It's trite at this point, and yet worth reiterating: You are not the customer.
The People Deliberately Killing Facebook
41–44 of 44 posts
Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author seems to have deep dislike for Facebook, and specific executives, like Zuck and Sanberg. This historical interpretation would be stronger without all that emotion. Edit: I'm guessing you are the author?
I get it! But at the same time, this is opinion work - and also, what would this look like without the emotion? A bone-dry analysis of the text? Would it say "this is bad"? Not arguing at all, there're all kinds of valid analyses to be made, I just don't know how else I'd pull this off.
Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook
#43Companies make profits because people spend their money on what those companies have to offer. Facebook offers a dopamine hit. And so does X and TikTok. To some extent also HN. The infinite scroll slot machine. At the end of the day, we are an evolved version of dopamine driven apes. Meta family of Apps (Facebook, Messenger, Whatsapp, Instagram) has total WAU of 3.05 billion. Almost half the planet. --- Sam Altman, S…
> Companies make profits because people spend their money on what those companies have to offer. And then you proceeded to list examples of cases where that is not true. No one is spending money to get dopamine hits from Facebook or TikTok. If that cost money, they would have a fraction of the users. Other companies spend money on those platforms so they can manipulate you where your attention is.
Even if a user not directly paying, they are indirectly paying by clicking on ads and buying from the advertiser. In which case the cost of advertising is baked in.
Meta made $130B in revenue. Thats a ton of ad payers and ad clicks.
Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please elaborate! I'm genuinely curious.
The author seems to have deep dislike for Facebook, and specific executives, like Zuck and Sanberg. This historical interpretation would be stronger without all that emotion. Edit: I'm guessing you are the author?
I'm not sure I agree. If you believe something is destroying civil society, you're going to have a strong emotional reaction. That should come through when you write about it. Otherwise readers won't get the full impact of what you're trying to say.