Most active commenters
  • elliekelly(4)
  • ashelmire(3)
  • ilovecaching(3)
  • (3)

←back to thread

1293 points rmason | 60 comments | | HN request time: 1.333s | source | bottom
1. socrates1998 ◴[] No.19323322[source]
Anecdotally, I work with teenagers and none of them have a Facebook pages. It's viewed as a place for old people and parents.

For me personally, it's almost impossible to deal with. Way too many political posts from my friends and family.

It's probably best use for me is local events and an occasional major event from a friend/family member.

Still, I find myself going there less and less.

From a small business standpoint, it's just not worth the time, effort and money to advertise there. It's much more effective to focus on getting referrals with my current clients.

I really wish there was a paid social media service that everyone used. I would gladly pay $5-$10 a month for something that didn't sell my data.

replies(15): >>19323410 #>>19323503 #>>19323591 #>>19323620 #>>19323626 #>>19323637 #>>19323716 #>>19323721 #>>19324033 #>>19324064 #>>19324090 #>>19324919 #>>19325055 #>>19326803 #>>19329622 #
2. gwbas1c ◴[] No.19323410[source]
> For me personally, it's almost impossible to deal with. Way too many political posts from my friends and family.

Bingo, that's what's doing it for me.

Before the 2016 presidential election, Facebook was fun. It was also a great way to get news.

But now, what I'm finding is that a lot of people on Facebook just don't know how to behave in a public forum. It makes it painful, because someone always knows someone who's a jerk online.

I really don't know what changed, to be honest. Did Facebook change, or did too many people come to the party?

replies(6): >>19323647 #>>19323651 #>>19324055 #>>19324688 #>>19325621 #>>19326246 #
3. spunker540 ◴[] No.19323503[source]
Most people use Facebook these days to keep track of their acquaintances from various stages in life: high school friends, college friends, former coworkers, people you meet at parties etc.

In that regard it’s not very useful to teenagers who are already in the same building as their entire network every day (their school). Plus teenagers don’t want to hang out where their parents do. When I was in school part of facebook’s appeal was the fact that parents couldn’t get on even if they wanted due to the .edu email requirement!

4. p0nce ◴[] No.19323591[source]
For me, it's the interface. It's just really complicated and slow. And I can't communicate with followers without paying. Advertising on FB is not really worth it, in most cases.
replies(1): >>19326087 #
5. AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.19323620[source]
> I would gladly pay $5-$10 a month for something that didn't sell my data.

Hmm. Facebook has something like 2 billion profiles. Of course, most of them wouldn't pay $5/month - say that only one percent would. 20 million profiles times $5/month = $100 million/month. It might be worth it for someone to try to build such a thing...

replies(3): >>19323701 #>>19323934 #>>19324118 #
6. LinuxBender ◴[] No.19323626[source]
Yup, all the teenagers I know of are on Discord and Steam.
7. michaelchisari ◴[] No.19323637[source]
Way too many political posts from my friends and family.

I love the political posts that are thoughtful, informative and spark real discussion.

So, maybe, one or two in the past three years.

8. ashelmire ◴[] No.19323647[source]
Lots of things changed.

Facebook began as an exclusive social network for upper-class students. Gradually it grew to encompass not just all of America, but the entire world. It turns out, many of us well educated people don't really want to network or socialize with poorly educated people. Police started monitoring our activities, so the events all but disappeared.

The world changed, too. Facts used to matter; we read books and the newspaper, not 25 reasons to be an idiot on Buzzfeed. Truth used to matter; less of the nation was as polarized. It was easier to get along without people shoving their ignorant political ideas in your face. Then 2016 happened, with the Russian trolls and other psyops used against us, and some of us realized we'd fucked up by buying into and encouraging others to join this network and others like it.

I could probably go on for a lot longer, but that's the gist of it.

replies(6): >>19323969 #>>19324423 #>>19324613 #>>19325122 #>>19326575 #>>19328700 #
9. throwawaymath ◴[] No.19323701[source]
I’d be beyond shocked if even one percent of all Facebook users would pay $5/month for it. I think the only population of users who’d consider doing so are the intersection of those who are affluent (by Western standards), are extremely opposed to Facebook ads, and use it enough to consider paying for it.

I’d be surprised if you could get 1% of the US population of users to consider it, let alone the global population. You’d realistically be looking at single to very low double digit millions of users at the maximum.

replies(1): >>19324291 #
10. pjc50 ◴[] No.19323716[source]
The politics has destroyed the friendliness. Same goes for Twitter, to some extent; even for us political junkies. The constant drip of miserable stupidity of others is just exhausting.
11. ilovecaching ◴[] No.19323721[source]
The problem with the non ad driven model is that to you 5$ might be nothing, but some people 5$ is an impossible sum of money to spend a month on entertainment. Ads allow companies to offer first world products to customers who could desperately use technology to help them connect and trade in their local communities.

I think the discussion on privacy and ad based platforms should really be orthogonal.

replies(3): >>19324052 #>>19324290 #>>19328563 #
12. smokeyj ◴[] No.19323969{3}[source]
What changed is FB had to make money - and they discovered "outrage" sells. That's the full answer. It has nothing to do with the lower-class crowding up your social network lol.
replies(4): >>19324304 #>>19324553 #>>19326525 #>>19328952 #
13. diminoten ◴[] No.19324033[source]
I just unsubscribed from all of the folks on FB that post political stuff.

Maybe they should make that a global option, something like "Hide Political Stories" or something.

replies(1): >>19325165 #
14. hopler ◴[] No.19324052[source]
Facebook could charge different prices in different geoip zones, like IP licensing does.
replies(1): >>19330810 #
15. sanxiyn ◴[] No.19324055[source]
I haven't noticed any change whatsoever since 2016 and Facebook continues to work great for me. But then I don't live in US.
16. toomanybeersies ◴[] No.19324064[source]
I just started unfollowing (for people I actually interact with, or might need to) or unfriending (for people I will never see again, and don't want to) people who post overly political bullshit.

I don't mind a bit of politics, Australia is going to hell in a handcart and the least people can do is raise awareness. But I don't like inflammatory (and often completely fake) bullshit.

I can now scroll my newsfeed (which I don't actually do that often) without getting high blood pressure.

17. macintux ◴[] No.19324090[source]
> I really wish there was a paid social media service that everyone used. I would gladly pay $5-$10 a month for something that didn't sell my data.

There was App.net, which attempted to be a fee-based better Twitter, but of course not everyone used and eventually shut down.

The only way to have a social network that everyone uses and is fee-based, would be to take one of the free ones and start charging...but then everyone would leave.

18. davnicwil ◴[] No.19324118[source]
An anecdotal story about this - a couple of years ago I built a paid, ad-free privacy-focused social network, did several Show HNs for it and even here, in a community that seems quite receptive to the idea in principle, there was extremely low interest in it.

I got probably 50 sign-ups over a few Show HNs, no more than 4/5 upvotes and comments on the most well-received Show HN, and those who came in just posted one or two test posts, found obviously that nobody else was on there and left never to be seen again. Obviously none converted to a paid account (you could get 10 connections for free then afterwards pay $2/month).

Bootstrapping any social network, let alone a paid one, is hard. But I did try :-)

replies(2): >>19324826 #>>19325113 #
19. JohnFen ◴[] No.19324290[source]
> I think the discussion on privacy and ad based platforms should really be orthogonal.

Except that those two things are inseparable. The privacy problems are a direct result of the desire of the advertising industry to be able to target people based on their behavior, which necessitates spying on everyone.

If we could somehow eliminate that targeting, then we could discuss the two as separate topics.

replies(1): >>19326173 #
20. cm2012 ◴[] No.19324291{3}[source]
And no one wants a social network with no friends on it.
21. ashelmire ◴[] No.19324304{4}[source]
It really does have to do with that. It ceased being useful as a networking and socializing tool. It was a slow descent, but that’s the truth of it.
replies(1): >>19324888 #
22. panopticon ◴[] No.19324423{3}[source]
I'm not even sure how to properly characterize how condescendingly out of touch your comment is.

I was on Facebook before it opened to the general public, and it wasn't some ivory tower of intelligent thought where the educated could avoid mingling with the dumb. It was full of stupid social media stuff then too.

After Facebook opened up, my "poorly educated" uncle was content using Facebook to simply socialize with family and friends in 2012 when today he does nothing but share right-wing memes.

replies(1): >>19326651 #
23. Macross8299 ◴[] No.19324553{4}[source]
All of these complaints about the various superficial reasons for Facebook's decline I think are missing the forest for the trees.

The "grow fast monetize later" model that social media companies use, along with the user being the product, inevitably acts as a template for bait and switch.

All degradation of user experience stems from that. Of course using a social media platform during its "growth phase" is going to be a lot more of a pleasant experience than using that same platform when it's trying to maximize revenue.

24. starpilot ◴[] No.19324613{3}[source]
> The world changed, too. Facts used to matter; we read books and the newspaper, not 25 reasons to be an idiot on Buzzfeed.

https://iandanielstewart.com/2017/06/16/the-golden-age-falla...

25. elliekelly ◴[] No.19324688[source]
I feel like the major change was who started using Facebook: people who had never "interneted" before. When it first launched and was limited to .edu emails everyone on the platform had grown up online. Before we had Facebook we said and shared a whole lot of dumb stuff anonymously and figured out the real-world consequences of our online actions. We "trolled" a wikipedia article about elephants with John Stewart and learned about "fake news" from Bonsai Kittens and pop-up ads promising we'd just become millionares. We "socialized" on AIM, LiveJournal, Xanaga and MySpace. For early Facebook users, Facebook was just one of many destinations on the internet.

But for most of today's Facebook users Facebook is the internet and they missed out on their internet training wheels. Facebook has merely replaced AOL for a generation of people who will now take any "article" their friend posted at face value, share it with all of their friends, and then angrily complain about "mainstream media" when their phone blows up in the microwave instead of charging like the "news" told them it would.

replies(1): >>19324908 #
26. elliekelly ◴[] No.19324826{3}[source]
For a few months now I've been toying with the idea of a "mutual data fund." A social network that collects & anonymizes user data, pools the data on behalf of all users (similar to how a mutual fund pools investor cash), and the data is "invested" (sold to advertisers) by a management company (like an investment adviser) with the data always under the ownership and control of an independent Board of Trustees (same as a mutual fund). Just like a mutual fund, the "returns" from the data would be used to pay the investment adviser for operating costs + some flat % and the rest of the returns would be allocated to users on a pro-rata basis. So the people who use the platform more or share higher-quality content get more "shares" (the investment kind, not the social media kind) of the ad revenue than those who aren't on the site often or share fake news or just annoy the crap out of everyone else.

Most users probably wouldn't make a whole lot of money on the platform but they'd have privacy and ownership of their data and they might end up with $5 or $10 after a year on the platform.

27. UnpossibleJim ◴[] No.19324887{3}[source]
Wait a second. Did you just lump 4chan in with Russian Intelligence (I assume that's what you meant by Russia and not the entirety of the nation) and Nazis? You should have thrown the Boogie Man and Satan in for good measure. You know, you can go to 4chan and check it out. You won't get turned into "an operative" or anything. It might not be the den of murderers and thieves its been portrayed as.
28. ◴[] No.19324888{5}[source]
29. rootusrootus ◴[] No.19324908{3}[source]
I'm not sure if I buy that. I would say for most young folks today "The Internet" is YouTube, not Facebook.
replies(1): >>19324984 #
30. grimgrin ◴[] No.19324919[source]
Purely anecdotal but when I could have moved to FB I held back because Myspace was more interesting. I eventually moved to FB as I got older, because.. I was older. My interests changed.

To some degree this may be an experience with the youth today, in time. Or not, I have no idea

replies(1): >>19324962 #
31. aylmao ◴[] No.19324962[source]
IMO this is part of why Facebook's user base is so resilient. From what I see, younger people experiment more, looking for something that fits their identity, what their friends use, what's new, etc. They also have more time and incentive to explore new apps. By younger people I mean teenagers, high-school and younger.

Older people, it seems to me, are more utilitarian. By older people I mean college and up. They use Facebook for events, or because the social world is harder to navigate in college/later in life than when you're in high school and your friends are neighbors or classmates.

Perhaps this is just my experience, or maybe I'm just very off on how I read this, but it's a thought. I don't think Facebook is trying to be interesting— I think they're just shooting for useful and "sticky".

32. elliekelly ◴[] No.19324984{4}[source]
Sorry if I was unclear as I was trying not to malign baby boomers but I was referring to the 50+/not tech savvy crowd on Facebook, not the young internet users of today.
replies(1): >>19325031 #
33. rootusrootus ◴[] No.19325031{5}[source]
Ah, I misunderstood.

Please be careful with the "50+" comments, ha! Not there yet but closer than I'd like to admit, and I grew up during the sweet spot of modern computing. My biased opinion is that Gen X had it best in this regard.

replies(1): >>19325189 #
34. freddie_mercury ◴[] No.19325055[source]
Anecdotally (I don't live in America), every teenager has a Facebook account. Not a single person has WhatsApp. Instagram is used but not nearly as much as Facebook. (When people cross-post pictures you see the FB post has 3x - 10x the number of likes as the Instagram post.)

There are zero political posts. Zero. I've never seen one.

If my feed were full of political stuff, I'd also be sick of it. But feed is exclusively full of what friends & acquaintances are doing.

replies(1): >>19326217 #
35. justaguyhere ◴[] No.19325113{3}[source]
It is super hard to bootstrap, but sites like Facebook and Twitter already have hundreds of millions of users. Can't they run an experiment - something like "no ads/tracking for $5 (or whatever amount) per month" and see if there are any takers? If 20M sign up, that is 100M revenue per month.

Maybe they considered it and then rejected it as not viable?

replies(1): >>19325291 #
36. banku_brougham ◴[] No.19325122{3}[source]
If facebook had any notion that their users are also still customers and important in that regard, despite revenue coming from their data consumers, they may have been inclined to care about state-based psyops campaigns victimizing their users. Instead, I think a corporate philosophy of exploitation prevailed.
37. vageli ◴[] No.19325165[source]
How would you classify a political story?
replies(1): >>19333092 #
38. elliekelly ◴[] No.19325189{6}[source]
Yes I was trying not to specifically say baby boomers because I know even the oldest user on HN is very much not the type I was trying to refer to.

I meant the users like my 60 year old father who was recently "Facebook hacked" when he accidentally hit the "insert" button on his keyboard.

39. AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.19325291{4}[source]
Or maybe they make more off of ads per month than they think any reasonable user would pay.
40. ◴[] No.19325621[source]
41. KajMagnus ◴[] No.19326087[source]
And buggy, for example, a chat message I'm writing, getting lost because I switch to another browser tab (and the chat window is there too but empty / not synchronized, eventually causing the lost update bug).

And on my wide screen, 30'', the chat window is just like 2x1 cm large.

And on the events page, I choose to display today's or tomorrow's events. Then Facebook displays events from not those days.

42. tjoff ◴[] No.19326173{3}[source]
They really aren't though. It's just that that is the stance the big players have. And the reason they have that stance might be because it is the only stance that can motivate their existence.

You can still target content rather than users.

replies(1): >>19329552 #
43. bencollier49 ◴[] No.19326217[source]
Where do you live?
replies(1): >>19334660 #
44. crocal ◴[] No.19326246[source]
Same bingo. My hypothesis (at least for the Facebook I see, that is of course a minuscule fraction) is that FB is mostly used now by people with an agenda (self promotion, spreading of an ideology, marketing, political campaign, whatever). Therefore, any disagreement is immediately treated as a threat. Ultimately FB has become a dark forest for casual users. The fun is gone.
45. Aromasin ◴[] No.19326525{4}[source]
Outrage only goes so far though. Using Brexit as an example, when the vote first went through, everyone devoured every bit of content they could regarding it, and the media followed. Then they started printing nothing but outrage until people just gave up and quit following the news. Anecdotal evidence sure, but everyone I know seems to only follow the news in passing now. Every headline. Every article. Every political interview. It all now revolves around this one completely divisive topic. If it's not Brexit it's Trump. It's exhausting.

It's no surprise that Facebook also seemed to chase the golden goose, but now that the main page is nothing but outrage or divisive news people are leaving in droves because they're fed up with seeing the same, day after day.

46. ionised ◴[] No.19326575{3}[source]
> It turns out, many of us well educated people don't really want to network or socialize with poorly educated people.

Are you speaking for yourself here?

replies(1): >>19328807 #
47. ashelmire ◴[] No.19326651{4}[source]
In the first year or two of Facebook, it was basically just students from the highest ranked / most expensive schools in the US. Part of the allure was the way they rolled that out, like an exclusive club. At the time, I don’t believe features like content previews existed - people weren’t sharing news articles much. It was more “social” and less “media”.

Is it condescending to acknowledge that it was a network for a fairly elite group of young people to start, and that it lost appeal when it became for everyone? Of course there wasn’t much intelligent discussion, everyone was under 25. But it was part tinder, part aim / livejournal, part social calendar; I don’t think it’s been those things for many years now.

48. Anbelly ◴[] No.19326803[source]
It's expected that people from group age 20+ will be the last active user base. As far as I know, most teens use Discord, Instagram, they have 0 interest in Facebook.
replies(1): >>19330206 #
49. Firadeoclus ◴[] No.19328563[source]
The value of ads is related to the spending power of those advertised to. If $5 is an impossible sum to spend for a user, advertising to them is worth very little as well.
replies(1): >>19330789 #
50. ◴[] No.19328700{3}[source]
51. magduf ◴[] No.19328807{4}[source]
Do you want to spend your free time reading through a bunch of right-wing MAGA memes? I sure don't.
replies(1): >>19336539 #
52. magduf ◴[] No.19328952{4}[source]
The lower-class people are the ones who are hooked on outrage and are still using the site. The upper-class people got sick of all the MAGA posts and left.
53. JohnFen ◴[] No.19329552{4}[source]
> You can still target content rather than users.

Indeed you can. By "inseparable", I don't mean technically inseparable, I mean that the advertising industry has decided that personally targeted ads are the only sort of value. That means that, unless there is some sort of sea change in the industry, the two things are inseparable in practice.

If I see an ad, I can safely assume that it comes with spying. I'll be right far, far more often than I'll be wrong.

54. tmaly ◴[] No.19329622[source]
for me, I personally check it less and less due to political posts.

I do have a few really great closed groups on there. Groups filled with people helping each other out. These are where I still find value on the platform.

55. socrates1998 ◴[] No.19330206[source]
Snapchat is hands down the number one used app by the teenagers I teach. Then instagram.
56. ilovecaching ◴[] No.19330789{3}[source]
The idea behind Facebook isn't to sell ads, it's to build a social platform for everyone. Sure, those people aren't spending a ton of money yet, but they still deserve to have access to the internet and major services.
57. ilovecaching ◴[] No.19330810{3}[source]
That's difficult, because in some cases the barrier to entry is having some way to pay. They might be able to afford 10 cents, but they don't have any means to submit that 10 cents into the system. They don't have a credit or debit card, probably not even a bank account to begin with.
58. diminoten ◴[] No.19333092{3}[source]
Uses the name of any currently elected representative, maybe?

AI to the rescue though, this feels like something you can teach.

59. freddie_mercury ◴[] No.19334660{3}[source]
I live in Asia.
60. ionised ◴[] No.19336539{5}[source]
No, but I'm not ignorant or hostile enough to believe that everyone who didn't go to college is a Trump supporter.