431–440 of 609 posts
Heroin is already way past a reputational point of no return, but people are still using it.
The key is only a fraction use it. Facebook's intake is way way more than Heroin's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are banning dissenting information that looks bad for them. Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example. The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals. Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were brok…
A simple search for "hunter biden laptop" on Facebook immediately kicks up three news articles, dozens of site posts, and (in the bubble I can see from my own friends list) several dozen posts on the topic from the point of view that the laptop was real. If this is Democratic censorship in action, it's incredibly bad at its goals.
Yes eventually they had to allow it because it was blatant censorship, but the damage is done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To go a bit further MSM's ad revenue is being hollowed out by Facebook et al. Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc. Similarly, if you were an advertising exec at pfizer, would you choose to pay millions of dollars to advertise your meds to a continuously shrinking audience on som…
The internet hollowed out the legacy media's business model, but it's more than that: It also destroyed the ability of the ruling class to control the narrative. Now everything they say and do is endlessly scrutinized by the internet hive mind, which embarrasses them on a daily basis. Nor does it forget `weapons of mass destruction`, `mission accomplished`, `masks don't work`, `wuhan lab leak hypothesis is a racist c…
To believe that “the ruling class” oppose Facebook because people say mean things there, you have to maintain a crazily tortured definition of who is and is not in the ruling class.
To believe that Facebook, a huge company that recruits heavily from the Ivy League and pays huge salaries across the board, is not an elite institution, requires willful ignorance about what they do and who they work for. Who do you think buys most of the ads on Facebook? Dynamic amateurs and the broader public?
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is it's clearly a party issue to censor conservatives in the D party. The only issue R's have with FB is the censorship itself. Does that clear things up or do you have any questions?
I've seen enough pro-Marxists posts brigaded off of Facebook to know that Republicans have no actual problem with Facebook censorship. Their beef is what Facebook is allowed to censor. They don't want to stop the juggernaut; they want to steer it.
Or are you talking about random people?
I can find you random people of all calibers on both sides, that's not the conversation.
This is about politicians in the government coordinating a way to censor citizens who practice political dissent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users would need an order of magnitude superior alternative, and most critically, users would need to move en mass. Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. I dislike FB for all of the usual reasons, plus a few of my own. But I still have an FB account. I don't check it very often, and I've got notifications turned off. But ditching my FB account entirel…
> Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. Facebook's network effect was overwhelmed twice, once by instagram and again by whatsapp... shame both those ended up squarely in Facebook's court. Remains to be seen how much dent can TikTok / Twitch / YouTube / Snap / Azar / Telegram can make on to that once-in-a-generation trifecta.
That's why Facebook is investing in VR. Not because they're optimistic about it, or because they want to own the space, but because it's the closest horizon that has the potential to fundamentally change interaction.
If it does, they have a foot in the door and can flood resources into it. If it doesn't, small price to pay for hedging an existential threat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you keep in touch with them on Facebook? What makes your post reach them, if most don’t check often? I want Facebook for this purpose but it feels like it’s really not a blog. At all.
As someone old enough to remember and have used Livejournal, the Facebook experience is very different.
You didn't have normies and family and stuff on there; felt like you could actually express yourself.
Tumblr was its spiritual successor, I guess, in ways. But it wasn't the same. People actually wrote things on LJ. Maybe it was mostly crap, but it was often thoughtful and personal if you had the right friends. It felt like nothing was ever created on Tumblr; it was just endless pithy comments and jokes about things created elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, perhaps just the N, then. But Netflix has always been the odd-duck in FAANG. (And yes, you can point out reasons not to work at Netflix, but it seems like a whole nother level than the rest of FAANG.)
> But Netflix has always been the odd-duck in FAANG. Yeah, mostly cos they make no money ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been so long since a company reached Facebook's heights and fell that a whole generation doesn't know what it looks like. AOL was the Facebook of its time: a joke to system admins, a default ban on small game servers and IRC channels. Meanwhile, most people had no idea anyone had a problem with AOL. Like with Facebook, there were people reporting on its follies like Observers.net[0], but it mostly went unremarke…
I'd hesitate to generalize AOL's fall into Facebook's future. AOL's core proposition was being better than the Internet (more curated, coherent, and faster). When the web and internet exploded in size and scale, AOL's value evaporated. The dumb mergers and other mistakes were window dressing on this landscape transformation. And for years (decades? still?) afterwards, people used AOL Instant Messager (AIM), because i…
I'd sign up for such a social-graph-based service that just did individual messaging, group discussions, and events (invitations + pictures).
Identity is an issue with social graph export... But on the other hand, doesn't the existence of LinkedIn show that people are willing to re-create their social graph on multiple services?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd hesitate to generalize AOL's fall into Facebook's future. AOL's core proposition was being better than the Internet (more curated, coherent, and faster). When the web and internet exploded in size and scale, AOL's value evaporated. The dumb mergers and other mistakes were window dressing on this landscape transformation. And for years (decades? still?) afterwards, people used AOL Instant Messager (AIM), because i…
Users would need an order of magnitude superior alternative, and most critically, users would need to move en mass. Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. I dislike FB for all of the usual reasons, plus a few of my own. But I still have an FB account. I don't check it very often, and I've got notifications turned off. But ditching my FB account entirel…
Email, probably.