Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 365 posts

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#271

Post by overgard »

padobson wrote: post #38

Whenever I see a post like this on HN, I see the inevitable "the product sucks" posts in the comments. As an engineer and social media user, I completely agree, but it doesn't seem to be bearing out in the marketplace. Facebook continues to grow[0] (if more slowly). So what is the HN audience to Facebook? Our we taste makers? A demographic ahead of the product curve, predictive of Facebook's imminent decline? Or are…

I think we're just not the target market. By "we" I don't really mean HN, I mean just developers in general. Sample size of one, but I know in my own social circle, male techies = not really social media users. I think it probably has a lot to do with extraversion vs. introversion, and also if you happen to have some personal traits that tend to be social media friendly (photogenic, popular, etc.)

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#272

Post by sizzle »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #205
btown wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A “broadcast this comment?” prompt after successfully submitting a comment, even a toggle that’s default-on, would solve this elegantly IMO. I have no idea why they don’t do it. Facebook was once great at understanding that people don’t want to draw outside attention to some things that they technically do in public. They seem to have ceded that ground to Snapchat entirely, which is a painful sentence to type.

> I have no idea why they don’t do it. Not to beat this hackneyed drum to death, but: it’s because you’re not the consumer—you’re the product. They have armies of data scientists optimising their holy interaction metrics to death. They are incentivised to wage a holy war for your eyeballs, and wage a war they will. Every last base point is priceless at their scale. Every single pixel, every possible user story, every…

I agree, "broadcasting" your activity likely increases engagement within your network.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#273

Post by ryandrake »

tgb wrote: post #130
graeme wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has seriously reduced my willingness to comment on posts. Terrible feature.

Absolutely. I don't care if they stumble across it but I never want to broadcast a comment, at least not to people who wouldn't already have seen the post. The worst is when public groups use Facebook as the only way to contact them - I once posted a question about leaving a coat at an event and then got a message from a friend suggesting that I hadn't invited him to the event (it wasn't the kind of thing he thought…

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assume that anything one posts to the Internet could potentially be broadcast to everyone they know and published on the front page of the New York Times? I don't understand why people think the content they post to a website will be kept private, especially if not keeping it private maximizes shareholder value.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#274

Post by derefr »

taneq wrote: post #265
beamatronic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Most folks I know address the colleague issue with a "no current coworkers" policy. (Not to imply you should immediately add newly-former coworkers).

So do you de-friend people if you get a job with them? Or do you regard people you add after you've finished working with them as 'real Facebook friends' and let them stay privy to your social life? I know I've definitely experienced a bit of a 'chilling effect' on the stuff I post since adding a few former colleagues. Tech is a small town and you never know who you'll be working with next year.

Someone who is your friend and then becomes your coworker is still your friend.

Someone who is your coworker and then becomes your friend is likely not really your friend in any real sense, unless-and-until you leave that job and they bother to remain in contact with you.

It's not a question of following some flowchart; it's a question of whether a given person values your relationship with them more, or values how they could get ahead using the information they've learned about you more. This fact is generally illegible for current coworkers, but mostly resolves out once you leave that job—the people who valued you personally keep in touch.

This fact is also generally legible for people who you meet outside of work: people mostly don't bother to get to know you unless they [expect to] value you personally. (Or they're conducting some form of long-term industrial espionage. I don't envy the people important enough to worry about this.)

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#275

Post by mcbits »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #205
btown wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A “broadcast this comment?” prompt after successfully submitting a comment, even a toggle that’s default-on, would solve this elegantly IMO. I have no idea why they don’t do it. Facebook was once great at understanding that people don’t want to draw outside attention to some things that they technically do in public. They seem to have ceded that ground to Snapchat entirely, which is a painful sentence to type.

> I have no idea why they don’t do it. Not to beat this hackneyed drum to death, but: it’s because you’re not the consumer—you’re the product. They have armies of data scientists optimising their holy interaction metrics to death. They are incentivised to wage a holy war for your eyeballs, and wage a war they will. Every last base point is priceless at their scale. Every single pixel, every possible user story, every…

Even if everything they do today is intentional and quantitatively optimal (color me skeptical), the site is still changing as the world changes and their user/"product" characteristics change.

The intentional things they do tomorrow will be different and may address issues like users becoming apprehensive about interacting when it's not clear who will get an e-mail saying "Psst... Hey... We thought you should judge what User has been up to..."

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#276

Post by tgb »

ryandrake wrote: post #273
tgb wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. I don't care if they stumble across it but I never want to broadcast a comment, at least not to people who wouldn't already have seen the post. The worst is when public groups use Facebook as the only way to contact them - I once posted a question about leaving a coat at an event and then got a message from a friend suggesting that I hadn't invited him to the event (it wasn't the kind of thing he thought…

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assume that anything one posts to the Internet could potentially be broadcast to everyone they know and published on the front page of the New York Times? I don't understand why people think the content they post to a website will be kept private, especially if not keeping it private maximizes shareholder value.

But the thing is, I don't think it maximizes shareholder value. I would engage more with Facebook if my actions were quieter than if not. I don't really care that anyone can see it but broadcasting it is just crazy.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#277

Post by a13n »

balls187 wrote: post #270
dmix wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, etc can't have a simple toggle between chronological and the default algorithmic feed... I've seen everyone complain about this for years online and it seems like such a simple problem to solve. Much like searching for Tweets, Twitter provides a "New" vs "Top" filter which does that same... It has nothing to do with advertising as both views can include ads.

> I don't know why Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, etc can't have a simple toggle between chronological and the default algorithmic feed... It's not that they can't have it. They have no incentive to do so. Algorithm feeds provides the guarantee that an ad is seen by a minimum number of users, which is the entire value of facebook.

What? You can put ads in chronological feeds too.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#278

Post by temporallobe »

This just demonstrates FBs switch to a different demographic. The user base has actually increased according to TFA, but it doesn't say which age group. I am betting the over 55 crowd, judging by the number of political and religious posts on my feed.

Yes, I still have an account but I have removed all personal information, pictures, and deleted all my posts. I also go months between using it. I can't bring myself to totally remove my account though.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#279

Post by tim333 »

book_mentioned wrote: post #100
ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar experience, I think my problem with the algorithm is similar to slowing down to look at the car wreck on the side of the road. I have a few a"friends" that post horrible stuff. Conspiracy theories, rants, and other posts that are just symptoms of poor mental health. At first I stopped to read these in HORROR and disgust, because they stood out so much from the rest of my feed. Facebook takes that as a signal…

https://www.fbpurity.com extension

Seconded. I'm kind of surprised people use facebook without it. Bit like surfing the web without an ad blocker.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#280

Post by lione »

smogcutter wrote: post #261
tomcooks wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might also enjoy reading about ancient greek ideas of ἐσωτερικός and ἐξωτερικός

What would you recommend as a starting point? A quick google didn't have anything relevant, and Liddell & Scott just gives the straightforward interior/exterior definition. I can see a connection between the eternal september and insiders/outsiders, but it sounds like you're getting at something specific and I'm curious.

Well from what I've seen in my googling, it seems to be a concept relating to the Unwritten Doctrine of Plato. He had esoteric teachings reserved for his close following vs his exoteric writings for the public. Esoteric came to mean shadowy/hidden, but it's really just how you say/think/act differently with an insider group then an outsider group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_unwritten_doctrines

Post reply on HN