companies have, like when Tim Cook was going around giving presentations on why encryption is important, is solved by bringing consumer trust back by working in the best interest for everyone, and not just for money.
https://www.amazon.com/Geek-Heresy-Rescuing-Social-Technolog...
Google, FB, etc. are a bit pretentious. You are world saving because you can afford it - you run companies with huge margins that rake in billions of dollars per QUARTER.
Let's keep it in perspective - you do it because you can, you're not successful because you do it.
It's the same reason you see Hollywood actors being outspoken political activists. Because if they stay out of politics, they're "only" insignificant entertainers.
It's the same reason you see comedians and TV shows getting political. Saturday Night Live (SNL) is just a show for laughs. But if it takes a political stance, suddenly the writers/producers/actors can feel good about making a positive change. (Whether it's actually positive is beside the point; it only matters they think it's positive.)
And so, Facebook is doing something to enact positive change. (For various definitions of positive.)
Facebook is only different in that it has enough money and influence to actually change things in the world. Whereas comedians, actors, TV shows can only offer political opinions and try to influence people, Facebook can actually change things thanks to its financial status and its staggeringly user base.
Where are the actions to back up the argument? Internet.org? India would like to kick internet.org in the nutsack. Giving money to charity? Where are the results from that investment?
Without any evidence, Mark Zuckerberg is just another king of spin. Aren't there enough cockroaches in the world already? Not saying Mark is one, but I'd like to see someone else point to the good FB is doing in the world and hear nothing at all from its CEO.
Sure, there are a ton of negative externalities of that such as fake news spam. But it also puts them in a unique position to tailor their site to encourage the behaviors and enforce the values they want. I think the focus on local communities is an important example. Obviously local communities can create groups now, but there is a lot that can be done to encourage those kinds of communities and groups and discover existing ones.
"The joy of reading" is coming under great fire.
In fact I am beginning to realize that I no longer enjoy reading from a phone. Never before in my reading experience did I get so worked up until now
Your comment not just includes fake news or junk reading but simply anything written in an opinion fashion.
This manifesto is an example of why reading has gone sour.
Humorously, Teresa caused a lot of pain and suffering all the while self-righteously convincing herself and others that she was doing god's work.
More similarities than one may think.
Edit: Correction, you are a sockpuppet, as you admit to in your 1st post, pointing out its primary use to manipulate discussion. Go away troll.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672409 and marked it off-topic.
