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

Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#91

Post by xiphias »

herbst wrote: post #87
xiphias wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds interesting, can you give a concrete example?

I am thinking things like Wechat, Telegram (also Whatsapp to some degree but that's behind in functionality) but also things like discord and slack. So without a direct social graph, specialised interest groups, more direct connections, more 'privacy' at least in terms of how public the data is available.

Ah, I was referring to how you're creeping people out using their Facebook :) Sounds like a fun thing to do

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#92

Post by mch82 »

6ak74rfy wrote: post #74
heisnotanalien wrote: post #72

Why can't I just pay for FB a monthly fee and as such they have no need to make money by selling my data or spamming me with crappy ads?

A usual CPC (cost per click) that an advertiser is willing to pay is somewhere between 50 to 150 cents. Let's say it is 100, and you clicked on 10 ads in a month. So, Facebook earned $10 off you. Now, you should be willing to pay more than that for Facebook to prefer the model you are suggesting. My math above is highly simplistic. For e.g., you'd say you aggressively use an ad blocker and never click on ads. Fair en…

I'm always surprised by how little services charge to remove advertising. YouTube will do it for $9.99/month.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#93

Post by icebraining »

heisnotanalien wrote: post #72

Why can't I just pay for FB a monthly fee and as such they have no need to make money by selling my data or spamming me with crappy ads?

My uninformed guesses:

1) Hard to price discriminate. Some people are worth almost nothing to FB, others are worth a lot. The price would either have to be absurdly high (e.g. $500+/y) or they might leave a lot on the table from that very profitable minority.

2) PR hit. People more easily accept that a frivolous luxury is only available to the wealthy, whereas even many people who use FB see privacy as more of a basic need. See: response to "price gougers" selling stuff like ice or water at a premium in disaster areas.

3) Hard to cleaning delineate. It's a social graph, your data is useful to generate data on your friends. Could they use it in that case or not? If they do, will that expose them to a lawsuit?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#94

Post by auxbuss »

quanticle wrote: post #78
seanwilson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried explaining my 20 year old cousin about FB. Her constant argument was "I don't share anything private on FB". She checks in on FB everywhere she goes. Posts her pics all the time. I could not instill any sense of concern for privacy. If she's happy with this level of privacy though, what's the problem? Maybe she does fully understand the implications but has a different value system to you? I feel that when…

>If she's happy with this level of privacy though, what's the problem? The problem is that it's not just her privacy she's violating, but the privacy of everyone else, including OP, whose photos get shared by said cousin. When I got back from a trip I took abroad with my family earlier this year, my friends mentioned that they'd seen the photos that "I" had posted to Facebook. Except... I hadn't posted any photos to…

This is a key point that folk are genuinely surprised by when I explain it to them. It's kind of a reverse herd immunity. (I'm sure there's a better analogy.)

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#95

Post by mch82 »

mrweasel wrote: post #82
6ak74rfy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A usual CPC (cost per click) that an advertiser is willing to pay is somewhere between 50 to 150 cents. Let's say it is 100, and you clicked on 10 ads in a month. So, Facebook earned $10 off you. Now, you should be willing to pay more than that for Facebook to prefer the model you are suggesting. My math above is highly simplistic. For e.g., you'd say you aggressively use an ad blocker and never click on ads. Fair en…

The value you represent to Facebook is also dependent on your location. People in the US are worth the most, around $60 per year: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/28/how-much-... For heavy Facebook users $60 isn't much, but for everyone else it seems a little much.

If they really focused on delivering quality tools for organizing groups I'd pay that. $60 is a bargain compared to MeetUp.com admin fees.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#96

Post by seanwilson »

quanticle wrote: post #78
seanwilson wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I tried explaining my 20 year old cousin about FB. Her constant argument was "I don't share anything private on FB". She checks in on FB everywhere she goes. Posts her pics all the time. I could not instill any sense of concern for privacy. If she's happy with this level of privacy though, what's the problem? Maybe she does fully understand the implications but has a different value system to you? I feel that when…

>If she's happy with this level of privacy though, what's the problem? The problem is that it's not just her privacy she's violating, but the privacy of everyone else, including OP, whose photos get shared by said cousin. When I got back from a trip I took abroad with my family earlier this year, my friends mentioned that they'd seen the photos that "I" had posted to Facebook. Except... I hadn't posted any photos to…

Turn on the feature to hide photos you're tagged in and tell people you know they're not to show photos of you to other people then? Or tell people not to take photos of you?

If Facebook didn't exist, people would still show photos to people in other ways. If someone takes your photo they're more than likely going to show it to somebody so I would assume a low level of privacy by default.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#97

Post by bamboozled »

vinniejames wrote: post #46

We did replace it, almost 10 years ago. It was called Diaspora[1], no one cared about privacy then. No one really cares about privacy now, at least not enough to do anything about it. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(social_network)

Really? I don't think so, it would be good if someone did a study on this though. Most people I know think privacy is important.

I do think people are communicating via other mediums more than before though. It's anecdotal but most of my family and friends just gravitate towards iMessage , Facetime and Telegram to communicate by default now.

Could it be that people don't care about this issue because they care about Facebook anymore? There are alternatives now, people will just use them more and more over time.

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#98

Post by mulander »

seanwilson wrote: post #96
quanticle wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If she's happy with this level of privacy though, what's the problem? The problem is that it's not just her privacy she's violating, but the privacy of everyone else, including OP, whose photos get shared by said cousin. When I got back from a trip I took abroad with my family earlier this year, my friends mentioned that they'd seen the photos that "I" had posted to Facebook. Except... I hadn't posted any photos to…

Turn on the feature to hide photos you're tagged in and tell people you know they're not to show photos of you to other people then? Or tell people not to take photos of you? If Facebook didn't exist, people would still show photos to people in other ways. If someone takes your photo they're more than likely going to show it to somebody so I would assume a low level of privacy by default.

> Turn on the feature to hide photos you're tagged in

And how should I do that if I don't have a Facebook account? How do I tell Facebook to not steal my phone number and texts from phones of my friends?

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#99

Post by majewsky »

sidcool wrote: post #52
panarky wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like a smoking addiction It's awesome to watch massive shifts in values and priorities. Smoking used to be seen as cool, sexy, even healthy. Now it's widely seen as unhealthy and disgusting. Same thing with high-fructose carbonated beverages. I remember people using terms like "retarded" and "gyp" without hesitation. Today even people who hate political correctness don't talk like that in public. It wasn't lon…

That is a good point. What baffles me is it took so much evidence from the medical community to convince people about smoking. And many still do it! Adverse effects of technology/social in general wouls be even more difficult to prove. I see technology addicts' rehabilitation centres a reality in near future.

What baffles me more is that a ton of people are vaping now, even those that haven't smoked before, because "it's, like, totally not like smoking".

Re: Don’t Fix Facebook, Replace It

#100

Post by johnchristopher »

6ak74rfy wrote: post #74
heisnotanalien wrote: post #72

Why can't I just pay for FB a monthly fee and as such they have no need to make money by selling my data or spamming me with crappy ads?

A usual CPC (cost per click) that an advertiser is willing to pay is somewhere between 50 to 150 cents. Let's say it is 100, and you clicked on 10 ads in a month. So, Facebook earned $10 off you. Now, you should be willing to pay more than that for Facebook to prefer the model you are suggesting. My math above is highly simplistic. For e.g., you'd say you aggressively use an ad blocker and never click on ads. Fair en…

Not so fast:

> https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/heres-how-much-youre...

> Here's how much Facebook makes per person in each region, extrapolated annually based on the network's third-quarter numbers:

> Worldwide: $16.04

> US $62.60

> Europe: $18.88

> Asia-Pacific: $7.56

> Rest of World: $4.84

Another metric:

> The social network giant, Facebook has a market cap of $227 billion and 1.4 billion users—which makes you worth a whooping $158. https://arkenea.com/blog/big-tech-companies-user-worth/

So for a max. of 10 bucks per month we could get an ad-free, privacy oriented Facebook. With dev. money going to enhance the experience not maximizing revenues of the ad industry.

Post reply on HN