Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctdonath | Hacker News Reader

I've followed social media for a long time (starting back when one could actually read every single Usenet post daily).

There is a definite life cycle to social media sites. Those reaching the "too big to fail" stage are usually about to. AOL, CompuServe, MySpace, etc were all indominately massive juggernauts reaching to take over the media world - and vanished almost overnight. The sudden influx of editorial censorship in Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc is a clue that a large number of legitimate users (who just happen to hold differing expressions of differing views) are facing the option of leaping to another up-and-coming site. Between that, boredom with format limitations, and an otherwise growing sentiment of malaise, I'm seeing the signs that FB etc won't be with us much longer.

And no, it's not "different this time". It's the same this time.

View on HN

Yeah, no. The reasons that those other systems failed has nothing to do with this particular issue. People will still be able to share their bullshit to like minded people to their hearts' content, which is how the vast majority of information gets shared through facebook. All facebook is saying is that they will not take money from these bullshit mills.

The vast majority of people couldn't care less about whether Breitbart gets to advertise on facebook. They aren't going to uproot their presence there to make a political point, either. Most of the people on the site who hold those views are 50+ year olds who want to see photos of their grandchildren. They can still get all the nonsense they want by watching Fox News in the evening, which is their preferred method anyway.

Imputing & dismissing a large fraction of your audience, or friends of your audience, as "deplorable" is not a wise marketing move. They may be 50+, they may watch Fox News, but they consider Breitbart a canary in the coalmine, and may prove quick to throw their not-inconsiderable weight behind cheesy non-sequitur upstart quietly years in the making.

Again: grandparents aren't going to abandon a website en masse, a website they use primarily to view photos of their families, just because they certain ads are not being shown.

Not stories. Not shared posts. Ads. They will still get all the ads they want to their hearts content from right-wing sources should those companies buy ad space, it just won't be from knowingly bullshit sources.

Breitbart? No. Rebel Media? No.

WSJ? Yes. The Hill? Yes.

It's not difficult to understand, and it isn't going to change anyone but a handful of nutball's facebook habits. There's no alternative platform in this space that isn't app-first, which eliminates it from consideration for generations that are and will continue to be desktop-first.

None of those previous platforms had anywhere near the reach Facebook has, or the amount of control Facebook has over the private and public communications and content seen by their users.

Yup. Was astounding that AOL bought Time Warner Communications, no previous platform had anywhere near the reach, nor the amount of control over private & public communications and content seen by others.

Scale may differ, but principles remain exactly the same.

I'm not ready to say fail but Facebook is not what it was. I go to it out of habit now and think very carefully before I post anything...then usually decide not to. It's boring. I think it will hang around like that land line phone number you had growing up (yes, I'm old. What of it?) but eventually your parents move to Florida and that number is gone. Facebook seems likely to degenerate into an old people's online contact list app

Reply on news.ycombinator.com