Against Facebook

> Will FB be able to infinitely increase their engagement, or will they run out, and be left with a bunch of zombie addicts who are no longer valuable to them, since they've effectively killed their host? It seems like drugs sometimes have this end game.

Perhaps more saliently, microtransaction mobile games already have this pattern. They grow aggressively, stabilize after consuming all easily reached users, then slowly peter out.

Rather than unbounded growth, we actually see something a lot like bacterial growth in a closed culture: lag, log, plateau, death. [1]

It's (part of) what killed Zynga: their long-term engagement predictions didn't pan out and they couldn't cycle users to new apps fast enough. Subsequent companies like Supercell have learned to EOL apps like Clash of Clans - they draw down their advertising and onboarding efforts in favor of monetizing their existing players, and eventually wind down in favor of the next big thing.

I'm not sure whether Facebook will end up like this - they have a real advantage because their users generate new content without requiring corporate effort. But I and several of my friends have abandoned FB less out of any moral principle than out of sheer disinterest in their increasingly unfriendly, cash-focused product. My suspicion is that they'll emphasize daily time per user and monetization, but slowly bleed daily users in return.

[1] http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/Lecture/Chapter%206/growt...

i was talking about the parent post, he/she clarifying something in the article, but avoided talking ABOUT the article.

See, 'microwork' is flawed. Facebook doesn't really benefit from the endless stream of likes and comments and sharing. Facebook couldn't care less what you like or what you actually think about current events or what your mood is or who your friends are or whether you're single. The "work" you're doing by telling Facebook this is not for Facebook's benefit. The "content" is not the point. Facebook can monetize the data, sure, but here it is acting as a prison guard; it surveils and records everything and so gathers more knowledge about the prisoners and thus maybe even more power over the prisoners. But this missing the key question: why have the prisoners voluntarily entered the prison and why do they play the games they do?

Prison is the right analogy for social media. The real danger of social media is not the endless surveillance and advertising. Social media is a prison. It's simultaneously lawless -- there are no real rules, no clear expectations, no documented roles or requirements or expectations -- and also deeply authoritarian. Everyone is subject to harsh unstated rules and watched constantly by the guards. It's a culture without any rituals, a game that can be won or lost but has no rules or regulations or referees. Indeed nothing is even real, everyone and everything is "playing" at something -- but it's never clear what. And the result, make no mistake, is chaos. Fake news, "context collapses," human impostors (bots and politicians), social media mobs -- all of these a just terms for a kind of deep-seated anarchy that rules over social media. Social media is a society surrendering to the logic of the prison and deciding to imprison everybody. And corporations sit back and just observe and record everything and print money.

But what's also interesting is that if they could the corporations would put an end to the anarchy. Facebook, I think it's very clear, does not like the chaos. They would love to put an end to all the fake news and scams and general crazines. But they can't. And this is important: in prison the guards are not really "in control." Their best hope is to guide the violence, give it direction, but they can't end it completely and in fact they did the system would turn on them. Zuckerberg is as much a victim of Facebook as everybody else.

The essay is interesting but I think focusing on the economic aspect and even dopamine addiction is missing the point. The question again is why the prisoners do what they do. And the answer I suspect is fear and violence. There is a kind of fear that drives people back to Facebook. People check their phones over and over, every fucking minute, not because they want to see what's new but because they are fundamentally concerned for their own safety and wellbeing. The concern is that somebody will have unfriended them or not invited them or simply said something about them. Or something may have happened completely unrelated to them and they know they must be seen to react in the right manner. This is what drives Facebook, the source of its enormous power. It is not a bunch of bored, dopamine addicts being tricked into doing "microwork." The truth is even worse than it appears. It's a bunch of deeply frightened prisoners doing their best to survive in an anarchic system of structural violence.

And here's the real genius of the system: it doesn't really matter whether you are on Facebook or not. The violence is structural. Quitting Facebook -- leaving the game -- can still be interpreted as an act of aggression by the prisoners left behind. They may be induced to respond and, worse, now you won't even see them coming because you've given up your ability to monitor them. No, it's always a good idea to keep an eye on your fellow inmates. Sleep with one eye open and always be aware of who's behind you.

I sometimes use the share as message feature. Now I rarely share something on my timeine, and my timeline is becoming space as time goes on.

That signal to noise quote is actually great, and one of the reasons why the late Aaron Schwartz refused to read the news. He said in one of his essays it's far more valuable to read books, and basically explained in more words, the signal to noise problem.