The vast majority of the actual content of the internet is provided by people for free to the internet in general. Even your post right now that I disagree with, you likely didn't get paid to post.
That content on Facebook that keeps people coming back? It's not the ads or deals; What keeps people coming back is what their friends, families, and idols post. They're effectively generating content for Facebook which they are then profiting off of "for free".
The straw man argument here is that Facebook is providing the platform and that is how people are compensated for their content. It's kind of fair, but it's been wildly abused. There are competitors, but it's the lock in and invasion that has given Facebook it's value not choice.
There is no informed opt-in, discussion or debate about the value you provide to Facebook in exchange for the value they get out of you. That is the cash-cow Facebook has been milking and when given an informed choice people are now saying, "No, I'm worth more than this garbage."
I'm tearing into Facebook because that's the target of this post but that content is provided on every platform. The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms. The marketing content is noise that people complain about and do not want.
> The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms.
What is missing from your rant is, why would any platform exist then? Nobody is building them without expecting to profit off the mutual relationship. I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free. You want a BBForum, go right ahead. But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
> But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
I'd agree with that on the surface but those platforms you listed are basically forums with a new name! They provide very little over and above that. So, in actual fact, they're only made more complex as a result of rules added by the owners to squeeze as much data from every visitor as is legally (and illegally in some cases) allowed! So they provide nothing of value above a regular forum imo.
In reality, they are lists of submissions from end users that have been categorized, however the categorization engine happens to be algorithmically generated, rather than ordered by date. And the companies themselves are doing whatever it takes to monetize your eyeballs regardless of whether it affects your health or not! They are abusing every visitor to the maximum extent that the laws allow!
Their business model is to centralize all forums on their platform and for that there is a massive cost at that scale. That's their choice to host all forums! However to pay for that they are abusing every visitor.
Using Reddit, a single forum about Ubuntu (/r/Ubuntu) would cost around $5 a month on DO for someone to host themselves. Using something like BBForum or something similar would not require much in the way of maintenance.
The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
For people who love BBForums (like HN tbh), everything may seem “like a forum”. But that is very reductive and uninspired.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
> There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia.
Yeah. That's because all those features used to be separate applications, not tied to BBForum/Wikipedia engine. They're all complex, but they're also orthogonal to the platform, and their implementations are pretty much commodities.
The only value provided here is by integration with platform (particularly UX-wise). Which seems fine, except the only reason this is valuable in the first place, is because the platforms prevent everyone else from doing such integrations themselves.
I don’t think anyone would agree that Snapchat is a forum. It’s primarily for direct (media) messages, and the company themselves considers them a camera app.
> and the company themselves considers them a camera app.
Doesn't matter what the company calls themselves, it's a forum that people upload phone pics to and those photos/images are then displayed in an algorithmic form (used to be chronological with forums)... same as a forum!
Remember, Google is an advertising company but they'd consider themselves more of an engineering or search company... doesn't mean they're right!
Edit: Forgot to ask, how do Snapchat make their money? Is it all through advertising? It's a genuine question, I don't use it and have no idea! If it's all advertising revenue then they're an advertising company like Google and Facebook!
> Using Reddit, a single forum about Ubuntu (/r/Ubuntu) would cost around $5 a month on DO for someone to host themselves. Using something like BBForum or something similar would not require much in the way of maintenance.
For that $5 however, you're not getting DDoS and spam protection.
> The point I am making is that all this stuff existed long before the big tech platforms. It can easily exist without them too. They are not actually providing anything of any worth that couldn't easily be found elsewhere (well, used to be found elsewhere!).
There's a reason ye olde ways of communication are pretty much dead, replaced by centralized platforms... dealing with the obvious noise of hackers, script-kiddies, spammers, piracy and CSAM is the biggest IMO. As a moderator of a sub-reddit, you don't have to deal with any of that, you are free to focus on moderating content - and unlike mailing lists, usenet or classic forums the users can perform self-moderation by downvoting, further lessening your load.
Spam protection has been around for years and years. It's nothing new. Sure, Reddit may have a handful of devs dedicated to perfecting it for their platform but there are a huge number of solutions to spam and I bet many commercial and OSS ones too.
DDOS is provided by many hosting companies now for free.
Now, I'm not trying to make this out like the Dropbox post many years ago comparing it to self-hosting, nothing of the sort.
But Reddit (and other tech giants) provide very little above basic forums imo and in any case, the price is too high!
Although the point of being centralised is portrayed as a negative, that is the single largest benefit these platforms provide over forums.
Yes it is easy to make a forum and throw it on some low cost hosting, for a person skilled in IT. However FB, Reddit et al. provide a platform (heh) to any kind of group no matter the size. Nobody wants to create dozens of accounts for their local chess club, their local shop, their local pub and whatever. I can be a member of a anti Phillips screw subreddit, but wouldn’t create a forum for it.
Counter anecdote: the last traditional forum that I have any interaction with was so plagued by spam that they turned off registration and the new registration system is “send an email to the admin asking for an account”. Needless to say, they aren’t a growing community anymore. They also don’t use SSL because none of their admins are fluent enough to set up LetsEncrypt. Don’t forget that lots of non-technical or less-technical people like to have forums too.
They aren’t really more complicated than Wikipedia, though.
Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia fits here to certain extent) or else a federated system like email. Whether the business model that maintains a centralised system is for-profit or not is basically irrelevant. Facebook would have as much difficulty taking over wikipedia’s leadership in online encycolpedias as Wikipedia would have trying to become the dominant social network. It’s just a matter of who got there first (at least until they possibly get displaced by something else that users drift toward).
And yet you did reply, with apparent incredulity. Wikipedia is a method by which users generate, disseminate, and moderate content of a specific media type. Facebook, et al., don't innovate on the content being produced, because they do not produce it. They innovate on removing friction to the first two, or producing new methods for the third.
Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
The comparison to the Dropbox comment is very fair. I maintain that I paid the piper his dues; it's complicated, but not complex, and I would never dare charge that I could make an equivalent service. However, I do charge that it's extremely overblown.
These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
I asked for contextual examples, not random ones. Though I guess if we’re in a thread of people reducing various platforms to a BBForum/Wikipedia, it wouldn’t make any sense to them.
There was no gotcha. If the commenter claims their point revolves around the difference in meaning between two synonyms, they should explain themselves better in the given context.
I disagree that these features are inherently valuable; in fact, I disagree that they have any value at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the basis of any media enterprise is the generation, dissemination, and moderation of content. The smallest, most well-known, prototype of an enterprise that accomplishes all three is Wikipedia. Aside from these features, anything extra is cruft.
Yes, this is overly-reductionist, weirdly neo-ludditic, and speaks past your points without paying your arguments the proper dues. We're cross-talking because we have different values; I do not value the things that you value.
The games, filters, marketplace, and messenger you mention are not features. They are deficiently complicated ways to achieve the core features of media enterprise; further, I don't think they're valuable media to deliver in the first place.
As to how I disambiguate complexity vs complicatedness, the first relates to the variety of interactions in a system while complicatedness relates to the sum total state of a system. A system with one node whose only input is its output, which outputs a TB of data to itself every second, and which stores all data it generates, is complicated. A system with two nodes, whose only inputs are each others' outputs, where one generates a byte of data every century and neither saves state, is more complex than the first but less complicated, and the converse is true.
I only consider the complicatedness vs complexity of features that _I_ deem worthwhile; if I don't consider a feature worthwhile, then all of its complexity is just cruft, which gets lumped into the less-granular metric of complicatedness.
I don't deem any of the features you mention (which differentiate FB, etc., from Wikipedia) to be worthwhile; therefore, they're all just more complicated versions of Wikipedia, without any meaningful improvements in the base complexity.
Also, how inherently complex are these features? Can you give me a best-case complexity? How are you measuring this 'inherent complexity'?
I've read through your replies to this thread. If I had your values, I'd agree heartily with you. What you say makes sense, your arguments are well-reasoned, and you present yourself well. I sincerely appreciate that you've taken the time to engage.
I hope I've confirmed the suspicion that seems to be built into your replies: our disagreement is not logical. It's entirely based on a difference in our values.
> This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
Or at least the common misconception about it. See [0] for a summary of how the comment was actually mostly spot on, and even YC agreed[1]. Quoting dang, "we should see it as a successful conversation with a graceful ending, rather than mocking someone for not knowing the future".
No, I disagree. Similar to that infamous comment, the person above was reducing multiple full featured social media platforms to BBForums. While the context and outcome night be different, the gist is still the same.
Last I checked Wikimedia was primarily funded by big donors, with Google.org being one of them (and my understanding is that this is not a google donation matching program, but a direct contribution) https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/2018-annual-report/don...
Wikimedia Foundation is funded primarily by small donations (<$100), during its fundraising campaign once a year. You're linking to a page that names donors who contributed $1000+.
Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events.
disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
People are not expecting everything to be free at all. But they're making the point that if you are advertising something as 'free' when you're actually paying through the nose by having every piece of personal data extracted and sold to the highest bidder, it should not be advertised as 'free'. Becuase it isn't.
Make it free, or make it paid, or if you really must use the data harvesting model then at the very least make it very clear that it is not free because you are paying via a different means.
Did you just stop reading the comment at that phrase? You are paying through the data collected, regardless of whether you engage with the adverts or not.
> What is missing from your rant is, why would any platform exist then? Nobody is building them without expecting to profit off the mutual relationship.
Plenty of smaller platforms exist for reasons other than profit (e.g. altruism, or desire for feeling important). But for-profit platforms are fine too! Mutually beneficial relationships are a good thing.
But we're talking about Facebook, et al. here - advertising-based platforms. They way they're making profit off the relationship is not through mutually beneficial exchange of value. The platforms instead are abusing their position of power in the relationship to pull the users in, keep them glued, and expose to maximum amount of advertising. This is not a case "here's an ad box because we have some server costs to cover, you know". These platforms are thoroughly optimized to maximize ad revenue. Every feature they just "can't seem to get right", every weird UX blunder, every feature that's obvious but missing for unexplained reasons[0] - all that are not mistakes, but decisions to give you a shitty product in order to make you more exploitable[1].
Or, in short: as a user, your actual relationship with big social media platforms is the same as between a cow and a farm. Cows are there to be milked, and make more cows for milking. They're not the ones who get to say how the farm is run.
> I never understand the POV that everything should somehow magically be provided for free.
Right? They have costs, after all. But you're looking at the wrong people. This expectations wasn't created by regular people - it was created by companies who figured they can do the ultimate undercut of their competition by offering their product for free, and make money through a side channel. Since most people are extremely price sensitive, nobody can compete on price with $0 - so the model stuck, and it's because of this that people expect everything on the Internet to be free.
> But every platform you listed is significantly more complex than that.
That's mostly because they have more money than they know what to do with, and are competing against other platforms with similar amount of spending cash. Most of that complexity goes to supporting the advertising aspects of the platform and the dark patterns that keep the users in their pens.
I mean, modern factory farms are significantly more complex than the stereotypical family farm of centuries past - but as a cow, you probably don't want to experience that complexity.
--
[0] - E.g. sorting your feed by date, or searching posts by date, or a "dislike" button, or ...
[1] - One interesting facet of attention economy is that it seeks to make every task as inefficient as possible - because money is being made on friction. The longer it takes you to do a thing, the longer you can be exposed to advertising. The more frustrated you are, the more susceptible you are to that advertising.
What's missing from his rant is the inclusion of wikipedia, showing that platforms can exist without an expectation of profit. What's more, I'm not entirely convinced, we as a society would be worse off without most of the above.
There’s plenty of room between the current vig (0%) and profits.
Which is how I’ve come around to blockchains for social. Not just for equity, but trust: you can see the governance contracts / how equitable / how easy to change the deal is.
I’ve never heard anyone describe a DAO as a social network. Could you explain what that means in relation to more commonly known social networks (FB, Reddit, HN)?
I agree on this point more generally in the space, but for DAO's a bit different. Clubs are social and often designed to have a barrier to entry, this mirrors the real world. Small communities are higher quality, so this is rational.
This is absolutely true. Someone needs to pay for the development and infrastructure. Even if open source, real people and machines need to exist for actual value.
NB: I vouched for your comment - not sure why people flagged it.
Idk I find myself scrolling on Instagram and being more interested in the ads they show then some of the content I see. People want to see ads for cool things, there’s a reason places like Pinterest are big.
I honestly cannot fathom this opinion. I literally cannot think of a single instance where I've ever seen an ad and thought "Yes, I'm glad that I'm seeing this instead of the content I came here for." If that's true, why bother even going on Instagram at all?
I'll admit that I don't use Pinterest, but from what I understand, it's main feature is being a place for user-curated image collections, yes? That's very different than algorithmically distributed, paid-for ads.
Well, if ads were never relevant, people would never click them and purchase the products they link to, and CPMs would be $0. The vast majority of people I know either run an ad blocker or don’t click ads - but a lot of people do, especially if the ad provides some discount on an item they viewed last week. I even got a free Nest Mini one time from clicking an official Google store ad.
On Instagram the content itself resembles ads. It's not hard for me to imagine that an ad for something you could actually buy might be more interesting than an ad for some dork's fake online persona you can buy into.
That content on Facebook that keeps people coming back? It's not the ads or deals; What keeps people coming back is what their friends, families, and idols post. They're effectively generating content for Facebook which they are then profiting off of "for free".
The straw man argument here is that Facebook is providing the platform and that is how people are compensated for their content. It's kind of fair, but it's been wildly abused. There are competitors, but it's the lock in and invasion that has given Facebook it's value not choice.
There is no informed opt-in, discussion or debate about the value you provide to Facebook in exchange for the value they get out of you. That is the cash-cow Facebook has been milking and when given an informed choice people are now saying, "No, I'm worth more than this garbage."
I'm tearing into Facebook because that's the target of this post but that content is provided on every platform. The value is in what the users are providing not the platform. Reddit, Hacker News, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Google Everything. The content is provided by the users for free to the platforms. The marketing content is noise that people complain about and do not want.