61–70 of 228 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's bad for journalists and advertisers then it's good for users.
There's a meaningful difference between journalists and advertisers. I know it's fashionable to bash "the media" but I wouldn't want to live in a world without journalism. Advertising I could take or leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's bad for journalists and advertisers then it's good for users.
There's a meaningful difference between journalists and advertisers. I know it's fashionable to bash "the media" but I wouldn't want to live in a world without journalism. Advertising I could take or leave.
In the dictionary, sure. In reality, for as long as advertisers are how journalists get paid, that difference is whittling towards nil.
I have long critiqued Facebook for chasing after ad revenue at the expense of the experience they offer users. In light of this news, the following quote comes to mind: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I generally feel that Facebook has traveled so far in the wrong direction, coming back to any sense of morality will be an extremely hard job. That being said, I wonder if th…
This change was tested for months in several smaller countries including mine. I am not on facebook, but I know that media here hate the change. They lost tens of percents of traffic overnight.
This is not necessarily a bad thing for users
I have long critiqued Facebook for chasing after ad revenue at the expense of the experience they offer users. In light of this news, the following quote comes to mind: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I generally feel that Facebook has traveled so far in the wrong direction, coming back to any sense of morality will be an extremely hard job. That being said, I wonder if th…
0
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's bad for journalists and advertisers then it's good for users.
It depends. Some people use Facebook "likes" as a crappy replacement for RSS, so it's probably not great for them.
It's... shocking, how much of that noise that you can get by without.
To be fair, I'm missing out on a ton of news with regards to the community and culture that I used Facebook to participate in - but my life is measurably better in every other metric for having left the platform. Getting BMX racing news second-hand is a small price to pay for having my mind back.
(Disclaimer: I spent 20+ hours per week on Facebook. It's mostly nice to have those 20+ hours back, and not having to be constantly bombarded by all the evil of this world is a huge plus, too.)
next? VR/AR = weapon of mass delusion ?
I believe this is step 1 in entering/dominating another industry: influencer marketing. Hear me out. I have 3 friends who have started “influencer marketing” companies that fly out 20 or so influencers, and brands pay for posts during their trip. I’m not too well attuned to the economics of it, but from what I can see, it’s profitable. Facebooks move of doing this is probably to ultimately purposefully change the inc…
Eventually FB will see influences as a challenge to their own ad network (the only ads on FB must go thru FB!), so I agree with you, FB will try to take it over. PS I wonder why you got a downvote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever considered that you might be narcissistic? Why on earth would you want to go on social media only to view self centred experiences?
To have access to messenger to keep in touch for the people that are hooked on FB. Killing the feed has helped me stop wasting time mindlessly scrolling FB. Sorry, the memories comment wasn't meant to show narcissism but it's honestly the only thing that appears.