Pavel Durov Has Unfriended Everyone(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Pavel Durov Has Unfriended Everyone
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-18/why-social-networks-are-becoming-too-viral
57 comments
I think you're not using Facebook appropriately. There are many groups and pages that keep you engaged and entertained as well as informed to some extent. You join the ones that cater your interest. I actually spend a lot of time on facebook daily because I managed to get a good selection of interesting sources. I have heard the same old tired tale that facebook is dying etc and it feels so vibrant right now. I guess some people don't realize that facebook is more than following your friends.
Also instagram is a very limited platform compared to facebook. It doesn't have a vast array of communication tools that facebook has. It's basically just sharing pictures to other people and some limited comment system.
Also instagram is a very limited platform compared to facebook. It doesn't have a vast array of communication tools that facebook has. It's basically just sharing pictures to other people and some limited comment system.
>I think you're not using Facebook appropriately
Can't use this shit the right way. Can I sort the posts in my feed in chronological order by default yet? not to mention threaded comments.
Can't use this shit the right way. Can I sort the posts in my feed in chronological order by default yet? not to mention threaded comments.
"Users can select a “Most Recent” tab to show posts as they appear, but the setting stubbornly switches back to Facebook's algorithmically-driven feed after a certain amount of time."
Also there is 1 level of threads in comments. A reply in a post can become a thread.
Also there is 1 level of threads in comments. A reply in a post can become a thread.
>Also there is 1 level of threads in comments. A reply in a post can become a thread.
I'm not sure if you are trying to prove my point or point out something different.
I'm not sure if you are trying to prove my point or point out something different.
> I think you're not using Facebook appropriately.
I respectfully disagree. The dissociated graphs and/or the wrong usage of social network platforms are minor issues. They are issues, but not the cause of the matter.
The wrongfully usage of graph theory is the main issue that (most social networks) should address.
The first usage of the sociogram (at least the first I am aware of) is in the psychosociological studies of Iacob Levy. From there the graph theory has seen a huge improvement as a very powerful analytical tool.
Using this tool to automatise sociality is [clumsily] easy, but [refinedly] hard: we are basically using a sophisticated querying tool to filter, predict, rate future interest and to ease future communications.
And this is not wrong, unless you add strong requirements to the problem: free flow of information but avoiding hype-driven sharing, freedom of connection but avoiding the filter bubble and self-radicalisation, etc.
Apparently many are starting to think that what's probably causing disconnected graphs, inappropriate usage, fake news, revenge porn et all is "feeding users with feedbacked data extracted from big data analysis over graphs and metadata".
I wonder if anyone has ever bothered reading "Psychodrama & Group Psychotherapy", that highlights how doing this is inserting psychopathic traits in a community.
Solving this matter means seeking a solution to precautionary principles, and is probably something that requires strong AIs.
Since we don't have strong AIs, in the meanwhile, unfriending everyone is a simple and elegant solution. chapeaux
I respectfully disagree. The dissociated graphs and/or the wrong usage of social network platforms are minor issues. They are issues, but not the cause of the matter.
The wrongfully usage of graph theory is the main issue that (most social networks) should address.
The first usage of the sociogram (at least the first I am aware of) is in the psychosociological studies of Iacob Levy. From there the graph theory has seen a huge improvement as a very powerful analytical tool.
Using this tool to automatise sociality is [clumsily] easy, but [refinedly] hard: we are basically using a sophisticated querying tool to filter, predict, rate future interest and to ease future communications.
And this is not wrong, unless you add strong requirements to the problem: free flow of information but avoiding hype-driven sharing, freedom of connection but avoiding the filter bubble and self-radicalisation, etc.
Apparently many are starting to think that what's probably causing disconnected graphs, inappropriate usage, fake news, revenge porn et all is "feeding users with feedbacked data extracted from big data analysis over graphs and metadata".
I wonder if anyone has ever bothered reading "Psychodrama & Group Psychotherapy", that highlights how doing this is inserting psychopathic traits in a community.
Solving this matter means seeking a solution to precautionary principles, and is probably something that requires strong AIs.
Since we don't have strong AIs, in the meanwhile, unfriending everyone is a simple and elegant solution. chapeaux
You're basically describing the internet.
>>I have heard the same old tired tale that facebook is dying etc
For those who no longer use FB, it is dead.
I feel good about that. I didn't even have to attend the funeral.
YMMV
For those who no longer use FB, it is dead.
I feel good about that. I didn't even have to attend the funeral.
YMMV
This is a puff piece designed to puff up Telegram.
It mentions Telegram one time,as well as competitors. You think it was written as a promotion? People's fake news detectors have flow off the rails.
It mentions Telegram one time,as well as competitors. You think it was written as a promotion? People's fake news detectors have flow off the rails.
As far as I understand it, the first two of these problems, you could theoretically fix (to some extent) yourself.
If you share nothing in common with your high school friends, your family etc., just don't be 'friends' with them. Only friend/like pages related to your interest.
In theory, that would fix problem 2 as well, to some extent, because the majority of the junk that fills your feed comes from your twice-removed aunt who 'likes' every video she sees and reposting every click-bait article she can find.
Unfortunately, if that all worked as planned, that would probably cause your feed to be flood with way more ads, to make up for the lack of content. But at least they might be more targeted?
If you share nothing in common with your high school friends, your family etc., just don't be 'friends' with them. Only friend/like pages related to your interest.
In theory, that would fix problem 2 as well, to some extent, because the majority of the junk that fills your feed comes from your twice-removed aunt who 'likes' every video she sees and reposting every click-bait article she can find.
Unfortunately, if that all worked as planned, that would probably cause your feed to be flood with way more ads, to make up for the lack of content. But at least they might be more targeted?
> As far as I understand it, the first two of these problems, you could theoretically fix (to some extent) yourself.
How will the average person fix that? I assume you are talking about an ad blocker? Then it only get's rid of the side ads. It does not get rid of the junk in the main feed. Even training the system won't get you the result you desire.
> If you share nothing in common with your high school friends, your family etc., just don't be 'friends' with them. Only friend/like pages related to your interest.
That is not what Facebook is about. You only add people you've met at some point in real-life. You can't do what you are suggesting because Facebook works on real identities. People are afraid to friend people they don't know because it is almost like a 2nd identity card in a way.
You are right about Facebook Pages but I think the early 2010-2012 brand push by Facebook really ruined that product. Secondly, a Facebook Page is more of an entity. It is not tied to you. I can make a profile on Instagram called "outdoors_guy" and it is my handle and all the people are following me and my life. A Facebook page doesn't capture that.
How will the average person fix that? I assume you are talking about an ad blocker? Then it only get's rid of the side ads. It does not get rid of the junk in the main feed. Even training the system won't get you the result you desire.
> If you share nothing in common with your high school friends, your family etc., just don't be 'friends' with them. Only friend/like pages related to your interest.
That is not what Facebook is about. You only add people you've met at some point in real-life. You can't do what you are suggesting because Facebook works on real identities. People are afraid to friend people they don't know because it is almost like a 2nd identity card in a way.
You are right about Facebook Pages but I think the early 2010-2012 brand push by Facebook really ruined that product. Secondly, a Facebook Page is more of an entity. It is not tied to you. I can make a profile on Instagram called "outdoors_guy" and it is my handle and all the people are following me and my life. A Facebook page doesn't capture that.
> How will the average person fix that? I assume you are talking about an ad blocker? Then it only get's rid of the side ads. It does not get rid of the junk in the main feed. Even training the system won't get you the result you desire.
When you see junk in your feed, unfollow, unfriend, or hide ad. The button's right there.
When you see junk in your feed, unfollow, unfriend, or hide ad. The button's right there.
Here in Netherlands, before Facebook, we had a social network called Hyves. One of the reasons it failed is because of the disassociated graph, like you mentioned. You start out with all of your friends from high school, but once you start to grow.. the distance between you and them growths. That is why people started moving to Facebook, because all their cool friends where there.
I guess the only reason why Facebook is still surviving is because everyone is on there, you do not want to lose certain friends. They have conquered the market.
I guess the only reason why Facebook is still surviving is because everyone is on there, you do not want to lose certain friends. They have conquered the market.
In Belgium we used netlog a lot. But I belief it was aimed more at teenagers though
Hmm, I agree that your point about social networks distancing you from your community is true in the United States. In Mexico, on the other hand, a huge amount of community information is passed through FB and WhatsApp groups. No matter what activity you are involved in, from mountain biking to the city dog park, there's a very active WhatsApp group and a FB page. It feels like how social networks were meant to be.
> President Obama touched upon this a week ago.
does anyone have a link? can't find any source. it's a lucky coincidence I'm doing a deck on this topic and a quote like that would be perfect.
does anyone have a link? can't find any source. it's a lucky coincidence I'm doing a deck on this topic and a quote like that would be perfect.
I wiped out (actual permanent deletion) my Facebook account late 2016. Email and long form communication for people that matter. Gathered anyone I regularly chatted with or wanted to IM with onto Signal. Don't miss anything about Facebook other than a group or two I was a member of. Decentralized forums still exist and work fine. We deserve better than Facebook.
I have been wanting to do this for literally years now, but I don't think I could convince the vast majority of my friends to move onto anything together, let alone Signal. Most of them are non-technical, and it just holds no appeal. Plus, because they would basically just be installing it just to talk to me, they would probably nearly never be online or check their messages, so I'd almost never get to talk to them again.
I basically don't use Facebook (the website), but I am still stuck using their Messenger for communication with most of my friends. That said, Facebook's events system is still the best that I've seen. If it was stand-alone, I would probably delete the rest of FB, and just keep that part. Nothing else on Facebook adds any value to my experience. Nothing you need to be logged in for, at least.
I basically don't use Facebook (the website), but I am still stuck using their Messenger for communication with most of my friends. That said, Facebook's events system is still the best that I've seen. If it was stand-alone, I would probably delete the rest of FB, and just keep that part. Nothing else on Facebook adds any value to my experience. Nothing you need to be logged in for, at least.
I guess that is what it comes down to. I am now missing a lot of low quality interactions with friends and family. I do still SMS with folks. It was mostly about Facebook. I took the time to plan out how to stay in touch with each and every one of my contacts I cared about or thought would care about me. It is a good question -- what will you really be missing? How did the thinkers of generations gone by live without pervasive and instant contact with friends and family. Did they still foster deep and meaningful relationships? Can we still do that now without a tool like Facebook or Twitter.
You could unfollow everyone. i did this a few months back and haven't missed it at all. way less distraction.
You are basically saying your friends were a distraction. Which is a little rude (UK perspective).
heh, you know - you're not wrong :) It may appear rude, but it's not meant to be - it's just a way of flipping the interaction from a push to a pull. i can always visit a friend's page to see what they've been up to.
In the US, many FB'ers friend anyone. I had this girl I worshiped years ago. She finally seemed interested, on a chance encounter. She said, "I'll friend you?" Blah, blah, etc.
I got home, and looked her up. She had 550 friends. I can't figure out if I don't like her now because she rebuffed me years ago, or she has 550 FB friends. And yes--I took into account she might be insecure now, and filled with self-doubt; which would explain why she needs to have a following.
All I know is I don't feel the same way about her as I did before I saw her FB page though. Weird?
I got home, and looked her up. She had 550 friends. I can't figure out if I don't like her now because she rebuffed me years ago, or she has 550 FB friends. And yes--I took into account she might be insecure now, and filled with self-doubt; which would explain why she needs to have a following.
All I know is I don't feel the same way about her as I did before I saw her FB page though. Weird?
I think you're reading too much into it. I barely use facebook and have a couple hundred friends. I'll accept an invite from anyone I know and like, regardless of how well I know them. Do that for a decade, or however long FB's been around, and you build up quite a few.
It's very tempting to friend anyone. But because of Facebook's tendency to then cross pollinate posts via comments etc. I'm more reluctant to do so (privacy of others). I post to Facebook almost as if I'd post in public. But it's different for everyone. I know there are settings and ways to make circles, but it seems a faff.
Have you considered using the "Facebook News Feed Eradicator"? It does what the name suggests it does, and let's you focus on events and private messages.
IIRC you can deactivate FB but still use their IM
I miss Facebook, or rather the circle of friends on it. I'm ideologically opposed to the idea of one big centralised thing like Facebook - but as an actual tool it's pretty spiffy.
It's so nice to see such rare and nuanced discussion on HN, declaring that one has deleted their Facebook account; a refreshing and entirely not beat to death reminder indeed.
Heh, alright. Well, if it is news some famous Russian guy unfollowed his network activity helps other HNers have a tiny bit more information about what others are doing. I will elaborate some though. I am in information security and have been reforming my overall footprint online. I have been making an effort to cut down on the analytics I generate for other companies and keep my data and activity on the Internet to myself. I have migrated away from Mac and Windows as primary operating systems due to analytics and ongoing downward trend for Apple (Sierra was not a good update from a privacy perspective).
Perhaps I am simplifying too much, but this problem does not seem complex -- but we have collectively made it complicated. People need to claw back their privacy one app, and website at a time. I have also made efforts to begin educating my family.
I have also connected my entire home Internet to a full time VPN end point that tunnels everything out. The VPN endpoint IP is changed every day at night (Trail of Bits -- Algo, cron and a bash script, and a good amount of battle with IPSec to make the gateway work). No more ISP super tracking cookies in my home. Everyone that is on the home network goes through is so it is easy for everyone to use (nothing changed on my home network from the end user perspective).
Consistent usage of privoxy. Casual browsing is done using Chrome in a docker container that is removed when chrome closes.
There are other things, but most of that has been over the last 6 months. It is a good start... But there are still a lot of obvious leaks. I have also been steering friends and family towards paid service with no advertising over anything where they are the "product".
Perhaps I am simplifying too much, but this problem does not seem complex -- but we have collectively made it complicated. People need to claw back their privacy one app, and website at a time. I have also made efforts to begin educating my family.
I have also connected my entire home Internet to a full time VPN end point that tunnels everything out. The VPN endpoint IP is changed every day at night (Trail of Bits -- Algo, cron and a bash script, and a good amount of battle with IPSec to make the gateway work). No more ISP super tracking cookies in my home. Everyone that is on the home network goes through is so it is easy for everyone to use (nothing changed on my home network from the end user perspective).
Consistent usage of privoxy. Casual browsing is done using Chrome in a docker container that is removed when chrome closes.
There are other things, but most of that has been over the last 6 months. It is a good start... But there are still a lot of obvious leaks. I have also been steering friends and family towards paid service with no advertising over anything where they are the "product".
Despite its imperfections, which in my cursory understanding are largely academic, Telegram is an amazing messenger.
It's very quick, feature-rich, and developer-friendly.
Perhaps best of all, it's a nonprofit. So I can expect, with a high degree of confidence, that the organization won't abruptly switch course one day to appease investors.
It's very quick, feature-rich, and developer-friendly.
Perhaps best of all, it's a nonprofit. So I can expect, with a high degree of confidence, that the organization won't abruptly switch course one day to appease investors.
Telegram has solved the communications problem for me mostly. Before telegram, I had, all of the legacy messenger services (AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Skype, etc), plus Slack, IRC and whatever I used at work - now I have Telegram, and no longer sign into those legacy services anymore.
What makes telegram a winner for me is that the desktop is a first class citizen, I'm in front of a computer like 18 hours a day - I don't want to have to stop what I'm going and respond on my phone. Yes, perhaps Signal is more secure, and I may try it someday.. but for now.. Telegram has largely solved my 'communications' problem.
What makes telegram a winner for me is that the desktop is a first class citizen, I'm in front of a computer like 18 hours a day - I don't want to have to stop what I'm going and respond on my phone. Yes, perhaps Signal is more secure, and I may try it someday.. but for now.. Telegram has largely solved my 'communications' problem.
Discord has done that for me, but only because all my friend groups are willing to use it. If you just want a messenger that works well, there are a number of good options - that unfortunately don't talk to each other.
The criticism is only about the crypto, which is weird and historically unsafe (and not on by default).
Other than that it is a great app. Some of us just think the bar is e2e by default.
Other than that it is a great app. Some of us just think the bar is e2e by default.
A non-profit simply means that it cannot hold money from one year to the next. To achieve that, a "non-profit" could give millions as executive compensation or contract inefficiently to for-profit "partners" who collect the gains. Not saying Telegram is doing that, but the structure shouldn't be adding to a vote of confidence in any way.
>Despite its imperfections, which in my cursory understanding are largely academic
1) no video calls
2) voice calls just now being rolled out
3) encryption is opt-in and limited to one-on-one conversations
4) requires a phone number for authentication
The "academic" criticism is about its crypto being poor. The rest is regular stuff which is a deal breaker even for many non-academics.
1) no video calls
2) voice calls just now being rolled out
3) encryption is opt-in and limited to one-on-one conversations
4) requires a phone number for authentication
The "academic" criticism is about its crypto being poor. The rest is regular stuff which is a deal breaker even for many non-academics.
> Perhaps best of all, it's a nonprofit.
That doesn't appear to be true:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11...
If they're a nonprofit, where is their 990 (or equivalent)?
That doesn't appear to be true:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/11...
If they're a nonprofit, where is their 990 (or equivalent)?
Actually using Durov's messenger app. Have created a couple of personal bots myself, which took less than an hour each.
The only downside will probably be the time when Durov is out of money, and they will start monetizing the platform.
>Vkontakte, which quickly beat the original in Russia because it became the medium for sharing pirated movies and music
While true - one of the big reasons VK is more popular is simple and light UI, something that Fb lacks for some reason. Many people here won't switch or even register simply because everything is hidden somewhere, and instead of chronological feed of articles from your friends and groups you have tons of "the most popular posts". Nobody want's that. Nobody cares about how much likes the post have. Just give me the content I'm here for, not the content you think is more important or trendy.
While true - one of the big reasons VK is more popular is simple and light UI, something that Fb lacks for some reason. Many people here won't switch or even register simply because everything is hidden somewhere, and instead of chronological feed of articles from your friends and groups you have tons of "the most popular posts". Nobody want's that. Nobody cares about how much likes the post have. Just give me the content I'm here for, not the content you think is more important or trendy.
I'd love to see an FB replacement with just groups and events. All the rest is just noise to me, but I guess it's hard to get a viable userbase without the fluffier features of FB. And of course there's the whole problem of everyone already using FB.
Ideally, it'd be federated, perhaps an extension of GNU Social, but wishes ain't horses...
Ideally, it'd be federated, perhaps an extension of GNU Social, but wishes ain't horses...
This is interesting because I thought that Durov after selling VK invested the proceeds into FB?!
I don't know that the decline of usage of Facebook means Facebook is necessarily in decline (though I agree with the anecdotal notes about using FB less). It could be that usage has moderated a bit from the migration from desktop to mostly mobile. It may mean that social network activity is split say between FB and Snapchat (and messaging clients). If it does indicate FB is in decline, it doesn't necessarily mean social networks are unneeded or in decline, it may just mean we need new social networks :-).
I don't know that the decline of usage of Facebook means Facebook is necessarily in decline (though I agree with the anecdotal notes about using FB less). It could be that usage has moderated a bit from the migration from desktop to mostly mobile. It may mean that social network activity is split say between FB and Snapchat (and messaging clients). If it does indicate FB is in decline, it doesn't necessarily mean social networks are unneeded or in decline, it may just mean we need new social networks :-).
I've been using Facebook for eleven years and I almost stopped logging in. I used it almost only to say happy birthday to friends in 2016. This year only to post some work related news and events. The point is that ten years are a long time and I lost interest. It's all the same routine again and again. Luckily I meet in person with most of the friends I care about and there are many different ways to reach people, messengers and other sites.
I hope Telegram makes a Mozilla-style move in the future. We needed open-source on the web, and we will need open-source on the IM.
Have you heard of matrix.org?
I'd think Durov was the kind of person who uses social network only for PR and is not otherwise interested in it...
Please don't let Dave Shing see this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq5h9Uacq0w&feature=youtu.be...
I have unfollowed (not unfriended) everyone in Facebook about a year ago (before it became mainstream).
What a happy year it was. 12/10 would do it again.
What a happy year it was. 12/10 would do it again.
I have no friends.
I'll be your friend.
I see we have the same phone. We have things in common already!
I see we have the same phone. We have things in common already!
Be my friend, too?
Here's my 4x10^1000 Zimbabwe Dollars -
FB = Show N Tell. Messenger = Passing Notes.
Both have their place.
FB = Show N Tell. Messenger = Passing Notes.
Both have their place.
And Messenger Lite is just out. Coincidence?
- Disassociated Graph. The truth is the friends you had in high school and your family are all great but it is highly likely you don't share a lot of things in common with them. For example, your love for kayaking and the outdoors might resonate with no one on your graph. Instagram, and other networks like it, you build graphs based on interest. If your Instagram account is about the outdoors, it is highly likely everyone else will be outdoors people as well. That's more rewarding.
- Bad Content. Graph aside, the content is terrible. The feed is full with click-bait articles, and fake news. You actually feed bad after spending any time on Facebook because you know it is was a waste.
- Ads. A good chunk of your feed now is full of ads. Terrible ads. Instagram, for example, is a relatively clean interface.
I would say Facebook is clearly on the decline based on the above but to say all networks are on the decline is false. Instagram has proven otherwise and there will be other networks, in the same Instagram vein, that will grow quickly as well.
Lastly, all of these networks and messengers have one glaring flaw. They isolate you. President Obama touched upon this a week ago. They do little to connect you with your surroundings and I would hardly call any of them "social networks." They don't connect you to your neighborhood, your city, and the places you frequent the most. It is pretty shocking, but most Americans now only, on average, have about 2.5 friends they see regularly in real-life and most people don't even know who their neighbors are. It's sad.