41–50 of 228 posts
It seems like Twitter is in serious trouble and Facebook is going for the kill. Hootsuite, a Vancouver micro-unicorn, a word I just coined right here and right now. Micro-unicorns are almost billion dollar companies specifically for selling to FANG. built upon Twitter, social media platforms, has recently been seen in the local news (, seems to be in trouble as well.
Microcorn!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or just go back to email, which is what I've done. Proton Mail is an excellent alternative to Gmail, and pretty much everyone, even Richard Stallman, has an email address. Reaching out to individuals or sending out a general update every once in a while will suffice. Unless one's friends are really immature, people will hesitate to send you photos of their food or their thoughts on some trite opinion piece.
What's wrong with GMail? Google stopped mining it last year: https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in...
> Google stopped mining it last year: https://blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in....
Google stopped mining it for ads, but it's disingenuous to say they stopped mining, period [0]. How do you think those Gmail suggested replies are generated?
[0]: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-email...
I'm not sure I understand how this would help Facebook. Isn't it better for them the more content they have? More content more readers more advertising revenue. On the other hand there has been a lot of concerns of illegitimate accounts spreading propaganda, affecting US elections, and it may be harder for Facebook to validate accounts that basically only exist on Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s the equivalent of GitHub deciding to remove all the code that you automatically re-post from SourceForge. In what way, AT ALL, was this this feature good for FACEBOOK? It meant people could be “on” Facebook and “active” without ever actually logging in or using the app or engaging in any way. Why would they want to just be a dumping ground for copies of another social network’s posts? I guess I’m surprised t…
It's the other way around. Why does Facebook think it has the right to remove years of their users' contributions? As the years march on, I think we'll see more and more data protection laws in favor of users rather than companies. Data is the new uranium, not the new oil. It needs to be protected and taken seriously. You can argue that it's Facebook's site and that they can do whatever they want. I argue that they c…
How much were they paying for the service?
It might just take a few more decisions like this from the social media incumbants before alternative social media structures (federated or distributed) actually make sense for the masses...
They already make plenty of sense but people aren't moving because nobody else already has. It's chicken and egg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the other way around. Why does Facebook think it has the right to remove years of their users' contributions? As the years march on, I think we'll see more and more data protection laws in favor of users rather than companies. Data is the new uranium, not the new oil. It needs to be protected and taken seriously. You can argue that it's Facebook's site and that they can do whatever they want. I argue that they c…
> Why does Facebook think it has the right to remove years of their users' contributions? How much were they paying for the service?
I really hope this isn't intentional. Deleting a ton of user data from their site on a whim is pretty ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s the equivalent of GitHub deciding to remove all the code that you automatically re-post from SourceForge. In what way, AT ALL, was this this feature good for FACEBOOK? It meant people could be “on” Facebook and “active” without ever actually logging in or using the app or engaging in any way. Why would they want to just be a dumping ground for copies of another social network’s posts? I guess I’m surprised t…
I liked the cross-posting because some people would comment on those Tweets on Facebook -- and then we could engage there. It did add value and wasn't just shoveled content. Anyway, I'm not particularly upset. Seems more like Facebook shooting themselves in the foot, as now I really have no reason to visit the site.