31–40 of 177 posts
Classic. Not a day goes by that Evan Spiegel doesn’t regret selling Snap for a cool 7 billion to Facebook and just moving on with his life, so they throw out crap like this as some kind of revenge by social mob justice. He drank too much of his own koolaid.
SNAP has $23 billion market cap you dolt.
Classic. Not a day goes by that Evan Spiegel doesn’t regret selling Snap for a cool 7 billion to Facebook and just moving on with his life, so they throw out crap like this as some kind of revenge by social mob justice. He drank too much of his own koolaid.
Snap can blame Facebook all they want, but what they had was a feature , not a product, and then they alienated their users with the redesign. Nobody else is to blame for their own stagnation then failing to reimagine their product. I mean, Snap Spectacles, really?
Why is this thread full of commentators attacking Snap for completely unrelated things? Strikes me as odd. FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?
I we go by the pattern of behavior at Facebook, it really doesn't seem like the decision makers consider much in the way of anti-trust or much of anything.
The pattern is well established and their version of move fast and break things is almost entirely off the rails.
I still don't see the problem here. None of these sites actually make or sell anything besides maybe an ad-platform. Any cachet they have is based on social viability or popularity... i.e. waning psychological value, not intrinsic hard tangibility
Why does that matter?
Why is this thread full of commentators attacking Snap for completely unrelated things? Strikes me as odd. FB told IG influencers they might lose their verified status if they link to a SC profile? Seems like that was a mistake on their part, could they really not anticipate future antitrust action?
That's a lot of HN though, you'll see people talk about tangentially related things to the main topic, and never address the linked topic. I've learned to accept it as is, and not to worry about it too much.
It sounds like a conspiracy, but it's possible. You know the old saying about "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
>the belief that Facebook was preventing Snap’s most popular content from trending on Instagram >Snap executives noted their belief that Instagram was blocking searches of these Snap-related terms Real solid data driven analysis here.. >Facebook’s tactics have long engendered concern across Silicon Valley, said Paul Keable, chief strategy officer at Ashley Madison. The dating site, which caters to married people seek…
Lol, the same Ashley Madison who screwed over their entire user-base by failing to secure their database. Please Ashley Madison, lecture us more about unethical behavior.
I think the biggest take away from that site was just how few women were there compared to men, like we were talking in the single digits for verifiable active accounts.
Which is also where the unethical part comes in as AM was running chat bots or ignoring their existence to keep men on the site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a lot of HN though, you'll see people talk about tangentially related things to the main topic, and never address the linked topic. I've learned to accept it as is, and not to worry about it too much.
Some news.ycombinator readers may actually work for Facebook, and have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this matter. It sounds like a conspiracy, but it's possible. You know the old saying about "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
>the belief that Facebook was preventing Snap’s most popular content from trending on Instagram >Snap executives noted their belief that Instagram was blocking searches of these Snap-related terms Real solid data driven analysis here.. >Facebook’s tactics have long engendered concern across Silicon Valley, said Paul Keable, chief strategy officer at Ashley Madison. The dating site, which caters to married people seek…
Good to see AM lecturing though as a source for these articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some news.ycombinator readers may actually work for Facebook, and have a direct financial stake in the outcome of this matter. It sounds like a conspiracy, but it's possible. You know the old saying about "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Speculating about sock puppets is not only not interesting, it’s against the guidelines. If there’s a post you want to make a substantive argument against, please reply to it directly.