Those people are in the app because of the social features and the feed in the first place. The messaging features were built on top of the platform.
Requiring companies to make and maintain a separate app entirely if their product has messaging features is an unreasonable requirement. If someone has such a strong self-control problem that they can’t message someone without becoming addicted to the feed, they shouldn’t be involved with the platform at all.
Just exchange emails, phone numbers for SMS, or any other type of communication. I seriously doubt that your friends are only able to communicate through exactly one communication channel and it happens to be Instagram.
Well, I suppose that's one take on it.
I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger. Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works. You could call it a rugpull, I would call it US business practices.
It's the correct take. Facebook had 800M users on the day Messenger was released.
> I would argue that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger
Why would you argue a nonsense point? Literally all you have to do is Google "when was messenger released" and "number of facebook users in August 2011"
Unless you think those 800M users were just waiting for a shitty messenger?
Messenger was never the primary draw of Facebook. It came long after Facebook was popular.
I should have known better than to step into a conversation about Facebook on HN. Doing anything other than blindly agreeing with anti-Facebook comments, even if they’re factually incorrect or illogical, attracts downvotes and more illogical arguments.
I didn't say it was. Remember, my statement was: ... that people are in the app because Facebook gave out Facebook Messenger
Indeed, I remember using Facebook just for messages. So when Facebook Messenger came out, I used that exclusively.
Now, I've long since moved off of Facebook and Facebook Messenger. Some of my family still use it though, and I've seen it. It's not what it used to be. So, I then expanded on that to say: Then Facebook changed how Facebook Messenger works
> they’re factually incorrect or illogical
So, where's the factually incorrect or illogical argument?
The final straw for me to move off of Facebook was Cambridge Analytica. Once I realized how terrible not just Facebook was for not only permitting that kind of shit, but practically inviting it as a feature... that was very telling. And I've since stopped using nearly all social media, present website excluded.
the better alternative is to require interoperability with other messenger apps, so can use the app of my choice. this is a proposal under discussion since years ago.
I seriously doubt that your friends are only able to communicate through exactly one communication channel
some people do exactly that. they refuse to communicate on anything but their messenger of choice. and sometimes keeping in touch with that person is more important than my preferences. oh, and for many people i do not want to share my phone number, which limits the available messaging platforms we can still use. we'll be lucky if there is one.
I’m sure there are some number of people out there who only use Facebook Messenger, do not check their email, refuse to use any other messenger, for whom you do not want to share your phone number with for SMS texting, and for whom one of their friends cannot self-control enough to scroll a Facebook feed when they use the Facebook Messenger app. I agree this scenario is plausible for some very small percentage of users with eccentric habits and specific demands who are unwilling to compromise.
I do not agree that we need to start using the force of government to regulate that companies cater to this exact edge case situation where both parties refuse to bend their messaging habits or exchange SMS contact information but want companies to create an entirely separate app for them to communicate on their platform.
https://umatechnology.org/eu-could-force-whatsapp-messenger-...
I don’t know how old you are or where you live, but I’m in my mid 40s and don’t live in a tech city. A good quarter of everyone I know in my age range uses Facebook Messenger as their primary form of texting. Most of them don’t even use Facebook itself anymore, they just have a lot of momentum on Messenger.
I disagree. I think it's more than reasonable. Facebook designs its features with dark UX to cause addiction, it's not about self control, it's about Facebook engaging in anti-human behavior.
It's reasonable to use the State to force a corporation that makes tens of billions of dollars of profit a year to behave in a way that's beneficial to people. The corporation will be fine, it's air conditioned and listening to its favorite music.
In this case Meta already has such an app (Messenger), and it has at times supported instagram messaging. I'm not sure why they broke that association a little while ago, but it's not unreasonable that they could reconnect it.
I don't think it's unreasonable and I'll take it further - messaging should be forced to use an open protocol. No more iMessage or Facebook messenger. If you want those, great, then open them.
Now everything works with everything and the world is a utopia and also we cured cancer. Downside: Meta will make slightly less money. I can live with that.
2. SMS is probably the most insecure protocol created for anything, ever.
3. The experience is as close to as shit as it can get.
4. Most modern messaging features aren't supported.
5. Most devices don't support SMS.
6. You can't sync SMS across devices.
Please for the love of god do not make legal requirements about how to build an app and what features can be included.
> We need to be able to message our friends without seeing a feed without having to convert all of our friends to a new platform.
lol, you have no legal right to how a chat dialog must be presented.
Why don't you try innovating instead of suing?
Anyone can make any social app work the way they want to. But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.
Absolutely nothing stopping you from starting a social network
> But that ship sailed LONG ago.
I'm pretty sure there are hundreds? thousands? of startups ready to launch that all do some variant of FB.
Why are you on YC if you think free market tech is dead?
> But that doesn't mean the same rules and laws applies - or should apply - to one with 1B users as one with 100 users.
lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are? What are the thresholds for when new laws apply? Is it strictly user count? Engagement time? Revenue?
Innovation may be dead in Europe but don't try to bring this nonsense elsewhere.
I have been visiting this forum for 12 years. It took probably 5 years before I _heard_ about the "other" part of ycombinator - the startup thing. But I never really cared about that bit, it's just an online tech forum that happens to share domain with the startup incubator.
> lol, what? We have different laws depending on how popular you are?
Absolutely. I think that is pretty universal already. For example laws preventing monopolies (government approvals of mergers, for example).
Can you show me the federal code that includes number of customers?
Do you think monopoly rules are about size or behavior? Do you think a small mom and pop store couldn't act in monopolistic practices?
Do you think a small mom and pop store in a rural captured market couldn't price fix?
Hint: It's not size :)
I never mentioned ”number of customers”. The relevant law surrounding monopolies is the Clayton antitrust act of 1914
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/18
What is and isn’t a monopoly is of course decided on a case by case basis - as it should. There is no law saying that 80% market share is necesssarily a monopoly or that 20% is so low it can’t be blocked.
> Do you think a small mom and pop store in a rural captured market couldn't price fix?
Not sure how it’s relevant but they can of course haves local monopoly - but afaik in the US such local monopolies aren’t subject to regulation.
That's what platforms are. They're markets. Its not like making a couch or something.
That's why those other apps are literally worthless.
It doesn't matter if the other apps are super amazing and they walk your dog and suck your dick and make you live forever. Literally does not matter.
The app, itself, does not matter. Which is why Facebook is allowed to be as shit as humanly possible.
What matters is what the app proxies, which is a market. Those other apps will always fail, forever, because they can't compete with facebooks market because they're not even allowed into that market.
It is a market that exists in the free market.
> And an unfree one ruled by a dictatorship that you can't vote on.
Ok, so don't use that market. You're not entitled to Facebook, or being able to dictate anything.
> That's what platforms are. They're markets. Its not like making a couch or something.
Bud, I am begging you to close your Facebook account and see it is exactly like a couch you don't have to buy.
> It doesn't matter if the other apps are super amazing and they walk your dog and suck your dick and make you live forever. Literally does not matter.
You heard it here. YC is dead. Close up shop. All these investors just wasting their money because you can't vote Zuck out.
> The app, itself, does not matter. Which is why Facebook is allowed to be as shit as humanly possible.
This is just nonsense. You're trying to sound smart by taking an extreme position. Nuance is smart.
Yes, this is actually true.
You want nuance? Here's the nuance.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, is actually competing with facebook. They're not trying to.
So what is YC funding? What are these companies doing? They're attacking different markets and making different products. When was the last time you saw a startup make a general purpose social media platform? It doesn't happen. Nobody does it. Because they know they'll lose.
If you look at the hot new kids on the block, none of them are actually competing with facebook. TikTok? TikTok is not facebook, it's a completely different product. Twitter? They're incumbent too, but completely different product. Youtube? Disney Plus? Pintrest? Linkedin? Just think about it.
You could, TRIVIALLY, make a better facebook. I, right now, in the course of a few weeks, could make a better facebook. But I'm not. And you're not. And nobody is. And nobody is even trying to.
Search your feelings, and you will know it to be true.
Now, one must also say that Instagram wasn't the incumbent messaging platform in any place in the world. It's just that newer generations always cannot tolerate to do things like their parents did, so if their parents primarily used Whatsapp or Facebook Messenger (oh, wait, all of them owned by Meta!) to communicate, they ought to find a new platform to get locked in.
Having messaging feature inside an app is harming people? Have we lost all perspective?
Why stop at this? Why dont we have a dedicated device just for messaging because if you really think about it, iPhones are actively harming people.
Lack of a messaging app is harming people? Let's be serious here.
Even if the government agency makes the worse decision possible, which they probably will, that's still an improvement, because we're completely maxed out on shit levels. That's how bad many products are today.
Best positioned as in, make the most money? No, of course not.
Best positioned as in, not completely and totally fuck their users up the ass? Yes!
Look at Meta, Google, OpenAI, you fucking name it. These companies are a cancer onto humanity. They are actively making everyone's lives worse, on purpose, for the pursuit of advertiser revenue and new and innovative addiction mechanisms.
It's sort of like asking, who would you rather make your food? The government, or R.J. Reynolds?
Shockingly, the answer is the government!