Hacker News Reader

Comment by untog | Hacker News Reader

I think we've reached the point where no-one should be surprised about this. And besides:

What most users don’t know is that the new features being introduced are all centered around increasing the value of Facebook to advertisers

Centered? I don't know. Timeline seems pretty user-centric to me. I've had it for a few months as a developer, but since it became public I've seen plenty of my friends filling out details, tagging their friends in previous big life events... they're not doing it because Facebook tricked them into it, they're doing it because they want to.

Yes, there is also an advertiser advantage to this- same as any information you plug into Facebook. But I don't think it's fair to paint Facebook as cynically putting Timeline together so that they can mine data. If you're comfortable with the way Facebook makes money (which, personally, I am) there's nothing to go crazy about in here.

View on HN

Most of the people I talk with don't like the idea of their pictures and words being shown to their friends as ads for products. Most of the people I talk with don't like the idea that things on their profile and in their feed are influenced by how much money Facebook can charge from ads. Most people I talk with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface and pretty skeptical about Timeline (they don't have the time to invest in tweaking it, they're concerned about old status messages and photos becoming a lot more visible) so get irritated when reminded that it's main goal is to maximize -exploitation- revenue.

So yeah, it's true that at some level nobody's particularly surprised by this any more. People are sick of Facebook and waiting for what's next, and for most of them Timeline will just reinforce those feelings.

Most people I talk with are already sick of Facebook changing their interface and pretty skeptical about Timeline

Most people 'hate' every single change Facebook has ever made, yet somehow manage to totally forget about it within about two months. People hate change.

Honestly, if "most people" are annoyed that Facebook serves ads based on the content of their profile then they should leave Facebook. Because that's the business model the site operates on.

I don't think they forget about it, any more than they forget about Facebook's pattern of privacy abuses and Mark's non-apologies. If there were an easy-to-use alternative, the people I talk to would love to leave FB instantly; as it is, they're cutting down how much they use it and feeling increasingly resentful. So yes they've posted great numbers in 2011 but from a competitive strategy perspective they're vulnerable.

The people you talk to are not typical. "Most people" aren't aware/bothered by the privacy aspects of Facebook- just look at the number of visible, insecure profiles.

Facebook is not vulnerable from a privacy standpoint- that was the reason everyone said that they were moving to Google+. They didn't.

The people I'm talking to are moms, dads, students, photographers, recent graduates, old friends from high school in rural Pennsylvania, relatives, people at the place I get my hair cut ... okay, admittedly I get my hair cut in San Francisco, and I talk to privacy advocates as well. It's not unanimous by any means, plenty of people still think it's just fine, but if they lose even 5-10% of their usage and/or engagement over the next quarter they'll have a real problem getting the IPO valuation they want.

Inability to use buggy poorly-designed extremely complex software correctly is not evidence that people don't care. I'm a software engineer and security guy and deal well with complexity and even so I haven't been able to figure out how to keep my profile both visible to the people I want to and secure without devoting way more time than I have available. When I tell people that they often respond "oh thank god it's not just me".

It's not just privacy; it's the whole pattern. The constantly-changing UX is a huge deal to a lot of people, and so is the general attitude of "you're the product" and Zuckerberg's non-apologies.

Agreed that Google+ botched their short-term chance but it has decent usage and now has a much better first-user experience so if people react badly to Timeline, there is an alternative. In any case Google+ has clearly shown there's pent-up demand for a Facebook alternative. They'll keep investing in any case, and there are plenty of other options coming along. I talked about this back in September in "In Chaos there is Opportunity" http://www.talesfromthe.net/jon/?p=3163

Exactly. When someone throws the old (yes, old) "Facebook monetizes the info that you post" argument in my face, the only thing I understand is that he's either new to Facebook and skipped the terms or... I don't know.

Bottom line is, Google did the same thing more or less when they introduced Google instant (reducing "I feel lucky" usage to serve more links) and, this might sound harsh, both are companies aim to make money while at the same time improve your user experience by serving targeted ads.

Seriously, it's nothing ground-breaking that no one knows.

I had a similar reaction, so I blogged about it here: "News flash: Yes, Facebook is selling you to advertisers" http://gigaom.com/2011/12/23/news-flash-yes-facebook-is-sell...

Agreed, this is hardly surprising and the over inflammatory title is highly unfair.

If you add more information to Facebook then of course this will be improving the appeal of the platforms to advertisers, don't like it? Stop using it. It's not like there selling your address and phone number which MANY brick and mortar companies would do given the chance.

I get to use a great product without having to put my hand in my wallet, Facebook can continue to grow as a business, the end product improves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com