Hacker News Reader

Comment by fbonetti | Hacker News Reader

It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter. This gem made me laugh out loud:

    Senator: How do you sustain a business model in which users don't pay for your service?
    Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads.

https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype

Edit: I directly transcribed the exchange

View on HN

The question and its answer succeed in getting Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising, with all that that implies about the relationship between Facebook and its users.

Think of it as like when you're on the witness stand and the attorney asks you a question. It's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's because he wants you to say the answer, to make it part of the public record and to have the jury hear it.

Speaking of juries, the arrogance of Zuckerberg's answer wouldn't win any points with a jury, either. He walked into a trap right there.

It's fun to bust on our parents & politicos but I'm pretty sure anybody who managed to raise you, or especially get into the Senate, has a much more extensive and nuanced understanding of life (and politics) than you think.

Tv and newspapers is funded by advertising. Nothing shameful in that.

I've said this before, but I think most people don't have a problem with advertising, per se, but with the tracking required for super effective advertising.

When Google first showed up and just tossed some ads at the top of your search results based solely on the search terms, that was actually helpful. It wasn't something that people were creeped out by until they were tracking you everywhere to sell even more targeted ads.

Since newspapers and TV don't have that tracking capability, the advertisements are annoying but not unsettling, I think.

Depends on your values, I suppose.

> Zuckerberg on record (in the Congressional Record, no less) as saying that his business model depends on advertising

This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time. I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress rather than any arrogance by Facebook as they too get fed up with these aimless questions.

>I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress

You really think most people have more technical understanding than these senators?

That's not necessary to realize that these senators do not.

Also yes, based on their questions and age, I do think most people have a better understanding. Just the expressions of the other audience members and staff in the room shows the frustration.

I doubt the hearing audience represents the general population, and I have yet to meet anyone not involved in software development who understands anything about how it works outside of niche, semi-related circles.

Have you ever written an introduction to a technical document before? You make statements in there that are obvious, not because the reader doesn't understand, but because you want to bring the reader into the right frame of mind with the right set of facts before them as context for the rest of the document.

Questions like this are really just asking Zuckerberg to introduce his business in a controlled way.

Alright that's fair, I guess I misinterpreted the original comment as if this was cleverly teasing the information out of him vs just repeating the fact as background for the hearing.

> This has never been secret and has been "on record" for a very long time.

Been a secret to "whom"? Not secret to technical people, no. There are plenty of non-technical people who still don't understand the "you are the product not a customer" trope. They see this free "talk to your family" service which sometimes shows ads which they ignore. They might answer the "how FB makes money question?" with "I don't know, maybe some people pay for it. Or maybe they are just nice and give it away for free".

Other questions might have been stupid but that particular one was typical of how a police investigator might start questioning or how a lawyer might cross examine a witness.

> I think most people will see the absolutely dismal lack of technical understanding by Congress

Back in the day I used to think of lawyers asking witness questions on the stand the same way: "Why do you ask him if he knows the victim, of course he does, these lawyers are sure not very bright..."

You say that, but I'd just like to remind you that Louie Gohmert (my home state fwiw) was a judge. And is now in the house.

I think he was trying to get at something here though: can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? To which I think the answer could be nuanced. Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population that doesn't have that privilege. Note I'm not actually advocating that, just saying I want to give the guy a benefit of the doubt that he was trying to move the conversation somewhere new and creative.

I think a lot of these questions have been like that, but ultimately the senators couldn't figure out how to phrase what they were getting at and both sides floundered to understand what was going on.

edit: as an example was another senator, "mr funny guy", who was trying to ask if facebook tracks how people use other apps or devices, I'm still not sure, even when they aren't logged in or something. I saw 3 possible questions that he was trying to ask and they all would have been good but I don't think either of them understood what he was asking so they went back and forth uselessly. Could have been some hard hitting commentary on the bundling of permissions, or the bundling of fb with a phone, or the ability for fb to track other app usage, or the ability of fb to track users on websites even when not logged in. oh well.

None of these people (i.e. legislators) should be involved until/unless they decide to learn how this stuff works.

What, you don’t think that someone who believes WhatsApp is an email client should be allowed to legislate technology? /sarcasm

It sounded like no one even proofread and edited their questions or lines of reasoning. There should be a panel of non-partisan people, not even experts, taking the dumb out of their questions before they engage. It was a waste of time. Even some strong questions and ideas were shutdown because they couldn't formulate it, and then the internet turned it into another way to laugh at congress.

Maybe there needs to be an old-lawyer to SME translator doing the talking too. This person questions a SME on behalf of the senators and they can speak up or seek clarification when needed. Proofread questions and competent speech.

> There should be a panel of non-partisan people

And right there is where your plan fails.

I know...the number of underhanded partisan questioning or advertising from these senators was sad.

I really liked your first post and building a platform to enable such things is completely simple. Please don't take the cynical/self-defeating attitude. Promotion is not my strong suit. Be careful with people that want to be the watchers of the watchers without laying out clear principles ahead of time.

>large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population

Just in case, FB ARPU in US in Q4 2017 was $27. People who talk about "i ready to pay 10$ per year if im not tracked and not exposed to ads" _seriously_ underestimate FB money-printing ability.

Think about it, FB makes almost as much as NFLX per US user (admittedly in Q4, the hottest quarter in advertising), but you dont need to enter your credit card. At all.

If someone comes along with a service that fulfills the same niche that Facebook does, charges $9/month, and has a guaranteed (audited) enforcement of personal privacy ... I'd do it. I like being connected to my family & some friends.

The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model. Though I guess that doesn't stop a lot of other companies with less plausible revenue sources from getting seemingly endless money thrown at them.

> The problem is getting from zero to critical mass with that model.

But you just said you just need your family and some friends. That doesn't sound like critical mass is needed. Just convince your family and some friends to join with you, and enjoy the service together. Then your friends can invite their friends and family, and so on and so forth.

9USD a month is a consequential amount of money for a huge chunk of the population of even developed countries.

Especially when the alternative is "free"

I agree. Like every other product in the world, I would base the price on what the local market supports.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would ever work, because I may value my privacy at more than a few bucks a month, but it's a near certainty that the vast majority of the population disagrees with me. They don't see the cost there, so they ignore it. By the time they ever realize what it was they gave up and for how little, it's too late.

Indeed. At the rate their monetization is likely to grow as advertising & economy (retail etc) continues to shift online, just continuing the existing growth trend and assuming a slow-down over time, it's extremely likely Facebook will reach a ~$200 per year ARPU in the US/Canada market within five years or so.

There is no large audience in any developed market willing to pay $15+ per month for Facebook just to remove ads.

Technically users are entering their credit card information somewhere down the line after an ad click, many times on a website "shadier" than Facebook because sane advertisers make more money than they spend.

I wonder two things though. 1) would their operating costs be lower if their infrastructure wasn't designed around this user tracking and advertising model? 2) regardless of the answer to number #1 but especially if that answer is yes, do they _need_ an ARPU of $27 to get by? Could they survive on $10? (of course I recognize not everyone can pay that, it's a privilege etc)

Yeah I understand the goal of capitalist companies is to endlessly print more money for the shareholders and the promise of ever better advertising enables FB to keep pulling in the dough. But maybe something like social media shouldn't operate in that context.

> Maybe a large enough population pays $4/month and can thus subsidize some part of the population

That's how WhatsApp started to fund itself, I remember there being a nominal annual charge ( £1 ) for some users but not for all. There didn't seem to be any obvious rule as to who was pinged to pay-up, perhaps it really was random.

But that was discontinued after they were acquired.

> can you run a business that is free for some people and isn't ad based? ... [some users] subsidize [others].

Absolutely! Github, Dropbox, etc, that's how tons of "freemium" companies work.

I think you're misunderstanding the intent: obviously they are aware of that. Hearings commonly involve asking basic questions

I know that was probably the intent, but the senator sounded genuinely confused. It didn't sound like a deposition-style question.

Agreed. I’ve been involved in a few of these regulator type of questioning and they all speak the same way. It has the effect of making the (obvious) answer seem criminal. People in real life don’t talk that way because it can come across as rude.

I see so many lawyers adopt this same tone. Something about crafting a narrative or something - maybe to get the interviewee to be a little more open than they normally would because they underestimate the knowledge of their interviewer, or just to make the interviewee make the mistake of thinking the interviewer is generally ignorant/stupid.

Zuck actually deflected that one well, and didn't have to elaborate unfortunately (or the Senator was ill prepared). There's a lot more to facebook ads than just "we show ads". To which degree do they sell out users' info to the advertisers?

That senator, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), is 84 years old. He may be genuinely unaware of how sites like Facebook make money, though his expression after Zuckerberg answered seemed like he was entirely aware of how basic the question/answer was.

If the guy is smart I'm pretty sure it's an act. Most legal professionals seem to have their emotions on lock

> It's a really odd line of questioning from people who don't seem to understand the subject matter.

Maybe but that particular quote "Zuckerberg (in a disdainful tone): Senator, we run ads." is not an example of it. Sometimes they ask really basic questions, not because they don't know the answer to it, but to enter it into the record. It's how a police or how cross examination starts, get them to admit basic stuff then later make them contradict themselves. Another reason for basic "stupid" questions is to provide information for others who many not be aware. We all know how FB makes money, but that might not extend to people who aren't proficient technically (think grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles...).

Interesting take. I actually read that as a 'softball question' from one supporter of adtech 'free as in beer products' to another. As in, aren't these people who are outraged funny? How else could we create something for free? It was in effect a signal 'don't worry, this won't turn into any meaningful regulation affecting your bottom line.' Don't be duped by people who 'play dumb'. There are many examples of people who don't understand technology in Congress, I don't think this is one of them.

I think question like this are important for the record

If this is not going to be a meme I don't know. He has beautiful smile at the end there :)

Timestamp for this exchange?

https://clips.twitch.tv/FantasticCrowdedDelicataPipeHype

Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com