The Facebook Papers, Part 1: The great unbundling | Hacker News Reader

The Facebook Papers, Part 1: The great unbundling

recode.net

86 pointswalterbell67 comments

The big media made this choice themselves [1]. Recode in particular [2]. So they should own up to their past decisions.

1. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sectio...

2. http://www.recode.net/2014/11/20/11633104/a-note-to-recode-r...

In reality, this actually has very little to do with Facebook and has a ton to do with mobile. Even if Facebook didn't exist, I have little doubt that media companies would be seeing falling recirculation—it's intrinsic to the platform.

On another note, does anyone know what this quote is referring to?

> Newsrooms have been supported by billionaires and test-prep businesses for more esoteric reasons than this.

It refers to the Graham Holdings Company which used to own The Washington Post, still owns Slate, and also owns Kaplan.

They also owned a cable company for revenue stability reasons.

Before being purchased by Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post was part of a conglomerate that also included Kaplan, the test-prep company. As the Post's own profitability declined, the profits from Kaplan kept the conglomerate in the black.

The Post news operation was sold to Bezos, splitting up the conglomerate. I assume the Graham family still owns Kaplan and a few other pieces.

Also a reference to the Financial Times, which was owned by Pearson up until the recent sale to Nikkei.

Could human upvotes of HN stories influence the dispersal of an atomized story across algorithm-driven social networks? HN loads quickly on mobile and HN comments provide social context for media stories, while the HN front page drives traffic from a tech-literate audience.

It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal?

The big difference between Facebook and YouTube is that YouTube has the content directly within their application, whereas with Facebook, users are still going directly to the original site to access the content. So in your example, BuzzFeed is still getting money from all the ads on their page when somebody follows a Facebook link, but Beyonce wouldn't be getting anything from a YouTube view without the revenue sharing.

But this could all change if instant articles catch on.

My understanding is that publishers can put their own ads in the instant articles, too. Unless that possibility is revoked, they still get ad views per article view.

This feels a lot like the deep linking arguments that have been around for a long time.

I've just never enjoyed using Facebook. I tried, I instantly despised it, and have never looked back. It seems like a vast time sink with almost no value that isn't better derived elsewhere.

I recently disabled my Facebook account for that exact reason. It's a time sink with not much value to justify the time wastage.

This type of reply always appears on posts _mentioning_ Facebook, let alone about the product. Yet the fact still stands: billions of people around the world use Facebook every month. I personally find the stock "I don't use Facebook" comments off-topic and tiring. Facebook's effect on society is worth having a reasonable discussion about, whether you use it or not.

It kind of reminds me of the "I don't own a TV" person from the 90's - i.e. whenever a group starts a discussion about their favorite TV show, that person let's it be known how much better their life is without TV.

Exactly. I imagine The Onion will eventually have a similar article to this one: http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...

Once again, the Onion is spot on with the satire. I was reminded of the XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/1299/

"TV" is an entire medium. Facebook isn't. The difference between someone not finding use in a single site or service, vs. writing off the entirety of what an entire a/v format can delivery over decades isn't really similar.

Maybe the comparison is made more in terms of the contemporary context for each medium, instead of in a pure 1 to 1 relation.

Nowadays I would say that Facebook is more of a "format" of sorts than "just a service", in that it has tremendous power to sway the opinion of large groups of people all over the world, kind of how the TV was a "format" with a lot of impact during its time.

Maybe in the past you could've argued the same in e.g. a comparison between TV and theaters (or other previous format). Maybe people more used to going to the theaters could've made the same comparison saying that TV is just a "show in a box" and it's not delivering the same impact as a play.

I could even make the same distinction between Facebook and say Snapchat. To me, when I use Facebook, "at least" I can get some interesting stories, some interesting discussions among friends (very seldom but they are there), vs Snapchat which to me looks like "just a service" to take pictures, but I'm pretty sure that a teenager could give me a full dissertation on how Snapchat is much more than just a service and is instead the prime communication media of their time.

My point being that I believe you might be biased due to age or due to being born with the TV as the main world-wide reaching medium vs today's kids for which that medium is now FB/Snapchat/whatever the new thing is, even though in strict terms you are correct in saying that FB is a service (i.e. it's "just a webpage") but in the end, taking account the contemporary context for that, it's really much more.

I don't have any problem understanding why people enjoy and use Snapchat, or Twitter, or a number of other social media apps and sites. Facebook in particular however, has always seemed like a place that people go to spend time that ultimately makes them unhappy.

See, I don't care for Snapchat. Always thought it was a dumb idea sold on a false premise ("oh, but you are safe because the image is gone immediately!", like anyone but their engineers know exactly what's going on at the storage level.) But that's me, some of my friends love it and spend hours doing face swaps and sharing mustached pictures.

So, to each their own. The fact that you don't like Facebook doesn't mean you can dismiss it any more than I can dismiss Snapchat. Just look at the numbers mentioned in the article. We couldn't care less about these systems, and yet there they are. I guess that's what everyone here is trying to say.

Facebook is a company, TV is a device; Facebook uses the internet, TV uses the airwaves; etc. etc.

I was referring to a counter-cultural phenomenon rather than trying to say Facebook is exactly the same thing as TV set. It's not an attack on your previous statement, just an observation.

Just the 90s?

https://twitter.com/sama/status/730465368574038016

I'm not sure why sharing my experience with Facebook is somehow not part of that discussion.

It's not you specifically, it's that this comment specifically is almost 100% likely to show up. It's boring, and at this point doesn't add anything to the discussion.

My theory:

My initial reaction to your post is that it doesn't contribute anything useful: clearly you're sufficiently different from the Facebook-using masses that statements about them have zero relevance to you and vice versa, and because the masses are, well, masses, it's still perfectly legitimate to talk about them.

Since your post (like the similar ones that appear on every submission about Facebook) doesn't contribute anything useful (and especially not anything novel), and since I (subconsciously) project onto you and assume you are probably aware of that, I find myself filling in blanks and concluding that you're posting for a different reason - something to the effect of "hey look at me, I don't use Facebook, I'm better than that, you're all wasting your time and I'm not".

And, unsurprisingly, that kind of gloating and attention-seeking, even subtextual, is annoying and elicits a negative response.

I'm not saying you necessarily meant it that way, and I think this is all half-subconscious, but I do think it's what's happening.

So you're not sure that's what I meant, but you're willing to read what I said in the worst possible light anyway, even if it means blaming my subconscious?

Maybe don't spend so much energy on reading into things and making assumptions.

No, I'm telling you how I did in fact read it, but trying to be generous by saying that I'm not accusing you of meaning it that way.

I think you've confused "Generosity" and "Passive Aggression".

I don't think so. I'm being generous in the sense that I'm open to multiple interpretations of what happened and I'm going out of my way to not assume (and to express that I do not assume) that you were being intentionally unpleasant. I'm happy to interpret it as an error.

But I still want to express that I think your top comment was unpleasant, regardless of how unhappy it makes you to hear that (which is apparently a lot).

Sure, you can tell me I shouldn't bother saying any of this, but I'm not really doing it for you; I want other Hacker News comment-browsers to be reminded not to do unpleasant things like that, and about how exactly they're unpleasant, and to do that I have to write something that's pretty much going to piss you off regardless of how I phrase it.

I'm not pissed off, I'm just engaged by your combination of intelligence and poor socialization.

That is what you meant though, isn't it.

No, it isn't, which is why I didn't say it. This is the internet though, where there is always someone willing to be a prick to make a point though, and it's rarely worth the time to rebut.

The discussion is about the overall effect of Facebook on the business model of the news industry. How much impact does your personal preference have on that conversation? Probably too small to be measurable.

That's true for any and every comment and commentator here.

The point is that you posted your personal opinion of Facebook as a whole, without any seeming relevance or link to the particular topic at hand other than the fact that it involved Facebook.

Here's a higher-voted comment on this article:

> It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11678329

It's still a personal opinion, of course, but it's directly addressing the question raised by the article: how will news operations make money when all their traffic comes through Facebook? Whereas your comment simply stating that you, personally, don't like Facebook, does not address that question.

Maybe you're not the target market?

My parents and a large part of my extended family is active on facebook, and I think if facebook were not to exist it would be harder to keep in touch over long distances. Say what you will, but it makes sharing pictures and simple text extremely easy.

Prior to the internet we used the telephone. Later our family moved to email. But even then we faced problems in email such as too-small inboxes and out of date email address books that are solved by facebook.

I have the same problem as you with Twitter. Nobody I know is on it, and when I've used it it's value is not at all apparent to me. Every time I try to use the platform it seems like a waste of time.

>I have the same problem as you with Twitter. Nobody I know is on it, and when I've used it it's value is not at all apparent to me. Every time I try to use the platform it seems like a waste of time.

That's the whole idea. Twitter isn't meant to be productive -- just a fun waste of time, reading not so important news, gossip, and quips.

When people say "Waste of time" in that context, I take it to mean that they're not deriving any enjoyment either, it's not just a utilitarian statement about productivity.

That's for granted (that they don't get enjoyment). If they did they wouldn't complain about the productivity factor.

That said, I wasn't really meaning "work" productive, just productive in the sense "it lets me connect with friends" etc kind of utility.

i (and most of my friends who are active users) use twitter more like an rss reader

I find Twitter completely the opposite. Twitter is how I've networked with people, ended up being interviewed on TV stations like the BBC, it's how I keep up with my industry. In fact, until I got distracted about HN, I was about to ask on Twitter a technical question that I'm trying to solve for my work tonight, I really should go back to that....

That could be it, and it's bound to be that not every product is for everyone.

So? I never cared for ketchup either, but I don't see it going away...

If Facebook was a physical object, it would be cigarettes.

I use it because a handful of groups I find useful are there. I've tried to get one group to move to a saner alternative (where more than 3 posts are visible per page, for example) but the fact is, everyone's on facebook, and nobody wants to switch. Networks effects are real and annoying sometimes.

When people talk about something happening, they don't say, happened on Facebook, because it's a given in the context of the conversation. Facebook is a location where unique events are happening in the lives of groups of people.

That sounds like marketing talk.

> It seems like a vast time sink with almost no value that isn't better derived elsewhere.

This is not true for all people. Many people use Facebook as a tool for groups, events, etc. Have you been using Google or Yahoo Groups lastly? Facebook has less friction once you are there. This is not a Facebook defence just a reminder to "us" here in HN who use the Internet in another way and with a lot of expertise. Other people don't care if they are in FB, LinkedIn, Reddit, etc they just want a place to share their thoughts insighful or trivial.

Just an anecdote: once I signed up in Facebook zillion of Internet years ago I subscribed to the OpenBSD and C++ groups there. Obviously nobody posted until a few years ago when I started to receive updates. Obviously you will never search for an OpenBSD or C++ solution there but was an interesting social media change. Nowadays I find local groups like Data Science group in Argentina representing well the local scene.

I really like Facebook, it helps me follow many persons I had contact with in the past, from old colleagues, school friends, family, people I met while traveling, etc. People from different time in my life. I (and wife) travel a lot and instead of sending a postcard that people receive long after we came back from vacation, we post a photo and it sparks conversation right on the spot. When we think we bore people with our photos we stop and each time we do that many people write to us to say, where are your photos, we like to see your photos!

I believe people whining about Facebook are only anti-social person. And those whining about only seing thing they are not interested to are just lazy to not organize their feed how they want to...

Shame on all of you here that use fb, build apps or services on it. You do know better, yet help them continue with their behaviour as mentioned in the article.

This comment is not productive. Using facebook doesn't mean you support the company. It just means that your friends hangout there and you don't have choice.

It's the same as in college when your friends all went to a particular place to eat by default and since you want to remain friends with them, you have to go there regardless.

a bit pedantic sounding, but you _always_ have a choice. w/r/t to friends, when i realized that it made my life so much better.

Of course you're supporting the company. They benefit from you being on there, and therefore they earn revenues from that.

Would you say living in country X is also supporting country X her wrongdoing because otherwise we back to the argument "we don't have choice."

By the way, having a FB because friends are on is not a choice problem. It's simply because some people find FB convenient to connect with their friends.

Choosing convenience is still a choice. Many of my friends are probably on Facebook, but I neither know nor care. That doesn't mean I can't keep in touch.

Right, I meant to say "no you do have a choice" to his "no sometimes we don't have a choice."

>Would you say living in country X is also supporting country X her wrongdoing

If you're not the victim of the country's wrongdoing, and you don't do anything to prevent it, then sure.

Not just because you stay silent and let the leaders of the country pursue further wrongdoing, or also because you pay taxes which enable the country to go about its wrongdoing, but also because you might even benefit from the wrongdoing, even if you don't directly participate in it (e.g. if it benefits the country at large and trickles down to everybody).

Yes, you're still supporting the country - unless I suppose if you're rebelling or stealing from it. If your taxes are going towards a war that you don't believe in or want to fund, you're still funding it. That's why a lot of people are against taxation. I am against taxation in its current form because though I want to support the country I am in, I want to be able to decide where that money goes in a more refined way. I absolutely don't want to be helping people be killed if there's a better way, e.g. violent war - even if that better way costs more. Unfortunately/fortunately in order to change systems, including governments and countries, you have to work from within the system in most instances.

Equating an online platform, where everyone is mobile through a browser URL or downloading a different app, vs. a country is a little bit apples and oranges too, however if there is no good alternative - including online - then people are stuck. I believe there will be a better alternative in the future however.

But you are supporting the company. There may be great justifications for using a particular product or service, but take responsibility for the choice.

People with that mindset are the reason terrible companies can thrive.

Not to mention terrible regimes...

I happily use Facebook. There are a large organization that has its faults, just like any organization. And, it's important to have critiques like this one of the company and its practices. But, I have no shame in using it and recommend everyone to have a Facebook login, just because of the value it provides to send out news and informations for local organizations.

I once asked a VC who was deep into healthcare what he saw the push to switch to a single-payer system in the U.S as a threat.

His response was that he didn't really care either way - there would always be business opportunities regardless of what the current ecosystem was.

On my case, I've tried to wait until the last moment to join it, I thought it would just be a fad and that the website would die quickly. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to get some news from my friends at the moment...

What behavior? All the article describes is the consequence of a single platform becoming the main portal for the majority of people on mobile. It's not like Facebook goes out to publishers and tells them "write dumb nesticles with embedded native advertising, so we can ruin media forever! Muahaha!". Media discovered the magic cheap formula and ran with it, the same way TV discovered "reality TV" was the best bang for your buck. We don't blame cable companies for that, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com