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

Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

shaneosullivan.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#101

Post by esprehn »

grecy wrote: post #99
esprehn wrote: post #94

This story is a fun read, but the "Chrome could ruin us at any moment" angle is more story telling hyperbole than reality. At that time on Chrome we were just figuring out a process to remove features and were pretty conservative. We debated a lot about the right way to remove things without causing damage to the web ecosystem. In an early attempt we had failed trying to remove a legacy feature and needed to revert i…

.. and even if Chrome had removed WebSQL back then, couldn't that have just kept using whatever version of Chrom e they were already using?

I suspect a lot of FB customers are using a browser in a business setting where IT manages the Chrome updates. FB could have used a polyfill though, or used Safari, or shipped a desktop wapper around an older Chrome temporarily. Electron was brand new at the time so it probably wasn't a great option, but FB certainly had a lot of emergency options.

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#102

Post by gretch »

joe_the_user wrote: post #98
gretch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

disclosure: I work for google "People who understand human beings" and the have the ability to synthesize those insights into compelling technology products are exceedingly in demand in 2021. Rest assured, we hire as many as we possibly can and offer them a lot of money/benefits. However, they can pretty much get jobs anywhere and many choose to start their own venture. You seem to think it's quite easy though. Do yo…

Respectfully, the thing is, back when G+ came out, myself and many others pointed-out how Google's real name policy combined with Google merging all the existing Google accounts into G+ sank the effort - 'cause lots of people didn't want all their youtube or other data available to their friends and lots of others didn't want strong real name policy enforced - and Facebook had a real name policy that was and is only…

These are all valid feelings / hypotheses about what happened, but even with the benefit of hindsight we can’t confirm them.

For example, you think the real name policy tanked the effort. But did it really? Twitter verified status is considered to be coveted, people are lining up to get their real named acknowledged. Is that not enough to introduce plausible doubt?

Similarly, we always complain about “network effects” of social media these days - that’s why Facebook can maintain a “monopoly”. Well when G+ was rolling out, it was by limited invitation only; clearly in hindsight an extremely rookie mistake for a social network. Perhaps nothing else matters - perhaps not allowing ppl into your social network dwarfed all other causes.

We may never know as we can’t A/B test history.

It’s really easy to look at failed features in hindsight and say “ah I knew all along”. Statistically, most things fail. And it appeals to our innate desire to seek confirmation.

But I invite you to seek alternative explanations than “corporate messed it up”. And hey, if you really do know how to make successful social products, join ycomb, raise money and go be a billionaire

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#103

Post by noxvilleza »

grecy wrote: post #99
esprehn wrote: post #94

This story is a fun read, but the "Chrome could ruin us at any moment" angle is more story telling hyperbole than reality. At that time on Chrome we were just figuring out a process to remove features and were pretty conservative. We debated a lot about the right way to remove things without causing damage to the web ecosystem. In an early attempt we had failed trying to remove a legacy feature and needed to revert i…

.. and even if Chrome had removed WebSQL back then, couldn't that have just kept using whatever version of Chrom e they were already using?

Sounds like the South African government approach, except they released their own browser with the last Flash version: https://www.zdnet.com/article/south-african-government-relea...

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#105

Post by saiojd »

wwww4all wrote: post #97
arthurcolle wrote: post #2

That so many smart and talented people choose to work on AdTech or systems that support AdTech is such a shame. That being said, I love these little anecdotes, they are super fun to read.

There are more positives in Adtech than negatives. Adtech allows people and businesses to find products and services they want and need. Gives consumers choice in discovery and businesses reach and targeting customers in need. At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people. That and the many business opportunities are why so many talented people work in Adtech.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps. ;) While at some level ads probably do help consumers (indirectly), my impression so far is that at a fundamental level they are about companies competing for money, in a way which wastes everybody's time. Since your point of view is so vastly different, I'm curious in which ways you feel like they give consumers choice?

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#107

Post by matheusmoreira »

esprehn wrote: post #94

This story is a fun read, but the "Chrome could ruin us at any moment" angle is more story telling hyperbole than reality. At that time on Chrome we were just figuring out a process to remove features and were pretty conservative. We debated a lot about the right way to remove things without causing damage to the web ecosystem. In an early attempt we had failed trying to remove a legacy feature and needed to revert i…

> It had broken a big company who had then contacted Google directly about the business impact and it taught us a lesson about being careful.

How can normal users accomplish this same task?

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#108

Post by tempodox »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #107
esprehn wrote: post #94

This story is a fun read, but the "Chrome could ruin us at any moment" angle is more story telling hyperbole than reality. At that time on Chrome we were just figuring out a process to remove features and were pretty conservative. We debated a lot about the right way to remove things without causing damage to the web ecosystem. In an early attempt we had failed trying to remove a legacy feature and needed to revert i…

> It had broken a big company who had then contacted Google directly about the business impact and it taught us a lesson about being careful. How can normal users accomplish this same task?

No.

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#109

Post by bigphishy »

wwww4all wrote: post #97
arthurcolle wrote: post #2

That so many smart and talented people choose to work on AdTech or systems that support AdTech is such a shame. That being said, I love these little anecdotes, they are super fun to read.

There are more positives in Adtech than negatives. Adtech allows people and businesses to find products and services they want and need. Gives consumers choice in discovery and businesses reach and targeting customers in need. At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people. That and the many business opportunities are why so many talented people work in Adtech.

"At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people."

Haha. Adtech is not there to "help people". Back in the day, prior to television and radio, ads were there to provide information about a product, but those days are long since past. Ads now-a-days appeal to emotional and irrational wants/desires, this is common knowledge. Ads attempt to generate needless sales by marketing to irrational and emotional desires.

Adtech on the other hand, is there to drive irrational and unneeded consumerism and consumption just as well, it just happens to have some additional evil sprinkled on top. For example, adtech violates human privacy, adtech marginalizes the open web, and turns it into a creepy surveillance nightmare.

To say that "At fundamental level, Adtech is there to help people." is delusional and unintentionally hilarious. I am going to swing in the dark and say the GP must be an employee of facebook

Re: Google could have killed Facebook with the flick of a switch

#110

Post by etempleton »

dillondoyle wrote: post #78
cm2012 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find business manager has a more sensible design than AdWords, having used both a lot. TikTok is funny because they basically copied the FB ads dashboard pixel by pixel.

I agree but only the actual /adsmanager/manage section and the subsequent tools (events/audiences). Basically power editor 2.0. But it seems less powerful than the old one for some reason might just be in my head though. It has a pretty low ad limit per ad group I think 100. Though some of the 'combo' ads where you can put 5 headlines, 5 copy etc help up that number. BUT I do not like the business manager which house…

I think it feels less powerful because it is a buggy mess and takes forever to use. I loath setting up Facebook ads now because I know it is going to take me forever to do it properly.

I pine for the days of PowerEditor. It had a confusing interface, but like Google Ads, once you had learned it you could get what you wanted to get done quickly.

I don’t mind the interface of Business Manager or the Ads Manager platform at all, but I find the ads platform to be riddled with weird bugs. It has perhaps improved slightly in the past year or so, but only slightly. They also constantly change how it works, so you can’t just copy the campaign or ad set of an ad and build out new ads from a year ago, it will almost always have to be built out from scratch because something changed, but they don’t tell you that before you copy the campaign. Why even let me copy it if it isn’t going to work?

Post reply on HN