21–30 of 114 posts
People were reading news in FB feed and didn't even think it can be fake, now they read and go "outside" for fact checking. Not a good sign for social network which wants you to be engaged all the time.
What are the masses switching to?
I’m no fan of Facebook, but I don’t agree with the premise of the article. The power of Facebook lies in its network effect: something on the order of 2 billion have active Facebook accounts. Whether or not people are spending more or less time on the platform doesn’t matter as much as people seem to think it does. What matters is the fact that they can associate web browsing actions (pages visited etc) with your Fac…
Even with huge amount of users data nothing guaranteed. You can't sell same stuff periodically, big data has value only when they are actual.
I’m no fan of Facebook, but I don’t agree with the premise of the article. The power of Facebook lies in its network effect: something on the order of 2 billion have active Facebook accounts. Whether or not people are spending more or less time on the platform doesn’t matter as much as people seem to think it does. What matters is the fact that they can associate web browsing actions (pages visited etc) with your Fac…
Has anyone actually done a sample of Facebook users (or humans) to check those stats? I do not believe them, based on my personal experience and the very large number of businesses and bots on facebook.
Given the massive incentive for Facebook to lie, we’d be naive to take their numbers for granted.
If they provided really fine-grained data, we could easily verify their claims. We pick cities, they give numbers, we survey to confirm, then extrapolate.
Anyone got any data?
What are the masses switching to?
The real world, let's hope.
I recently deleted almost all my accounts online, i.e. Github, LinkedIn, Twitter. I only have this account left and few others which are for learning purposes. I don't know for certain why, but I feel this need to be empty in a sort of way and do away with the non-essentials: digitally, physically, and internally, i.e. use the terminal instead of an ide, use technological devices less and do more natural things, and stop interpreting things, respectively.
Though then again, I hope my nonexistent online presence is not a negative to future employers as I complete my bachelor's in a few years. It seems if you want to work for company x, you should be using product x. That's probably not the case but it does seem like it.
Almost nobody talks about lack of trust, yes there are words about fake news and formal reassurances from FB staff that they will investigate, fix and so on. But trust was already undermined, you just can't restore it to previous level. People were reading news in FB feed and didn't even think it can be fake, now they read and go "outside" for fact checking. Not a good sign for social network which wants you to be en…
You know this is an interesting topic in and of itself. Are people looking outside FB for news? I would argue that if FB supports your world view that people aren't looking outside of it. Others have had the same theory:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/lr/evaporative_cooling_of_group_beli...
The reality is that the internet provides a platform to even the most marginal ideas, time cubes, flat earths, and lots of rather stupid ideas that have no basis in logic or reason. If these things appeal to you seeing them in print and on video will only bolster ones false reasoning and allow you to further push out other points of view.
Facebook is still making inroads in countries that are just getting connectivity (like Myanmar).
Revenues will come from developed countries though so I'm not sure if Facebook can sustain its business off developing countries.
In a math sense, the signal to noise ratio on FB became much higher over the last decade. At inception, it was a focused way to directly communicate with a close college circle. Now its effectively as open as Myspace, bombards you with ads, and as with all wide networks, the discourse has dropped to meme / quiz bot level (Which annoying social media app represents you?!)
I think you mean "much lower" signal to noise ratio.
In a math sense, the signal to noise ratio on FB became much higher over the last decade. At inception, it was a focused way to directly communicate with a close college circle. Now its effectively as open as Myspace, bombards you with ads, and as with all wide networks, the discourse has dropped to meme / quiz bot level (Which annoying social media app represents you?!)
In a math sense, the signal to noise ratio on FB became much higher over the last decade. At inception, it was a focused way to directly communicate with a close college circle. Now its effectively as open as Myspace, bombards you with ads, and as with all wide networks, the discourse has dropped to meme / quiz bot level I think you mean "much lower" signal to noise ratio.
I’m no fan of Facebook, but I don’t agree with the premise of the article. The power of Facebook lies in its network effect: something on the order of 2 billion have active Facebook accounts. Whether or not people are spending more or less time on the platform doesn’t matter as much as people seem to think it does. What matters is the fact that they can associate web browsing actions (pages visited etc) with your Fac…
What if those two billion accounts are bullshit? Has anyone actually done a sample of Facebook users (or humans) to check those stats? I do not believe them, based on my personal experience and the very large number of businesses and bots on facebook. Given the massive incentive for Facebook to lie, we’d be naive to take their numbers for granted. If they provided really fine-grained data, we could easily verify thei…