←back to thread

713 points greenburger | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.291s | source
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 #
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 #
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 #
mikestew ◴[] No.44299581[source]
So you’re blaming me because Fidelity bought some Meta for my 401K without me directly knowing?
replies(1): >>44302798 #
1. bachmeier ◴[] No.44302798[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.