Most active commenters
  • owebmaster(4)

←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.826s | source | bottom
Show context
b0a04gl ◴[] No.44296183[source]
everyone saw this coming the day facebook bought it, but the real issue isn't ads in status . it's that the platform is now locked into meta's attention monetization engine. the founders explicitly said no ads. now not only ads, but paid channels, algorithmic exposure, and user segmentation creeping in. most people won't switch because of network effects, so meta can keep tightening the screws. this isn't about revenue, it's about control. they’re reshaping a private messaging tool into a broadcast platform with tracking hooks. and most users won’t even notice until it’s too embedded to undo
replies(5): >>44296420 #>>44296685 #>>44296698 #>>44296875 #>>44297519 #
phyrex ◴[] No.44297519[source]
It's been 11 years. If they hadn't been bought they'd have found a different monetization model long ago
replies(3): >>44297725 #>>44297856 #>>44298154 #
1. owebmaster ◴[] No.44297725[source]
WhatsApp make billions of dollars but Meta wants it to make hundreds of billions. There's no way to appease the dragon.
replies(2): >>44298245 #>>44299261 #
2. xeromal ◴[] No.44298245[source]
Curious how whatsapp makes any money besides the handful of companies that use it as a customer support portal
replies(3): >>44298755 #>>44300131 #>>44301145 #
3. owebmaster ◴[] No.44298755[source]
WhatsApp integrates into the rest of Meta ads machine so it distribute leads from facebook and instagram directly to whatsapp. It also makes money with spam.
replies(1): >>44302846 #
4. bachmeier ◴[] No.44299261[source]
How many of the people posting here that criticize this move are owners of Meta stock? The number is certainly above 50%, at least for those in the US, since most people with a retirement plan will own Meta in some form. It's the need to satisfy shareholders with new earnings.
replies(3): >>44299581 #>>44299625 #>>44300626 #
5. mikestew ◴[] No.44299581[source]
So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?
replies(1): >>44302798 #
6. Coffeewine ◴[] No.44299625[source]
What choice do we have? Indeed, I would rather prefer that the companies that comprise the broad market embrace some form of ESG ethos, but that's clearly out of vogue these days. I vote to that extent, but I'm a breathtakingly small portion of the vote when it comes to corporate governance.
replies(1): >>44308931 #
7. fnands ◴[] No.44300131[source]
> handful of companies

Go to India. Way more than just a handful of companies using it

8. owebmaster ◴[] No.44300626[source]
That is not my case. If Meta had minted thousands of millionaires in my country I would have way less problems with them
9. nathancahill ◴[] No.44301145[source]
On a global level it's completely pervasive.
10. bachmeier ◴[] No.44302798{3}[source]
Well, I'm saying we should be hesitant to immediately throw out blame for pursuing profit, because it's not just more money for Zuckerberg and other billionaires. If retirement funds were growing at 2%, the same people criticizing this decision would be looking for alternative investment vehicles.
11. phyrex ◴[] No.44302846{3}[source]
WhatsApp makes absolutely no money with spam. There isn't a per-message cost or however you think that would work
replies(2): >>44303639 #>>44304830 #
12. hermanzegerman ◴[] No.44303639{4}[source]
There absolutely is a per-conversation cost for marketing messages.

https://business.whatsapp.com/products/platform-pricing?coun...

See also here

>With marketing messages, you pay for each message that is delivered to a receiver you chose within five days of being sent.

https://faq.whatsapp.com/178447635241069?cms_id=178447635241...

13. owebmaster ◴[] No.44304830{4}[source]
You are wrong.
14. account42 ◴[] No.44308931{3}[source]
How would being actively discriminatory against a large part of the population help anything?