Hacker News Reader

Comment by aerosmile | Hacker News Reader

I understand why FB needs to do this, but the execution was so out of touch it's bizarre. My elderly parents called me and were alarmed that WhatsApp is threatening with removing their account unless they agree to share their data. They wondered if FB will be able to track their transactions or perhaps even get into their bank accounts. After years in the tech industry, I've learned that my parents' feedback is a good predictor for how well my messaging will be perceived by the wider world. I would have assumed that at FB they would do something similar (or rather, that their testing is 100x more sophisticated), so it's bizarre that they would miss the mark with messaging and with their prediction of overall success when it came to something so strategically important and sensitive.

View on HN

> the execution was so out of touch it's bizarre

This more or less describes Facebook's entire corporate ethos at this point. Almost all of their products are now clearly driven by PMs who are so focused on random metrics that they make various awful tweaks to the UX, all of which are clearly intended to drive some metric.

Case in point 1: Instagram replacing the "notifications" counter with a link to their "shopping" function that no one wants or uses.

Case in point 2: Trying to add a GIF on Facebook messenger opens up another entry point to Rooms, the video chat. No one is going to start a video chat from the keyboard, Facebook. (Then again, I'll bet 0.5% of users accidentally started one, so the metric is up! Ship it!)

I think when it comes to your point 1, they deserve a bit more credit - the prioritization of Shopping is a reaction to the threat of iOS 14-related loss of targeting capabilities. The only viable long-term response is to keep the entire user flow within the app, from click to checkout. While hiding the notifications will impact some engagement metrics, nothing is as important right now as achieving the above goal.

The thing is, how useful is an app with a shopping-button and no notifications-button, if no one uses it anymore?

Walmart would be way more profitable if every item was $100. But then no one shops there anymore.

So you need to walk the line between serving your users and serving your bottom line.

The notifications counter isn't _gone_, just moved to the top right on the home page next to the Direct Messages button. I didn't and still don't like the change but it's not catastrophic.

I did a semester of contract law at University and what they were trying to say is that in Software, we have the problem that we all got bamboozled by idiotic lawyer departments that apply to everything the same recipe.

It would be much better for everyone to give good willing contracts, more open and well-intentioned, that the current model of unenforceable but scary lock-everything clauses. It would however probably mean a change of business model.

Whatsapp could say "we'll never profit from you data, we'll only give them to law enforcement after review of the request and we delete all after 5 years", 3 lines and easy to enforce in front of a judge. In truth, none of those auto-approved contracts nobody reads can fully be trusted to be enforced by a judge. The excuse of "I misunderstood it and just clicked anyway to talk to my children" could very well be a defence. You can't say "if you breath, it means you accepted this contract of 2000 lines of legalese".

One day I suspect, at least the EU, they'll think of doing something where you can't deny service for non-respect of a new contract and will have to offer a multi layer service for each contract level. That sounds rational and I can't believe a company can lock me out of an email service or whatever just because I can't accept a contract change I don't even understand.

Well the crap implementations of the EU privacy regs brought in even more legal popups. It's like a website EULA. Sorry to say this, I know I'll be downvoted but it's the truth. They should've said no popups, popovers, notifications or otherwise annoying dialogs in the directive.

All of Facebook’s moves have been tone deaf for quite some time, perhaps intentionally so. I think they see themselves as too big to fail. It also seems like there’s something factional going on, the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing.

Zuckerberg should've failed at FaceMash, but here we are.

My personal theory is that FB managers have been seeing complaints for years without a lot of follow through, and this has led them to believe that customer complaints were either overblown, or that they were too important for people to actually quit.

That or product got tunnel vision again. Wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com