I stopped looking often at Facebook. I don't like their upgrade and more people are posting stupid things on the network. To be honest I don't care about it anymore. Instagram, whatsapp and Snapchat have taken over most of Facebook imho.
Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
11–20 of 114 posts
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#12Anecdotally, I'm one of the people who walked away from Facebook this year, due to exhaustion, disinterest, disgust, protest, or other (negative) reasons. I don't miss it and won't be going back.
Amusingly, after about a week, Facebook started emailing me to try to entice me to come back. So I logged back in to disable those emails.
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#13Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#14I'm not sure if this article can support a substantive discussion or not, but thought it might be worth the trick of taking a more complex phrase for the title in the hope of stimulating more substantive responses. HN threads are often like those psych tests that measure complexity of response by time delay. It's a bit weird, but there's some reason to believe that just the small tax it imposes on the brain to parse…
If I understand correctly what you said, I think it worked. It took ~30 mins for the first "I dont use fb anymore because it's evil" reply. Unfortunatelly, not great debate started in the quaiet timeframe
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#15In 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?!)
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#16In 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 remember the main draw early on being the simple, uniform UI, especially in contrast to MySpace. White, blue, feed, photos. Product designers just never know when to quit.
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#17I’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 Facebook account. Just having a Facebook account that you “don’t use” allows a massive amount of value (from an advertisers perspective) to be unlocked.
In my opinion no other network is going to be able to compete with the number of users on facebooks platform, and any that do, Facebook will buy or copy (Instagram and Snapchat respectively). Even if you don’t actively look at anything on Facebook, or even log in, the fact that you have a Facebook account allows advertisers to track and target you with ads on all sorts of platforms and websites that are available to Facebook advertisers through the audience network (ad placements on millions of websites and mobile apps). The crucial moat that Facebook has is simply the massive nimber of registered users (that correspond to people’s real identity) on the platform combined with sophisticated tools to reach those users both on and off Facebook.
I’d love to hear an opposing argument, but the way I see it Facebook is here to stay and will only get bigger and more profitable in the foreseeable future.
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#18I mean Facebook has arguably reached all the audience it could reach. The only way they could keep growing is the increase time spent on their platform. That said Id conjecture the optimization towards short term reward cycles (more clickbaity articles being recommended, etc.) loses customer loyalty over the long run
Yes but the point is that it is now losing people that it used to reach because it's too full of advertising, shitty memes and fwd:fwd:fwd: tag your friend in this if...
And they never really adequately solved the "my aunt sent me a friend request and will be offended if I don't accept it" problem.
Everything I used to share on Facebook I now share on WhatsApp because it has no advertising and my actual friends are likely to see it. Smart buy by Facebook.
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#19In 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 remember the main draw early on being the simple, uniform UI, especially in contrast to MySpace. White, blue, feed, photos. Product designers just never know when to quit.
Well it certainly is a business decision. Likely Facebook knows better when it needs to canibalize its own product and squeeze the most profit out of it then move on.
Instagram is now the social place to be.
Re: Reasons to think that, in terms of influence if not wealth, Facebook has peaked
#20I'm not sure if this article can support a substantive discussion or not, but thought it might be worth the trick of taking a more complex phrase for the title in the hope of stimulating more substantive responses. HN threads are often like those psych tests that measure complexity of response by time delay. It's a bit weird, but there's some reason to believe that just the small tax it imposes on the brain to parse…
Thanks dang, I used the title from the article, but much prefer the updated one. Hoping it will generate some interesting discussion