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

Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

recode.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 365 posts

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#291

Post by kardos »

evilduck wrote: post #234
jonmb wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I check in once every few months, usually when I need to sign in because someone messages me there instead of email. From what I've been hearing from internal teams, Facebook is hoping to take some of email's pie. I expect to see them pushing more people to use Facebook Messenger in place of email. And they're working on new types of ads that interface more with the Messenger. E.g. start a conversation with a compa…

Sounds like 2010 when they gave everyone an @facebook.com email address to try to... take some of email's pie.

I remember that day, it was the day I abandoned facebook. Reading this thread confirms that I haven't been missing out on much aside from heaps of dark patterns.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#292

Post by acdha »

Jonovono wrote: post #288
dmix wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, etc can't have a simple toggle between chronological and the default algorithmic feed... I've seen everyone complain about this for years online and it seems like such a simple problem to solve. Much like searching for Tweets, Twitter provides a "New" vs "Top" filter which does that same... It has nothing to do with advertising as both views can include ads.

Same reason Netflix doesn't let you list all the movies on their site in alphabetical order - they want to create the sense that there is unlimited content. If every time you opened Instagram and there was no new content and you saw the same picture you saw last time you would just close the app. Now you never really know if there is no new content or not so you scroll down... and down...

It can’t be that simple, however, because all three show lots of old content for days even after you’ve looked at it. There must be some component of predicting the content you’re most likely to click on or guaranteeing views for promoted content.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#293

Post by cycrutchfield »

tim333 wrote: post #286
cycrutchfield wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are squeezing every last drop out of their userbase, but the numbers do not lie. Decreasing DAU/MAU in their most profitable demographics means that their revenue numbers will eventually suffer.

You sure the under 25s are the most profitable demographic? Us over 25s often have more cash to spend.

Ah, I meant North American users, which are the highest ARPU users for Facebook. I don't know the breakdown of ARPU for different age demographics within NA.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#294

Post by kaosjester »

mysterypie wrote: post #209
beamatronic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. Most folks I know address the colleague issue with a "no current coworkers" policy. (Not to imply you should immediately add newly-former coworkers).

> a "no current coworkers" policy So if someone asks, Can you add me on FB? Would you reply?: No, I have a no current coworkers policy. Is there a way to do this without hurting people's feelings?

When I was a TA, I'd have students constantly try to add me on Facebook. The conversation would go nearly exactly like you'd describe:

> Are you on Facebook? Is this your profile?

> Yes, but I'm not gonna accept your friend request.

The reply was usually a bit snarky with a bit of a chuckle, and that did it for most college-aged people. The few times someone persisted, I explained that Facebook is an aspect of my social life, not my professional life, and I intended to keep it that way.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#295

Post by discardable_dan »

taurath wrote: post #220
btilly wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the thing is that social networks are not nearly as sticky as they seem. As https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/metcalfes-law-i... makes clear, multiple lines of evidence suggests that the total possible value out of a social network scales like O(n log(n)). (Yes, I am biased as one of the authors. But what shocked me was how many independent lines of argument the other authors came up with for the same…

It’ll be a slow chip away and then a mass migration catalyzed by some event. The chip away is already well under way.

The truth of it, though, is that many people who are moving away from Facebook aren't moving elsewhere, they're disengaging the social media sphere. Many people are simply not logging in, preferring direct messaging, chat rooms, or in-person interactions. Nowadays, it feels like Facebook fills the "instant messaging" gap for people who never got into it, and, to be completely honest, that's often the group of people I feel the least imperative to connect with. As described in the comments above, I'd rather read a Discord chat with some people I know than see what the group of people I only communicate with via Facebook are saying.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#296

Post by discardable_dan »

ZenoArrow wrote: post #207
Yhippa wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook is no longer the best way for me to share content with people I care about. For me that's WhatsApp, Google Photos, and MMS.

If you're using WhatsApp instead of Facebook, Facebook the company doesn't care, it's still money in the bank to them (selling advertisers a detailed profile of who their users are for targeted ads). The whole idea behind buying Instagram and Whatsapp would've been to stay relevant when the inevitable decline in their flagship product kicked in. Looks like their plan is working.

At this point, communicating electronically basically necessitates someone collecting information at this point. I don't care. I just care that the dumb argument I had two years ago is in a chat room with 10 people I know and my employer will never see it.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#297

Post by sevilo »

alex_young wrote: post #4

How many users are just hanging on? I use FB very occasionally for some events, but mostly never login. I get nagging notifications about how much I'm missing, but it doesn't feel like much. I suspect there is a growing population of people with similar usage patterns. Are we really monthly active users?

same, I used to be fairly active on facebook during my highschool and college years, ever since it started filling my feed with politics, ads and junk I've been much less engaged with facebook. I disabled my account for a period of time and now I'm only hanging on to it because 1) it's still the one app that most of the people in my circle have accounts on 2) for organizing events 3) advertisement purpose

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#298

Post by smogcutter »

lione wrote: post #280
smogcutter wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you recommend as a starting point? A quick google didn't have anything relevant, and Liddell & Scott just gives the straightforward interior/exterior definition. I can see a connection between the eternal september and insiders/outsiders, but it sounds like you're getting at something specific and I'm curious.

Well from what I've seen in my googling, it seems to be a concept relating to the Unwritten Doctrine of Plato. He had esoteric teachings reserved for his close following vs his exoteric writings for the public. Esoteric came to mean shadowy/hidden, but it's really just how you say/think/act differently with an insider group then an outsider group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_unwritten_doctrines

Thanks! My google skills failed me.

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#299

Post by fortylove »

traek wrote: post #282
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like facebook has a pretty effective scam for getting people to give them driver's licenses, passports and untold other treasure troves of personal information.

In what sense do you think a driver’s license is a “treasure trove of personal information”? Especially information which FB does not already have from other sources?

Proving to advertisers that the targets are real humans must have some value. I imagine fb somewhere shares a stat that's basically "n% of users personal details are verified with a valid ID!". IE, "dear advertisers, your ads are targeting real humans. We promise."

Re: Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year

#300

Post by balls187 »

a13n wrote: post #277
balls187 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know why Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, etc can't have a simple toggle between chronological and the default algorithmic feed... It's not that they can't have it. They have no incentive to do so. Algorithm feeds provides the guarantee that an ad is seen by a minimum number of users, which is the entire value of facebook.

What? You can put ads in chronological feeds too.

Fair enough. So, why doesn't facebook allow chronological ads?
Post reply on HN