Facebook is redesigning its core app(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Facebook is redesigning its core app
https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18523265/facebook-events-groups-redesign-news-feed-features-f8-2019
216 comments
Agreed. It pains me to say this, but I don't understand the facebook app anymore -- and I work as a programmer! The website is a little better, but only a little.
I can never find settings for what I want. Most of the config is a mystery to me, no matter how many times facebook shows a message in my wall "hey, did you know you can do X this way?" or "we care about your privacy, so we added this or that option". I don't understand how groups work. I can never find the posts I want. Their constant reordering of my wall drives me mad. If I see a post I like, but I accidentally open a link or close the app and want to go back to it, it's bye bye post -- and good luck finding it again.
I cannot understand how facebook privacy works. I absolutely CANNOT send a private message to my wife sharing a photo "memory" of us two, no other people tagged, that facebook itself suggested I can share with her: it's always "message cannot be sent". What the hell, facebook?
I cannot understand how facebook censors publications in groups that sell things (too long to explain here, I asked a friend who works there, who asked the team involved, and they couldn't explain what was triggering the censorship either after I gave them the exact offending posts). Good luck finding specific posts in groups in a reasonable way, too.
I can never find settings for what I want. Most of the config is a mystery to me, no matter how many times facebook shows a message in my wall "hey, did you know you can do X this way?" or "we care about your privacy, so we added this or that option". I don't understand how groups work. I can never find the posts I want. Their constant reordering of my wall drives me mad. If I see a post I like, but I accidentally open a link or close the app and want to go back to it, it's bye bye post -- and good luck finding it again.
I cannot understand how facebook privacy works. I absolutely CANNOT send a private message to my wife sharing a photo "memory" of us two, no other people tagged, that facebook itself suggested I can share with her: it's always "message cannot be sent". What the hell, facebook?
I cannot understand how facebook censors publications in groups that sell things (too long to explain here, I asked a friend who works there, who asked the team involved, and they couldn't explain what was triggering the censorship either after I gave them the exact offending posts). Good luck finding specific posts in groups in a reasonable way, too.
> I asked a friend who works there, who asked the team involved, and they couldn't explain what was triggering the censorship either after I gave them the exact offending posts
I guess this is down to AI classifying the posts. No one can explain how the AI works except to say that it was trained on a huge amount of data and the data looks sufficiently similar to your posts that they got a bad score. (Also, welcome to the future! I expect in future lots of life-changing decisions will happen in a way that no one can explain or override).
I guess this is down to AI classifying the posts. No one can explain how the AI works except to say that it was trained on a huge amount of data and the data looks sufficiently similar to your posts that they got a bad score. (Also, welcome to the future! I expect in future lots of life-changing decisions will happen in a way that no one can explain or override).
I tried Facebook in, IDK, 2009 or so, for a month or two.
I have productively used, for significant amounts of time: every desktop Windows since 3.1, maybe a half-dozen Linux window managers under almost as many distros, BeOS, Solaris CDE, and more, a half-dozen GUI word processing programs, at least as many instant message programs, forums of all sorts, maybe a dozen image and WYSYWG HTML editors combined, and so on off to the horizon. I've figured out how to use obtuse UIs for games like Shadow President and Crusader Kings II.
Facebook's UI was too confusing so I stopped using it. I couldn't figure it out at all. Recently I've been exposed to "Facebook Work" or whatever, and it's just as bad. What's this? Where does this post go? To whom? Why are these in this order? Is this thing the same as that other thing with the same name, and if so why's it on the page twice and grouped with different things? WTF.
I have productively used, for significant amounts of time: every desktop Windows since 3.1, maybe a half-dozen Linux window managers under almost as many distros, BeOS, Solaris CDE, and more, a half-dozen GUI word processing programs, at least as many instant message programs, forums of all sorts, maybe a dozen image and WYSYWG HTML editors combined, and so on off to the horizon. I've figured out how to use obtuse UIs for games like Shadow President and Crusader Kings II.
Facebook's UI was too confusing so I stopped using it. I couldn't figure it out at all. Recently I've been exposed to "Facebook Work" or whatever, and it's just as bad. What's this? Where does this post go? To whom? Why are these in this order? Is this thing the same as that other thing with the same name, and if so why's it on the page twice and grouped with different things? WTF.
Facebook used to be polished, believe it or not. The newsfeed was once just that, a feed for new items posted by your friends on their walls, ordered chronologically so you can get through it quickly and efficiently. People used to never share links they found on the web, why would you be that spammy asshole after all? That was the thinking then, at least. Then third party pages appeared and began posting into your newsfeed, then it became possible to share these posts with your other friends, then the feed quickly lost any utility it might have had as it became flooded with third party content and advertisement grouped in no particular order at all.
The next thing to go was notifications. I don't care if my uncle liked my aunts posts, yet I get the notification! They even had the nerve to have a notification setting to turn this off that did absolutely nothing at all. Completely broken, but probably a feature and not a bug.
The next thing to go was notifications. I don't care if my uncle liked my aunts posts, yet I get the notification! They even had the nerve to have a notification setting to turn this off that did absolutely nothing at all. Completely broken, but probably a feature and not a bug.
Once you have audience _capture_, worse UX becomes a valuable dark pattern because it requires _investment_.
Have you ever seen a modern slot machine? There seems to be a pattern to winning, if only you study it a bit longer...just put in one more coin and the epiphany will come.
Have you ever seen a modern slot machine? There seems to be a pattern to winning, if only you study it a bit longer...just put in one more coin and the epiphany will come.
I may suggest that you are an outlier; many hundreds of millions have successfully figured out everyday use of Facebook’s UI since 2009.
For me the worst UI ever invented would have to be the 3D tool known as ZBrush.
It is the least intuitive thing imaginable.
I think there is a certain logic to it, but it is a complicated logic, like learning Haskell or something.
The funny thing is a lot of artists seem to like it.
It is the least intuitive thing imaginable.
I think there is a certain logic to it, but it is a complicated logic, like learning Haskell or something.
The funny thing is a lot of artists seem to like it.
Strange, when did you first use Zbrush?
I haven't touched it in over 10 years, but back then it was super easy to get started with for a novice. Much easier than Mudbox. Though I had amazing Digital Tutors videos.
I haven't touched it in over 10 years, but back then it was super easy to get started with for a novice. Much easier than Mudbox. Though I had amazing Digital Tutors videos.
Same, haven't used in 10 years.
The UI seemed to have a lot of modes. I mean quite literally they seem hard to learn.
Come to think of it, Blender has a very nonintuitive UI as well. Holy moly, yikes.
I like to look at Solidworks as an example of how to make a 3D user interface rather approachable. It has simple objects organized cleanly.
Granted Solidworks is mechanical and ZBrush is organic, but I can't fathom that organic modeling would require a more complicated UI than mechanical design...
The UI seemed to have a lot of modes. I mean quite literally they seem hard to learn.
Come to think of it, Blender has a very nonintuitive UI as well. Holy moly, yikes.
I like to look at Solidworks as an example of how to make a 3D user interface rather approachable. It has simple objects organized cleanly.
Granted Solidworks is mechanical and ZBrush is organic, but I can't fathom that organic modeling would require a more complicated UI than mechanical design...
Ultimately some tools are meant to be efficiently used, not intuitively used.
A command-line program is not typically intuitive to the average person, it's why we have GUIs, but given enough knowledge of how it works it's very efficient and powerful.
A command-line program is not typically intuitive to the average person, it's why we have GUIs, but given enough knowledge of how it works it's very efficient and powerful.
For me the power of CLI is in the scriptability.
But just because it runs in a terminal doesn't mean it's scriptable easily.
I kind of think that once you've used ncurses in a terminal to make something interactive, you've just made a bad GUI. Slow, often bad scroll behavior, and very prone to the terminal state getting corrupted. (Think of what random binary data will do to your terminal...)
But that's just my opinion
But just because it runs in a terminal doesn't mean it's scriptable easily.
I kind of think that once you've used ncurses in a terminal to make something interactive, you've just made a bad GUI. Slow, often bad scroll behavior, and very prone to the terminal state getting corrupted. (Think of what random binary data will do to your terminal...)
But that's just my opinion
> Come to think of it, Blender has a very nonintuitive UI as well. Holy moly, yikes.
They've redone it in the latest version (2.8) and fixed some of the oddities. Probably the most obvious example being left click selects instead of placing the 3d cursor, so it now behaves like every other program.
They've redone it in the latest version (2.8) and fixed some of the oddities. Probably the most obvious example being left click selects instead of placing the 3d cursor, so it now behaves like every other program.
> I tried Facebook in, IDK, 2009 or so, for a month or two.
That was 10 years ago. Things may have changed for better or worse (or both)...
That was 10 years ago. Things may have changed for better or worse (or both)...
Same observation here. That's what cemented my realization that facebook isn't for me, they just want my comments in order to generate "engagement", not actually be useful. It's my content and they make it nearly impossible to curate.
I had a similar realization a couple of years back when I stopped using Facebook.
After mostly using Reddit for a while I realized that Facebook wasn't designed for having actual conversations or expressing yourself.
So for example, unlike sites like Reddit or HN, you can't downvote on Facebook. Downvoting is crucial so that the community can curate the content. Facebook (or Twitter) doesn't want you doing that. They just want as much content as possible and only care about likes/upvotes to trigger dopamine bursts. "Jane has liked your photo!!!" In anonymous sites people will just downvote you and tell you why you are wrong without mercy.
Another example. In Reddit and HN you have enough space for having actual conversations. In Facebook not only the space for comments is extremely small, but it's very difficult to know how are comments related to each other. After a couple of replies the UI stops making any sense. You don't know who is replying to who, etc. In practice, Facebook comments end up encouraging people leaving reactions to some content the user posted instead of being a place for discussion. Again, to trigger that dopamine burst when someone says something in the photo you just posted.
Of course, the objective of all this behavior shaping is to get more user engagement so that they spend more time in the platform and consume more ads.
After mostly using Reddit for a while I realized that Facebook wasn't designed for having actual conversations or expressing yourself.
So for example, unlike sites like Reddit or HN, you can't downvote on Facebook. Downvoting is crucial so that the community can curate the content. Facebook (or Twitter) doesn't want you doing that. They just want as much content as possible and only care about likes/upvotes to trigger dopamine bursts. "Jane has liked your photo!!!" In anonymous sites people will just downvote you and tell you why you are wrong without mercy.
Another example. In Reddit and HN you have enough space for having actual conversations. In Facebook not only the space for comments is extremely small, but it's very difficult to know how are comments related to each other. After a couple of replies the UI stops making any sense. You don't know who is replying to who, etc. In practice, Facebook comments end up encouraging people leaving reactions to some content the user posted instead of being a place for discussion. Again, to trigger that dopamine burst when someone says something in the photo you just posted.
Of course, the objective of all this behavior shaping is to get more user engagement so that they spend more time in the platform and consume more ads.
Haha, comments are terrible and frustrate me to no end. They are impossible to navigate once there are enough comments that you need to "load previous comments".
If using the app, any mistaken gesture will undo all your progress loading previous comments to find the one referred to by another comment, which is very annoying. The UI is terrible. I usually just give up.
Everything indicates facebook is indeed not meant for conversations, which makes it doubly frustrating that people have decided to replace forums with it.
If using the app, any mistaken gesture will undo all your progress loading previous comments to find the one referred to by another comment, which is very annoying. The UI is terrible. I usually just give up.
Everything indicates facebook is indeed not meant for conversations, which makes it doubly frustrating that people have decided to replace forums with it.
You only need downvotes really when post are more like chats and the amount of posters is too big. If you have moderators you don't need downvoting. It's bad for debate since controversial posts get hidden or people get reluctant to disagree. I dislike the downvote on eg. HN.
FB does sort comments by “relevance” now by default which might be related to likes on the comments, but who knows.
They are also piloting comment voting.
I'm not in the social space, but I assume that "piloting" has a specific technical meaning. My guess is "altering to maximize engagement and/or revenue."
Not sure, but I imagine it means testing on a small percentage of users.
Its ridiculous. Scroll through the feed, click a link, then go back in the browser. You will be scrolled to the same position on the feed of course, like any good and friendly web browser would do for you, but the feed will be in a completely different order and you have no idea if you should be scrolling UP or DOWN to return to the content.
Axing the chronological feed wasn't about making the platform better, it was about making it more difficult and time consuming to use, and they lost me as a regular user in the process.
Axing the chronological feed wasn't about making the platform better, it was about making it more difficult and time consuming to use, and they lost me as a regular user in the process.
This what I'm thinking too. Facebook doesn't want a clean and efficient UI, they want it to be just tricky enough that it increases "engagement" by forcing each interaction to take at least a little longer to perform (I'm being generous here, I know.)
It's like the person who designed Ikea's floor plan now works on Facebook's UI.
> It's my content
A (lay) reading of their TOS makes it less than clear this is the case. Sure, it’s yours, but they have the right to do as they please as far as I can tell. https://m.facebook.com/about/privacy/update?refid=42
A (lay) reading of their TOS makes it less than clear this is the case. Sure, it’s yours, but they have the right to do as they please as far as I can tell. https://m.facebook.com/about/privacy/update?refid=42
Meh, their TOS are nonsense.
Facebook wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of demonstrating that even the most technically include user, or even a regular lawyer, fully understands what their agreeing to.
As far as I'm concerned, contracts are only binding if informed consent is given, and that's strictly not possible with Facebook's end user agreements.
Edit to add: what I mean to say is, we need strong legal protections for the average person in this the-user-isn't-the-customer world we live in.
Facebook wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of demonstrating that even the most technically include user, or even a regular lawyer, fully understands what their agreeing to.
As far as I'm concerned, contracts are only binding if informed consent is given, and that's strictly not possible with Facebook's end user agreements.
Edit to add: what I mean to say is, we need strong legal protections for the average person in this the-user-isn't-the-customer world we live in.
> Facebook wouldn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of demonstrating that even the most technically include user, or even a regular lawyer, fully understands what their agreeing to.
You are indeed correct. Which is why GDPR, even with all of its faults, is a step in the right direction. GDPR requires what I call “informed(ish) consent(ish).” In the US a company just needs a record of you clicking “I accept” and you’re on the hook. Believe it or not this is a pretty big improvement from the recent past when they could just burry a clause in their T&C’s that said by simply being on the site you agreed to them. I’m pretty sure we have Dell & their shady software license (that you were forced to agree to before you could even read) to thank for that.
You are indeed correct. Which is why GDPR, even with all of its faults, is a step in the right direction. GDPR requires what I call “informed(ish) consent(ish).” In the US a company just needs a record of you clicking “I accept” and you’re on the hook. Believe it or not this is a pretty big improvement from the recent past when they could just burry a clause in their T&C’s that said by simply being on the site you agreed to them. I’m pretty sure we have Dell & their shady software license (that you were forced to agree to before you could even read) to thank for that.
The one that gets me is if a person I am friends with replies to a comment from someone I'm not friends with on a public post with a lot of comments.
Facebook puts this in my news feed saying "X replied to a comment on this post" and showing the post. But if I go to comments, it doesn't surface the comment that my friend replied to (or their reply). Why tell me the comment exists and then not let me see it?
Facebook puts this in my news feed saying "X replied to a comment on this post" and showing the post. But if I go to comments, it doesn't surface the comment that my friend replied to (or their reply). Why tell me the comment exists and then not let me see it?
Perhaps this is a side effect of it being difficult to measure things like "frustration" or "incoherence" at scale. Any team told to own `wall > ` and optimize for "engagement" is going to want to iterate independently on making the most wall-friendly post system they can think of. And unless this is a highly constrained optimization problem, with a centralized design team having coherence as their* KPI, it's going to be unconstrained free-for-all optimization on a team-by-team basis. A well-managed team-of-teams does not imply a UX-coherent team-of-teams. And maybe Facebook is fine with that. It's a challenge we need to face as technical leaders - where do you spend political capital pushing for a better product?
Instagram is doing the same thing from the activity feed. Clicking on a like/comment/mention from there takes you only to the comments section, so you can't see what image the thread is taking place on
I find it frustrating that communities are using FB. Notifications and mentions go missing left and right, and its UI is not (yet?) ideal for proper discussions - I much prefer the plain forums that have always existed. I get that FB is convenient because most people have an account already, but a FB login button would also do the trick for most communities. We surely don’t need a multi-billion company to host events and groups for us. Lock-in (social graph etc) is actually quite low for these features, so I think this is a bit of a desperate move from them.
Forums are nerdy and almost nobody wants to check N number of different forums to keep up with any groups they want to be part of.
FB isn't convenient because people have an account that works with "Login with Facebook." It's convenient because it's a one stop shop for your members.
Whether FB is ideal is going to vary per community though.
FB isn't convenient because people have an account that works with "Login with Facebook." It's convenient because it's a one stop shop for your members.
Whether FB is ideal is going to vary per community though.
On the contrary, there is a growing number of people who, when faced with a facebook link, simply move on.
I'm beginning to realize that there are a lot of ordinary small businesses that do things through Facebook. I tried asking a mechanic what to do with my car, and they answered...on a weekend! No other form of communication substitutes. The same people don't seem to respond to email, and I prefer written communication to phone calls.
Not many... I quit fb but not totally. I removed all my friends to no news feed or crap. I still use it for groups though.
Any facts to back that up or are we just doing anecdotes?
This is me. I just tell people sorry, I don’t do Facebook.
Perhaps, but it is extremely resilient in certain markets. University for example. Here in the UK societies and social events are all managed through Facebook Groups and Events. There isn't even really an alternative platform.
That's about as "on the contrary" as pointing out that the number of people using NoScript jumped from 7 to 8 last year.
I hate that my gym uses FB as its primary communication tool. I don't use FB and often miss out on news and announcements.
I love the gym and I am probably the only member who doesn't use FB so I don't expect them to change, I just hope over time more and more people abandon it so they use more open methods of communications...
I love the gym and I am probably the only member who doesn't use FB so I don't expect them to change, I just hope over time more and more people abandon it so they use more open methods of communications...
Then why is Reddit one of the most popular sites in the US?
Reddit is nothing like old plain forums.
What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm, it's tree-shaped threads, and it's subreddits.
Which are not akin to subforums. Biggest difference being that anybody can very easily create a subreddit and moderate it.
What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm, it's tree-shaped threads, and it's subreddits.
Which are not akin to subforums. Biggest difference being that anybody can very easily create a subreddit and moderate it.
> it's tree-shaped threads
Tree like threads existed on forums long before reddit. But this is one of the reasons I'd say reddit is more like a mailing list or a newsgroup.
> and it's subreddits.
Again, like a mailing list.
> What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm
This is it's big difference, I'm still not convinced ranking algorithms do more good than harm though.
Tree like threads existed on forums long before reddit. But this is one of the reasons I'd say reddit is more like a mailing list or a newsgroup.
> and it's subreddits.
Again, like a mailing list.
> What defines Reddit is it's ranking algorithm
This is it's big difference, I'm still not convinced ranking algorithms do more good than harm though.
I was talking about the differences between reddit and traditional forums, as that's what OP was comparing reddit to.
I never said that reddit invented any of those things.
I never said that reddit invented any of those things.
I had most of this using NNTP clients 25 years ago.
And before Dropbox was invented, people could just bring up their favorite terminal and smash together in a few lines of bash+perl a close equivalent using FTP, curl and SVN.
Reddit is basically a forum where threads are organized as trees (where the visibility of each branch is based on user votes), and users can create their own subforum.
That's kind of a semantic argument. Reddit is, for all intents and purposes, the modern version of the 'forum'.
Traditional forums are still plethora and I've never seen anyone refer to reddit as "forum". And I personally don't think they are similar at all.
I dunno. Regular people found webboards often enough back in the beforetimes (and still now).
One UI, one login, verified(ish) identity of peers, one notification source
I still love forums. But indeed, nerdy.
>I get that FB is convenient
>We surely don’t need a multi-billion company to host events and groups for us
This is the crazy part about most "cloud" and "social" things today. Instead of spending money on making core technologies easy to use and accessible to all people we (collectively) fund middlemen who provide usability as a centralized, temporary service. This is exactly like TurboTax, except it's happening with all kinds of IT products and almost nobody cares.
For example, there is no fundamental reason why creating your own forum should be significantly more complicated than creating a Facebook account and installing their app on your phone. The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name), administrative login and administrative password. Maybe not even that. Really, you don't even need login/password if you're okay with using email for authentication. Everything else is made-up bullshit that IT industry refuses to optimize (and, in fact, makes more complicated as years go by).
This isn't just about being annoyed by Facebook's bloated UI and glitches. We live in an increasingly information-driven society, so the ability of normal people to own and control their online information is increasingly important.
>We surely don’t need a multi-billion company to host events and groups for us
This is the crazy part about most "cloud" and "social" things today. Instead of spending money on making core technologies easy to use and accessible to all people we (collectively) fund middlemen who provide usability as a centralized, temporary service. This is exactly like TurboTax, except it's happening with all kinds of IT products and almost nobody cares.
For example, there is no fundamental reason why creating your own forum should be significantly more complicated than creating a Facebook account and installing their app on your phone. The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name), administrative login and administrative password. Maybe not even that. Really, you don't even need login/password if you're okay with using email for authentication. Everything else is made-up bullshit that IT industry refuses to optimize (and, in fact, makes more complicated as years go by).
This isn't just about being annoyed by Facebook's bloated UI and glitches. We live in an increasingly information-driven society, so the ability of normal people to own and control their online information is increasingly important.
Most readers on HN are fully capable of doing that or have done that before. Running a small to medium site isn’t too hard.
Acquiring users, finding volunteers for content moderation.. that’s the hard part.
Acquiring users, finding volunteers for content moderation.. that’s the hard part.
>Running a small to medium site isn’t too hard.
It's hard enough that most people don't do it and a lot of them can't do it without expending unreasonable amount of time on learning how to jump through hoops. If you don't see that, you live in a bubble.
It's hard enough that most people don't do it and a lot of them can't do it without expending unreasonable amount of time on learning how to jump through hoops. If you don't see that, you live in a bubble.
Maybe I should have been more clear, that follows:
> Most readers on HN
So should be read as "Running a small to medium site isn't too hard for most readers on HN".
If it wasn't then that was a failure on my part to communicate effectively.
> Most readers on HN
So should be read as "Running a small to medium site isn't too hard for most readers on HN".
If it wasn't then that was a failure on my part to communicate effectively.
> Everything else is made-up bullshit that IT industry refuses to optimize (and, in fact, makes more complicated as the years go by).
What are these things? I've never used a phpbb host before.
What are these things? I've never used a phpbb host before.
Why don't you try to make one? No, I'm not being sarcastic. The reasons you don't want to try are most likely the same reasons why some non-techie people will not be able to.
It's not just about phpbb. My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management. It's hard to say for sure after being immersed in IT for so long. Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Mind you, I'm talking about a forum you would own, so services like Proboards or Craigslist are out of scope of the discussion.
It's not just about phpbb. My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management. It's hard to say for sure after being immersed in IT for so long. Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Mind you, I'm talking about a forum you would own, so services like Proboards or Craigslist are out of scope of the discussion.
> Why don't you try to make one? No, I'm not being sarcastic. The reasons you don't want to try are most likely the same reasons why some non-techie people will not be able to.
Money, yeah. Well, there's no getting around that. Someone has to pay for that server. I don't see how the industry can optimize away the need to pay a fee for the hosting without becoming something like Facebook.
> My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management.
Well, yeah, but you've already mentioned that:
> The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name),
I was wondering about the "everything else", what the made-up bullshit that the industry refuses to optimize was. I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
> Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Me neither. I just saw it mentioned when I googled "forum hosting" and it seemed like the most popular forum software out there.
Money, yeah. Well, there's no getting around that. Someone has to pay for that server. I don't see how the industry can optimize away the need to pay a fee for the hosting without becoming something like Facebook.
> My guess is the biggest stumbling block for most people would be domain management.
Well, yeah, but you've already mentioned that:
> The only essential pieces of information you need for a forum are universal name/id of some sort (e.g. a domain name),
I was wondering about the "everything else", what the made-up bullshit that the industry refuses to optimize was. I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
> Also, the wast majority of non-tech people I know have no idea what PHPbb even is. So they would have to learn about its existence first.
Me neither. I just saw it mentioned when I googled "forum hosting" and it seemed like the most popular forum software out there.
> Someone has to pay for that server.
True, but hosting is super cheap. Unless your forum is wildly popular, you can get a full, reliable host for about $5/mo. If it becomes wildly popular (but not Facebook-level popular), this would rise -- but you're not likely to need to pay more than $20/mo.
True, but hosting is super cheap. Unless your forum is wildly popular, you can get a full, reliable host for about $5/mo. If it becomes wildly popular (but not Facebook-level popular), this would rise -- but you're not likely to need to pay more than $20/mo.
You don't need to convince me, but when people in general have 2 alternatives and one is free while the other requires a recurring fee of $5 per month, that's a big difference. How would you even explain to laymen the benefits of choosing the one that's not free when it's not even more convenient? To most people, it's paying money to complicate their lives and that doesn't make sense.
Also, $5 being super-cheap is relative. If I was really strapped for cash, $5 would pay for nearly a week's worth of food. Some people can't spare that.
Also, $5 being super-cheap is relative. If I was really strapped for cash, $5 would pay for nearly a week's worth of food. Some people can't spare that.
> $5 being super-cheap is relative. If I was really strapped for cash, $5 would pay for nearly a week's worth of food. Some people can't spare that.
Absolutely true. I was not addressing the entire gamut of people, and my solution is certainly not good for everybody. But it's fair to say that $5/mo is a trivial amount of money for the vast majority of the population.
Absolutely true. I was not addressing the entire gamut of people, and my solution is certainly not good for everybody. But it's fair to say that $5/mo is a trivial amount of money for the vast majority of the population.
The way I look at it, interest rates are around 2.5%, so $5/month x 12 months divided by 0.025 is $2400 of capital you would need for $5 to be literally "nothing" to you.
By the same arithmetic, $20/month equates to $9,600.
So I think in a meaningful sense, your idea of "super cheap" is equivalent to "the price of a used car" if you look at the economic value of a monthly payment.
By the same arithmetic, $20/month equates to $9,600.
So I think in a meaningful sense, your idea of "super cheap" is equivalent to "the price of a used car" if you look at the economic value of a monthly payment.
Wow, if you're computing costs like that, how can you justify buying coffee more than a couple times per year?
I think that shelling out $5/mo for what amounts to a hobby project is pretty darned cheap.
I think that shelling out $5/mo for what amounts to a hobby project is pretty darned cheap.
I buy retail hot coffee whenever I feel like it, which is more than a couple times per year, but nowhere near every day. Coffee is not a subscription, unless you buy one of those bottomless mugs or something. This is why I think the people who give financial advice to give up Starbucks and become a millionaire are missing the point, and I am not one of them.
You don't have to agree with the equivalency I'm drawing. I'm making the point that if someone shies away from $5/month, and it's not clear to you why, maybe they implicitly recognize the value of a subscription in the same way I do. Describing a different perspective is not saying I am right and you are wrong.
You don't have to agree with the equivalency I'm drawing. I'm making the point that if someone shies away from $5/month, and it's not clear to you why, maybe they implicitly recognize the value of a subscription in the same way I do. Describing a different perspective is not saying I am right and you are wrong.
The true cost of resources to host a small forum are so low they're negligible. It's an obvious fact. Facebook doesn't pay $5/month for every discussion group they run. If they did, they would go bankrupt in an instant. Instead, they're making money.
>I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
So you're telling me that there are no ease of use improvements possible when it comes to hosting trivial content like forums. And yet you also admit that Facebook allows people to host trivial content much easier than doing it "on their own". This position makes absolutely no sense.
>I think web hosts that specialize in forum servers already integrate obtaining a domain from their own platform and even using a subdomain from one of their own, so I don't see what else they could do.
So you're telling me that there are no ease of use improvements possible when it comes to hosting trivial content like forums. And yet you also admit that Facebook allows people to host trivial content much easier than doing it "on their own". This position makes absolutely no sense.
> Facebook doesn't pay $5/month for every discussion group they run.
Yeah, because they run their own highly efficient servers optimized for their own usecases. Of course your average joe can't run a forum for that cheap, that's the whole point of economies of scale.
Yeah, because they run their own highly efficient servers optimized for their own usecases. Of course your average joe can't run a forum for that cheap, that's the whole point of economies of scale.
I loathe forums. Absolutely hate them. I've used them since I was a kid, even to the point of being an SA-Goon and every year on my birthday I'm reminded of the several hundred I've joined over the past 20+ years and they feel like this archaic thing I have to dust off when I dive in.
I'm in a lot of Jeep communities and there are a LOT of forums. Local, regional, national, drama-splintered, etc. I want a system that aggregates things I care about to me, not to dig through page after page looking for something interesting, tracking things via email notifications or staying logged in constantly.
Kind of like a quasi Reddit/Forum/Twitter mix. Longer form, a great search, the ability to follow tags.
The rare time I sign up for a forum nowadays, if my first try username is taken I just don't even join it.
I deleted FB last year and this is one of the only real pains I have from doing so. It wasn't amazing for groups anymore but it was better than having to log in to 20 different forums to find out if any of the Jeep groups were going to XYZ event next weekend.
I'm in a lot of Jeep communities and there are a LOT of forums. Local, regional, national, drama-splintered, etc. I want a system that aggregates things I care about to me, not to dig through page after page looking for something interesting, tracking things via email notifications or staying logged in constantly.
Kind of like a quasi Reddit/Forum/Twitter mix. Longer form, a great search, the ability to follow tags.
The rare time I sign up for a forum nowadays, if my first try username is taken I just don't even join it.
I deleted FB last year and this is one of the only real pains I have from doing so. It wasn't amazing for groups anymore but it was better than having to log in to 20 different forums to find out if any of the Jeep groups were going to XYZ event next weekend.
> I want a system that aggregates things I care about to me, not to dig through page after page looking for something interesting, tracking things via email notifications
What's the problem with email notifications? I would think that's the ideal decentralized system that aggregates the things you care about. Is the problem that all notifications end up mixed in your inbox? One should be able put up an automated filter that moves incoming mail that matches arbitrary criteria and organizes these mails in folders. In fact, such a filter I believe is created automatically if you use `+` addresses in gmail and probably other email providers.
What's the problem with email notifications? I would think that's the ideal decentralized system that aggregates the things you care about. Is the problem that all notifications end up mixed in your inbox? One should be able put up an automated filter that moves incoming mail that matches arbitrary criteria and organizes these mails in folders. In fact, such a filter I believe is created automatically if you use `+` addresses in gmail and probably other email providers.
I agree, it's strange that this complaint is so prevalent. Forums almost always have a subscribe feature that allows you to subscribe to individual subforums or even individual threads/topics, and they email you directly (even in digest form so you aren't spammed by tons of emails) when there's new content.
People often complain that forums are archaic, but they've been around so long they've solved so many problems in really usable ways. I often feel the fetishization of the new blinds people to existing, older solutions that work perfectly well.
People often complain that forums are archaic, but they've been around so long they've solved so many problems in really usable ways. I often feel the fetishization of the new blinds people to existing, older solutions that work perfectly well.
I dislike email more than I dislike forums. :)
I mostly blame that on the fact that my ~13yo gmail account is basically a graveyard of receipts and tracking numbers, the odd password recovery here and there, forum digests, thread replies, etc.
I mostly blame that on the fact that my ~13yo gmail account is basically a graveyard of receipts and tracking numbers, the odd password recovery here and there, forum digests, thread replies, etc.
Have you tried shifting to RSS? It takes setup getting things situated but it's excellent. I get everything on the web into my RSS reader now: youtube, twitter, reddit, hn, news, blogs, pubmed alerts, journal tables of content, just about everything can be had via RSS. Even email newsletters can be turned into an RSS feed. It's all right there, and instead of checking a dozen sites I can skim through my feeds in no time at all, from my desktop or my phone.
At first I thought it was a good thing that I started seeing condo buildings create FB groups to create at least some sense of community.
But the ones I’ve seen just end up being an disorganized mess of negative comments that should be directed to condo boards and security themselves. If there is useful information it shouldn’t be locked into a platform like FB either…
But the ones I’ve seen just end up being an disorganized mess of negative comments that should be directed to condo boards and security themselves. If there is useful information it shouldn’t be locked into a platform like FB either…
> I much prefer the plain forums that have always existed
Indeed. Forums were (almost) perfect for me. Unfortunately the communities I was/am part of have switched to facebook, so my preferences don't matter. Facebook groups frustrate me to no end, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Indeed. Forums were (almost) perfect for me. Unfortunately the communities I was/am part of have switched to facebook, so my preferences don't matter. Facebook groups frustrate me to no end, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
The cost of entry to creating a Facebook community is zero, whereas it is non-zero to host your own. For example, there are local Pokemon Go, Spartan training, and 'local gossip' communities that simply wouldn't exist if Facebook didn't.
Forums existed before Facebook and will continue to exist after Facebook. Just because Facebook was seen as the lowest barrier to entry for many groups doesn’t mean they wouldn’t exist without it.
Lots of things existed in, say, 1996 that were more or less equivalent to modern things on the internet. But the size of the internet was a tiny, tiny fraction of what it is now, so I think it's very plausible that reinventing the wheel was part of growing it and if we went backwards it might indeed mean most of it would stop existing.
I also find it very frustrating. How can I get rid of FB while important groups I'm a part of use it?
However, the demise of RSS combined with the desire of individuals to share things online without having their own "site," means that there is no place like FB for aggregation of content I'm interested in.
I'm still trying to start a forum outside of FB, though. I'm using Discourse. It's a far cry from phpBB.
However, the demise of RSS combined with the desire of individuals to share things online without having their own "site," means that there is no place like FB for aggregation of content I'm interested in.
I'm still trying to start a forum outside of FB, though. I'm using Discourse. It's a far cry from phpBB.
> I also find it very frustrating. How can I get rid of FB while important groups I'm a part of use it?
I think the only way to break the lock-in/network effect is: 1. creating a FB scraper; 2. push the scraped content to an alternative (more open) platform; 3. as more people use the scraper, more and more content from FB becomes available in the alternative platform; eventually everybody can move to the new platform.
Of course, a scraper is against FB's ToS, but this shouldn't be an impediment. For example, a scraper for YouTube has been available for years, and so far has not been successfully blocked.
I think the only way to break the lock-in/network effect is: 1. creating a FB scraper; 2. push the scraped content to an alternative (more open) platform; 3. as more people use the scraper, more and more content from FB becomes available in the alternative platform; eventually everybody can move to the new platform.
Of course, a scraper is against FB's ToS, but this shouldn't be an impediment. For example, a scraper for YouTube has been available for years, and so far has not been successfully blocked.
Have you seen such a scraper anywhere? Seems much harder. Youtube doesn't require you to be logged in to see the majority of content. Plus, you don't want the comments to come along when you scrape YT, whereas on FB, that would be a large part of the point.
No I assume it doesn't exist yet. Indeed, the scraper would require the user to be logged in. Therefore, the scraper should probably be installed as a browser plugin.
> I much prefer the plain forums that have always existed.
How many of you remember NNTP, which offered a wealth of clients, each with its own formatting, threading, filtering, sorting, etc.? PHP forums weren't bad, but they were mostly just a mediocre replacement for what we already had. Now I expect we'll get this. Other than Facebook advertisers and shareholders, does anyone want it?
How many of you remember NNTP, which offered a wealth of clients, each with its own formatting, threading, filtering, sorting, etc.? PHP forums weren't bad, but they were mostly just a mediocre replacement for what we already had. Now I expect we'll get this. Other than Facebook advertisers and shareholders, does anyone want it?
I've never used NNTP, but for the purpose they served I trust it was a more powerful system compared to web forums. I may also be wrong, but I imagine one of the primary reasons web forums became more popular than NNTP was because you only had to click on the blue e icon and click on a bookmark, compared to setting up an NNTP client. In other words, it was more accessible to computer laymen. This is the same case now with web forums vs Facebook. Facebook is more accessible to computer laymen. So, what gives you the confidence to say that "we'll get this"?
> So, what gives you the confidence to say that "we'll get this"?
As in "we'll get this... shoved down our throats," or "we'll eventually give in to this." I think web forums took off because they could more easily display images (and banner ads). News readers were a bit techie, but could have been made as easy to use as modern mail readers with a bit of effort. Heck, there was even a web interface going back decades (gmane).
Imagine the Facebook news feed, but instead of them choosing what you see, you could use a program on your computer to sort, filter, and mark things read. That's what we had 30+ years ago.
As in "we'll get this... shoved down our throats," or "we'll eventually give in to this." I think web forums took off because they could more easily display images (and banner ads). News readers were a bit techie, but could have been made as easy to use as modern mail readers with a bit of effort. Heck, there was even a web interface going back decades (gmane).
Imagine the Facebook news feed, but instead of them choosing what you see, you could use a program on your computer to sort, filter, and mark things read. That's what we had 30+ years ago.
Forum software has also had a dip in convenience in my opinion; I prefer phpbb over discorse. I don't care about whitespace and infinite scrolling, I need my catalogical organization
XenForo is the consensus pick amongst forum folks (admins and users) I know, and it's significantly better than phpBB while not getting weird and silly like Discourse.
XenForo is a commercial Internet forum software package written in the PHP programming language using the Zend Framework. The software is developed by former vBulletin lead developers Kier Darby and Mike Sullivan.
Thorough review: https://www.forum-software.org/xenforo/review
Thorough review: https://www.forum-software.org/xenforo/review
> I get that FB is convenient because most people have an account already, but a FB login button would also do the trick for most communities.
More than that convenience, I think it's the convenience of not having to deal with configuring some forum server software and using it. To many people, FB is the internet. Basing a community elsewhere raises the bar of entry for their target community.
More than that convenience, I think it's the convenience of not having to deal with configuring some forum server software and using it. To many people, FB is the internet. Basing a community elsewhere raises the bar of entry for their target community.
Facebook used to have forum-like discussions in groups and it was so much better back then.
I'm 26 now, and I first got into Facebook 12 years ago as a Freshman in high school.
It was cool at first because I actually spent time with my "friends" on there, or at least saw them on a daily basis at my small high school. It's changed in a couple key ways over time:
1. Family joining Facebook. It used to be a funny place I could goof around with my friends, posting whatever I wanted. Now I have to filter everything I say because my grandparents can see it. I concede that that's probably not a concern for many people, but I noticed the "vibe" changed significantly when Facebook's popularity grew beyond high school/college age people.
2. Sharing. Virtually everything on my timeline came from pages that post short "viral" videos for people to share. No one was posting anything unique or interesting. It was like a heavily bastardized version of Reddit without any interesting content. Anecdotally, this content seems to appeal to older people, who don't know of ways to see more interesting content.
Privacy concerns aside, those are the main reasons that I no longer care about Facebook. I deleted mine 6 months ago and I don't miss it at all.
It was cool at first because I actually spent time with my "friends" on there, or at least saw them on a daily basis at my small high school. It's changed in a couple key ways over time:
1. Family joining Facebook. It used to be a funny place I could goof around with my friends, posting whatever I wanted. Now I have to filter everything I say because my grandparents can see it. I concede that that's probably not a concern for many people, but I noticed the "vibe" changed significantly when Facebook's popularity grew beyond high school/college age people.
2. Sharing. Virtually everything on my timeline came from pages that post short "viral" videos for people to share. No one was posting anything unique or interesting. It was like a heavily bastardized version of Reddit without any interesting content. Anecdotally, this content seems to appeal to older people, who don't know of ways to see more interesting content.
Privacy concerns aside, those are the main reasons that I no longer care about Facebook. I deleted mine 6 months ago and I don't miss it at all.
> 1. Family joining Facebook. It used to be a funny place I could goof around with my friends, posting whatever I wanted. Now I have to filter everything I say because my grandparents can see it.
Google+ nailed this perfectly. You could place connections into Circles, and a post could be shared to specific circle(s). It let teenagers be teenagers, allowed professionals to separate their personal life and maintain a professional appearance, and so on.
In reality we do maintain separate personas for different groups of people we know, and it's ridiculous that no social network reflects this. The closest anyone else has come to this is Reddit where you can use multiple pseudonyms, so someone recognizing your posts/comments on one account does not get access to all of your posts/comments.
Google+ nailed this perfectly. You could place connections into Circles, and a post could be shared to specific circle(s). It let teenagers be teenagers, allowed professionals to separate their personal life and maintain a professional appearance, and so on.
In reality we do maintain separate personas for different groups of people we know, and it's ridiculous that no social network reflects this. The closest anyone else has come to this is Reddit where you can use multiple pseudonyms, so someone recognizing your posts/comments on one account does not get access to all of your posts/comments.
To be fair to Facebook (as if they deserve it it), they're fixing this with their focus on Groups. They know people aren't interested in the News Feed any more, so Groups are just another stab at that Circles concept.
I wouldn't say they nailed it perfectly, as the UX was stupidly confusing to use.
Also I'm pretty sure you can create lists of your friends and share certain posts or images with "everybody but X, Y, and Z" or "X and Z only" where [XYZ] are either lists or specific friends.
Also I'm pretty sure you can create lists of your friends and share certain posts or images with "everybody but X, Y, and Z" or "X and Z only" where [XYZ] are either lists or specific friends.
While this is a viable “fix” it once was buried 2 or 3 levels deep in your settings and not modifiable on the fly, if I recall correctly.
Even if it had been implemented in its current form 5 years ago, filtering post audiences still seems to involve a level of added complexity not readily tractable for your run of the mill user.
Even if it had been implemented in its current form 5 years ago, filtering post audiences still seems to involve a level of added complexity not readily tractable for your run of the mill user.
I think the point this changed for me was when the facebook feed changed from a chronological feed, to weighted "interest" posts. (Top stories and all that guff).
It used to be a bizarro town-hall of people I knew posting comments, photos etc. with each new post jumping to the top of the queue for people to pay attention to in "real time". It felt involved.
Now it just seems to be (in between all the shared memes and dodgy news articles) the more "active" posts popping up as a priority, which makes it feel more static to me. I liked seeing the posts with no likes as much as the high activity ones even if I wasn't going to like or comment on it myself. I wan't to see everything in order.
It's not very dynamic anymore.
I know you can still change the feed to chronological, but if most aren't doing that, the point is moot.
I use it for events, otherwise I'd have deleted it years ago too.
It used to be a bizarro town-hall of people I knew posting comments, photos etc. with each new post jumping to the top of the queue for people to pay attention to in "real time". It felt involved.
Now it just seems to be (in between all the shared memes and dodgy news articles) the more "active" posts popping up as a priority, which makes it feel more static to me. I liked seeing the posts with no likes as much as the high activity ones even if I wasn't going to like or comment on it myself. I wan't to see everything in order.
It's not very dynamic anymore.
I know you can still change the feed to chronological, but if most aren't doing that, the point is moot.
I use it for events, otherwise I'd have deleted it years ago too.
#1 really smacked me in the face recently. A friend of mine invited me to join her lifestyle group on FB. I couldn't do it because I just don't need my 70 year old mother or teenage daughter assuming things about my sex life based on FB groups I'm a member of.
I'm 38 and I feel exactly the same way. As soon as my parents joined it (along with hordes of people their age), it seems like that was when the changes in how the timeline functions happened.
I’d like to challenge the implied premise that the world needs Facebook to begin with. This is the premise under which Facebook seems to operate, but it doesn’t seem to concern with marketing the premise to users. What’s in it for any human person with a smartphone or computer? What value could possibly be extracted by such a person from being “on” Facebook?
Any redesign or other change made to the platform is pointless without a clear narrative concerning the underlying value proposition. How does the change affect that value proposition? My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals. Isn’t Facebook supposed to convince us that their premise isn’t all evil, that there’s something in it for us beyond participation in mass data collection?
Any redesign or other change made to the platform is pointless without a clear narrative concerning the underlying value proposition. How does the change affect that value proposition? My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals. Isn’t Facebook supposed to convince us that their premise isn’t all evil, that there’s something in it for us beyond participation in mass data collection?
Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't use it. Clearly that's not the case.
The value prop for advertisers is obvious. Without Facebook, thousands of small businesses (delivering great services) would be much smaller or out of business.
The value prop for users is manifold. To name a couple, without Facebook, people wouldn't connect and interact with people outside their proximal social circles. These otherwise lost connections often lead to strong healthy friendships, relationships, and/or partnerships. Many people also derive satisfaction from an entertainment perspective through Facebook whether that be through gossiping, viewing cat memes, or playing games. Though you may find these to be unimportant, that's you projecting your value system on someone else.
To say that Facebook's existence is a net negative to society requires some fundamental assumptions around what is valuable. For example, if all you value in this world is privacy, then of course Facebook is detrimental. If what you value is family, entertainment, and pleasure, Facebook is probably of great benefit.
The value prop for advertisers is obvious. Without Facebook, thousands of small businesses (delivering great services) would be much smaller or out of business.
The value prop for users is manifold. To name a couple, without Facebook, people wouldn't connect and interact with people outside their proximal social circles. These otherwise lost connections often lead to strong healthy friendships, relationships, and/or partnerships. Many people also derive satisfaction from an entertainment perspective through Facebook whether that be through gossiping, viewing cat memes, or playing games. Though you may find these to be unimportant, that's you projecting your value system on someone else.
To say that Facebook's existence is a net negative to society requires some fundamental assumptions around what is valuable. For example, if all you value in this world is privacy, then of course Facebook is detrimental. If what you value is family, entertainment, and pleasure, Facebook is probably of great benefit.
>Facebook isn't obligated in any way to lay out their value prop in clear terms for users as you suggest. If users don't find their service valuable, they won't use it. Clearly that's not the case.
Of course they're not obligated, but it's a useful thing to ask in the context of this discussion. The average lifespan of a S&P 500 company is 18 years, tendency going down. So it seems to make sense to ask what Facebook's mi d and long term value proposition is.
And I think all the points you make don't apply to facebook in particular at all, but to online communication platforms in general. It's true that small businesses and communities profit from means to communicate online, but it's not obvious at all that in the future that means having a centralized, ad driven company run the show, or Facebook specifically.
In fact the entire pivot seems to indicate that all the things that facebook is built on, is ill suited for that future. How is Facebook going to sustain it's giant ad-driven money engine in a world of private, encrypted community interaction?
Of course they're not obligated, but it's a useful thing to ask in the context of this discussion. The average lifespan of a S&P 500 company is 18 years, tendency going down. So it seems to make sense to ask what Facebook's mi d and long term value proposition is.
And I think all the points you make don't apply to facebook in particular at all, but to online communication platforms in general. It's true that small businesses and communities profit from means to communicate online, but it's not obvious at all that in the future that means having a centralized, ad driven company run the show, or Facebook specifically.
In fact the entire pivot seems to indicate that all the things that facebook is built on, is ill suited for that future. How is Facebook going to sustain it's giant ad-driven money engine in a world of private, encrypted community interaction?
You seem to be saying: 1) An ad-driven business model isn't the best way for Facebook to monetize its business now or in the future 2) Facebook isn't the best organization to build the social network of the future.
These claims have little to do with the argument OP made (or my response). That is: 1) Facebook provides zero or negative value to users today 2) The world would be better off without Facebook today 3) If Facebook disagrees with 1 or 2, they're obligated to explain why
These claims have little to do with the argument OP made (or my response). That is: 1) Facebook provides zero or negative value to users today 2) The world would be better off without Facebook today 3) If Facebook disagrees with 1 or 2, they're obligated to explain why
1) billions of users' behavior disagree
2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
> 1) billions of users' behavior disagree
Facebook is engineered to be addictive and to keep people engaged and present on the platform so they can be exploited for data.
If you are going to say Facebook provides these people value then I'm going to say a heroin distributor and his chemist provides a similar value to his customers.
> 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion. One shared by a growing number of people.
> 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
They're not. Neither are people obliged to use their platform or abide by their terms of service if the company doesn't want to be forthcoming with explanations for its conduct.
Facebook is engineered to be addictive and to keep people engaged and present on the platform so they can be exploited for data.
If you are going to say Facebook provides these people value then I'm going to say a heroin distributor and his chemist provides a similar value to his customers.
> 2) this is so vague and subjective that it's meaningless, what does it mean? Better off, how? By whose standards?
Of course it's subjective, it's an opinion. One shared by a growing number of people.
> 3) if the above were true, why would FB be obligated to explain it?
They're not. Neither are people obliged to use their platform or abide by their terms of service if the company doesn't want to be forthcoming with explanations for its conduct.
I strongly agree with point 3. I just wish people would accept that FB isn't for them, and move on. Instead, there is so much signaling going on that it's difficult to discuss real issues.
I actually also agree with point 1, because I think that drug seekers are more rational actors than the average person. It seems indisputable that drug dealers provide value; the argument is that the long term harm outweights the immediate value, not that there is no value.
With Facebook, I think it's much less clear that using FB causes harm, much less harm on the same level as an opiod addiction. (I'm aware of the research out there that correlates depressive symptoms with social media usage.)
I actually also agree with point 1, because I think that drug seekers are more rational actors than the average person. It seems indisputable that drug dealers provide value; the argument is that the long term harm outweights the immediate value, not that there is no value.
With Facebook, I think it's much less clear that using FB causes harm, much less harm on the same level as an opiod addiction. (I'm aware of the research out there that correlates depressive symptoms with social media usage.)
>What value could possibly be extracted by such a person from being “on” Facebook?
It seems silly to deny that people genuinely enjoy Facebook and find it useful. It makes sense considering that Facebook has supplanted and absorbed many of the sites and software that people used to use - Flickr, ICQ/AIM, and vBulletin/phpbb for instance.
I know a lot of people who share family photos on Facebook. I know many people who discuss topics ranging from gangstalking to glassblowing to autism. A lot of people share memes and humor and political discussion and people consume that content. Clearly people value FB for communication and entertainment. Messenger is also clearly with value for text chat, voice calls and video calls.
Many artists I know have made a living from selling things for free on Facebook, with few restrictions and 100% less fees than Etsy and eBay (the market switched to Instagram ~4 years ago). Many advertisers get the majority of their leads from Facebook.
Does the world need Facebook to do this? No, there are alternatives. But people clearly find it useful and it would be hard to support that the platform is without utility or value. Are you saying that the harm done by Facebook’s business practices exceeds the value of providing this for free to consumers?
It seems silly to deny that people genuinely enjoy Facebook and find it useful. It makes sense considering that Facebook has supplanted and absorbed many of the sites and software that people used to use - Flickr, ICQ/AIM, and vBulletin/phpbb for instance.
I know a lot of people who share family photos on Facebook. I know many people who discuss topics ranging from gangstalking to glassblowing to autism. A lot of people share memes and humor and political discussion and people consume that content. Clearly people value FB for communication and entertainment. Messenger is also clearly with value for text chat, voice calls and video calls.
Many artists I know have made a living from selling things for free on Facebook, with few restrictions and 100% less fees than Etsy and eBay (the market switched to Instagram ~4 years ago). Many advertisers get the majority of their leads from Facebook.
Does the world need Facebook to do this? No, there are alternatives. But people clearly find it useful and it would be hard to support that the platform is without utility or value. Are you saying that the harm done by Facebook’s business practices exceeds the value of providing this for free to consumers?
Facebook has marketed its value prop pretty clearly with this update - (1) you can find events you like in your area, (2) you can participate in communities of people who have shared interests.
And to confidently claim that all 2.3 billion users of Facebook are getting zero or negative value out of it is pretty naive.
And to confidently claim that all 2.3 billion users of Facebook are getting zero or negative value out of it is pretty naive.
It seems they market their premise to users every day. Every event that I find it easier to keep track of, every event I find it easier to plan. Every community I participate in.
This is a clever redesign because events are even 'stickier' in their network effects than the news feed is. I don't think it's altruistic, but I think it's smart.
This is a clever redesign because events are even 'stickier' in their network effects than the news feed is. I don't think it's altruistic, but I think it's smart.
It's not that the world "needs" Facebook. The world wants Facebook. Facebook is a social network and people want to use social networks, for various reasons. Facebook happens is the biggest social networks. That's the value proposition. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.
> My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals.
You could confidently make the same claim about alcohol and cigarettes, yet both of these are good business.
> My take is that the value of Facebook is zero in the best case, and possibly a net negative for society at large and for individuals.
You could confidently make the same claim about alcohol and cigarettes, yet both of these are good business.
> The world wants Facebook.
I haven't seen anything that has convinced me this is true.
I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
I haven't seen anything that has convinced me this is true.
I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
> I haven't seen anything that has convinced me this is true.
Well over a billion daily active users on Facebook don't convince you that people want Facebook?
> I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
Oh, you're looking for a semantic argument, possibly diving into the meaning and consequence of the concept of free will (or lack thereof). I ain't got time for that today.
Well over a billion daily active users on Facebook don't convince you that people want Facebook?
> I don't consider the dopamine-driven compulsions of its users to be evidence of 'want'.
Oh, you're looking for a semantic argument, possibly diving into the meaning and consequence of the concept of free will (or lack thereof). I ain't got time for that today.
I was simply making an observation of Facebook's business model.
It employs staff whose entire job consists of making Facebook's product more addictive; to keep people clicking, liking, viewing and handing over data to facilitate their being tracked all over the internet.
Heroin dealers often employ people to make their shit more addictive too. Yet we don't sit here musing about how much 'value' they've added to a society that clearly wants their product.
It employs staff whose entire job consists of making Facebook's product more addictive; to keep people clicking, liking, viewing and handing over data to facilitate their being tracked all over the internet.
Heroin dealers often employ people to make their shit more addictive too. Yet we don't sit here musing about how much 'value' they've added to a society that clearly wants their product.
To be clear, I'm not saying "good business" equals "moral value" or "value to society". Individually, if I'm a heroin user, clearly I must be valuing the shooting of Heroin higher than my own health.
Again, this is moving into "semantic dispute" territory, where little insight is to be gained.
Again, this is moving into "semantic dispute" territory, where little insight is to be gained.
> Individually, if I'm a heroin user, clearly I must be valuing the shooting of Heroin higher than my own health.
Right, which is why I think 'creating value' in and of itself is meaningless if you can't distinguish it from the kind that grants prosperity without exploitation and the kind that is simply parasitic.
I consider Facebook to be the latter.
Right, which is why I think 'creating value' in and of itself is meaningless if you can't distinguish it from the kind that grants prosperity without exploitation and the kind that is simply parasitic.
I consider Facebook to be the latter.
I think the net-negative claim can be said for all real-time social media, including the site we're communicating on right now.
Healthy communication with other humans requires empathy and careful consideration of how your words affect others. Both get thrown out the window when you blast something into a text box, aimed at a random username.
Healthy communication with other humans requires empathy and careful consideration of how your words affect others. Both get thrown out the window when you blast something into a text box, aimed at a random username.
i suppose they either tricked 2 billion people to use an app that does nothing for them or you're wrong and the value prop is obvious
how many people on the planet do you think smoke cigarettes?
I mean sure you can argue, in circular fashion, that everything people do provides net value to them or else they wouldn't do it, in which case there's no actual way to falsify that claim, but in a more genuine sense it's not at all clear that social media consumption has long term, net individual or social benefits.
It is an extremely new technology that has entered our society without much oversight and there's no reason to believe we have a good grip on its mid and long term effects. The evidence we have, for example concerning mental health of adolescents, in particular girls, is quite devastating.
I mean sure you can argue, in circular fashion, that everything people do provides net value to them or else they wouldn't do it, in which case there's no actual way to falsify that claim, but in a more genuine sense it's not at all clear that social media consumption has long term, net individual or social benefits.
It is an extremely new technology that has entered our society without much oversight and there's no reason to believe we have a good grip on its mid and long term effects. The evidence we have, for example concerning mental health of adolescents, in particular girls, is quite devastating.
my counterpoint would be that cigarettes also have an obvious value prop: they give you a nicotine high that users find satisfying. having a value prop doesn't imply an absence of negative consequences, otherwise cars are also devoid of value prop.
People get addicted to social media too. Next time you get in an elevator notice how many people immediately whip out the phone and start scrolling the minute they are standing still. It's completely subconscious, like what are you going to read in the 20 second elevator ride, yet people do it all the same because there's a dopamine hit.
well.. imo also because 20 years ago they just would have been staring into corners or something
There's value in staring into corners imo. Try forgetting your phone at home one day. No longer are you instinctively reaching for it the minute you have 20 seconds to spare, you allow yourself to daydream again.
I ended up being way more focused that day just from cutting out those >30 second moments on the phone. Instead of my brain just shutting off and tuning out, I was actually thinking about my day and what I'm working on. I felt like a Buddhist monk!
I ended up being way more focused that day just from cutting out those >30 second moments on the phone. Instead of my brain just shutting off and tuning out, I was actually thinking about my day and what I'm working on. I felt like a Buddhist monk!
The high from cigarettes comes from satisfying an addiction. The actual high from nicotine in cigarettes is very slight.
Satisfying an addiction is not the same thing as providing value.
Satisfying an addiction is not the same thing as providing value.
It's engineered to be addictive in order to keep people on the platform handing over data.
Facebook has employees whose entire job is to make this service addictive and to keep people posting.
In that sense, the 'value' is hard to differentiate from a dopamine-driven compulsion to continue posting and hitting 'like'.
Facebook has employees whose entire job is to make this service addictive and to keep people posting.
In that sense, the 'value' is hard to differentiate from a dopamine-driven compulsion to continue posting and hitting 'like'.
Another comment has already provided a pretty solid refutation of your argument, but I have to ask: Why in the world do you think that the implied premise of Facebook redesigning one of its surfaces (for the 100th time..) is that the world needs it?
I guess the value is that you can keep in touch with people without knowing their phone number or email address. That's about it.
Personally, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by not being on Fb.
Personally, I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything by not being on Fb.
That's because you don't know what you're missing. Or, at least, that's what FB wants you to think.
FB is a vortex of dopamine hits, and zero 0⃣ value. It made me mad to be addicted to news I don't care about. I've manage to get myself out of that dopamine hit, and addicted to HN. But HN brings in some good information from time to time.
FB is a vortex of dopamine hits, and zero 0⃣ value. It made me mad to be addicted to news I don't care about. I've manage to get myself out of that dopamine hit, and addicted to HN. But HN brings in some good information from time to time.
I quit FB more than a year ago but stared going in my profile again because I had to create a page for my app and I am shocked how slow and cluttered fb desktop site has become. its alarmingly bad, like terrible and yet I read on the news that their advertising revenue has increased. did people start using fb more? who clicks on these ads? who buys stuff on fb.
FB revenue is more than 90% from mobile. Only nerds use desktop nowadays.
I don't want it on my phone, so I only use the Messenger client there, and only use the rest of FB on my laptop.
My understanding is that the hip and with-it (or the under-30s) don't use FB anyway nowadays.
For me, it's almost purely a slightly better version of SMS.
My understanding is that the hip and with-it (or the under-30s) don't use FB anyway nowadays.
For me, it's almost purely a slightly better version of SMS.
Facebook sort-of-recently introduced measures to defeat ad blockers, which I think has greatly increased the number of clicks.
Surely any clicks resulting from adblocker-defeating measures are unintentional clicks by frustrated users?
People who install adblockers are people who do not want to click on ads.
People who install adblockers are people who do not want to click on ads.
Well, some of us do: https://adnauseam.io/
Is there any benefit to that? I mean, does it convince anyone of anything, like that you're not using an ad-blocker? Or is it a pure public service?
I don't use it myself, but as far as I understand it, the idea is to increase the noise you make so that any signal you make would get lost.
Ads can't be tailored to you if you click on every ad ever shown to you (in the background of course).
Ads can't be tailored to you if you click on every ad ever shown to you (in the background of course).
Yes the “Similar to other stories you’ve interacted with...” has introduced a nice new level of spamvertising.
> who clicks on these ads?
Me, accidentally while trying to tell facebook to never show me that ad again.
Like you noticed, the ad situation has become dire.
Me, accidentally while trying to tell facebook to never show me that ad again.
Like you noticed, the ad situation has become dire.
It could be a boiling the frog thing, but IMO the desktop experience hasn't changed much in a few years. It's not exactly information-dense, but more so than Twitter, somehow, despite the latter's "short text only" origins.
imho, advertising is an extremely fuzzy business. Advertisers throw money on campaigns because facebook tells them to do so, and then increases their prices. It generates revenue for sure, but i dont see it working out well in the long term
mbasic.facebook.com
Still cluttered and awful but fast.
Still cluttered and awful but fast.
[deleted]
A fun thing you'll see sometimes in rants about other websites is the screenshot where someone coloured the content part of the website from all the other stuff, UI, sidebars and ads. The obvious labels are "stuff I'm interested in" vs. "stuff I'm not interested in".
Facebook was always bad in that regard. Friends posts are small boxes, crammed between sidebars. This redesign seems to think that the stuff we're not interested in, the sidebars, needs even more enlargement.
Facebook was always bad in that regard. Friends posts are small boxes, crammed between sidebars. This redesign seems to think that the stuff we're not interested in, the sidebars, needs even more enlargement.
Because there's ads in the sidebars.
This seems like a brilliant move to help manage their public image. Groups and events seem like much more purpose-driven and thus value-generating interactions with Facebook.
I absolutely see why Facebook would want to be seen as the place where one goes to grow their community rather than the current stigma of fake news and inflammatory pieces on the feed.
I absolutely see why Facebook would want to be seen as the place where one goes to grow their community rather than the current stigma of fake news and inflammatory pieces on the feed.
As someone who works with Facebook Pages for my job, my concern that Facebook's new emphasis on Groups and Events will deemphasize Pages, which will lead to even more trouble for Pages which rely on that traffic (the absolute lack of discussion about Pages in the F8 keynote in favor of Messenger-based alternatives is concerning).
I have the 20 people on a team that work with Facebook Pages and we have been telling all our clients for years that Facebook Pages are either dead already or will be dead soon. From a strategic perspective for Facebook they only made sense as a cheap gateway to get brands on board the platform. Time to saddle your horse!
Facebook has been talking about this in the quarterly earnings for a while now. They've been very clear about it.
Last winter I made a messenger bot[1] that was driving revenue ($5k/month for a CPG startup). Give that a try.
[1]https://www.nicholasjrobinson.com/blog/branding/three-ways-t...
Last winter I made a messenger bot[1] that was driving revenue ($5k/month for a CPG startup). Give that a try.
[1]https://www.nicholasjrobinson.com/blog/branding/three-ways-t...
Is there any reason why you couldn’t create a group to accomplish the same goals?
I was listening to the MZ’s keynote and it felt to me that the facebook groups moving towards more like the concept of subreddits, although with limited functionality (like moderating)
Plastic surgery for the aging facebook. Death is coming, smartly it adopted two children, instagram and whatsapp
It still hard to believe that one of the largest tech giants can't handle UI and UX of their main product right. I would normally assume it's an inherently hard problem them, but there is a counter-example to compare with – VKontakte, the most popular russian social network. It started basically as 1-to-1 clone of Facebook, but somehow managed to evolve into social network with one of the best user experiences I've seen. Now, I'm not using it anymore for political reasons, but I truly wish Facebook hired Vk's UI/UX folks or just cloned their design :)
Regardless of how people feel about Facebook in general, I think this is a step forward. Groups and messenger are what I primarily use, and both of those are completely in my control with no mysterious recommender algorithm deciding what I get to look at today. I bookmark my Facebook to go straight into Messenger and get notifications from groups that I care about.
I mean these changes make sense to me; anyone who uses facebook actively can tell how much people gravitate to groups and events (and little else). Since groups have really picked up I've found myself using Facebook more than ever before.
I think the main benefit is that a lot of people have a facebook account, including those who would never have thought or bothered to join forums in the pre facebook era, so now we're seeing a ton of really great communities. Then again, I wasn't on the internet for all that much of the pre-facebook era, so maybe I don't really know how things were before.
I think the main benefit is that a lot of people have a facebook account, including those who would never have thought or bothered to join forums in the pre facebook era, so now we're seeing a ton of really great communities. Then again, I wasn't on the internet for all that much of the pre-facebook era, so maybe I don't really know how things were before.
oh boy, I'm sure everyone is going to have a totally rational response and not freak out at all when it launches.
Their redesign reminds a lot of google plus, which incidentally was used by many communities because it was convenient and relatively uncluttered.
i dont think people can get excited by this anymore though. Facebook is in a decline trajectory thats going to take a long time. The friends networks have become stale, and people are learning to move to other platforms. Like all other facebook's redesigns, this will create a massive backlash when it launches, but unlike previous times, it will most likely be seen as an excuse to quit the site.
i dont think people can get excited by this anymore though. Facebook is in a decline trajectory thats going to take a long time. The friends networks have become stale, and people are learning to move to other platforms. Like all other facebook's redesigns, this will create a massive backlash when it launches, but unlike previous times, it will most likely be seen as an excuse to quit the site.
Facebook needs a good thought on the user, friends of Zuckerberg, before doing anything fruitful to their core app. More than minor cosmetic changes, what is required is the experience of staying in touch with 'friends' not advertisers throwing a net of posts for potential catches, likers! For that, people & their faces should be more visible on the screens rather than that big repost of the day, that is going viral.
So much negativity here. I like using Facebook and I am excited for the new design and to read about it has been implemented!
Why do people still use the mobile facebook app? I've just added the web app shortcut on my phone and it's more than enough, plus it doesn't bother you with useless updates, doesn't track you when you're not running the app, and doesn't drain your battery.
Non-paywall article discussing the same thing: https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/30/18523265/facebook-events-...
I'd speculate that Facebook is emphasizing events and groups because, quite frankly, those are the two things people are still on Facebook for. (It isn't your baby pics!)
I'd speculate that Facebook is emphasizing events and groups because, quite frankly, those are the two things people are still on Facebook for. (It isn't your baby pics!)
I use it almost as a personal blog. Not just sharing selfies and pictures of things I’d rather enjoy in the moment, but slightly longer form thoughts around how I am or what I’m dealing with. In that sense it’s an online support network where I can share my experiences with mental health and other things.
Most of my FB friends do similar, it’s very thoughtful and introspective.
Most of my FB friends do similar, it’s very thoughtful and introspective.
It isn't quite speculation when that is the exact reason Facebook has given, and is right there in the article you linked.
I know at least 4 people who are very interested in pictures of my kids ;)
Facebook are losing their core competency. Just this morning I had a post removed for 'violating community guidelines'. I have a number of pages most of which automatically post content, and I have absolutely no idea which post was removed, from which page, or why, the notification just didn't say.
This move reeks of desperation, Facebook needs to forget about 'redesign' and garbage like 'workspace' and just work on fixing it. The best way to do that is to get the people building it actually using it again.
This move reeks of desperation, Facebook needs to forget about 'redesign' and garbage like 'workspace' and just work on fixing it. The best way to do that is to get the people building it actually using it again.
If it's any consolation, sometimes the relevant facebook team doesn't understand what triggers the censorship algorithms they themselves built. Source: I asked them, via a friend who works there and had access to them, in order to understand a particular case, and they were baffled (and probably overworked and my question was low priority, sure -- but had it been obvious, they would have answered it).
Is anyone part of a Facebook group that they like? I've never seen a modern place online with better discourse than HN.
There are lots of Facebook groups I like. No one is talking about my neighborhood on HN! But besides interesting local groups, there are amazing niche technical groups on Facebook that would crossover with HN. A few I find useful:
Apple ][ Enthusiasts: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5251478676/
BMW i3 Worldwide: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BMWi3/
Monoprice Mini (3d printer group) https://www.facebook.com/groups/710952782398723/
Commodore Amiga: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CommodoreAmiga/
Apple ][ Enthusiasts: https://www.facebook.com/groups/5251478676/
BMW i3 Worldwide: https://www.facebook.com/groups/BMWi3/
Monoprice Mini (3d printer group) https://www.facebook.com/groups/710952782398723/
Commodore Amiga: https://www.facebook.com/groups/CommodoreAmiga/
I tried to create a group on cryptography (in order to fill my newsfeed with interesting posts) buy nobody seemed to be interested. If anyone here is I could post the link.
My buddies from highschool and I used to have one for posting goofy internet stuff, but it's been pretty dead for years.
I like many groups, although they don't have better discourse than HN.
Will they make away to disable stories?
The design needs a bit more of the typical Facebook blue. People won't recognize it otherwise.
Facebook appears as an advertiser - sometimes even with video - in Duolingo for iOS.
Will PHP/Hack still power the back-end or is it finally being retired?
The only bit of news about FB that could possibly interest me is if they miraculously stopped collecting data about everyone who's not a user (hence never gave their consent). The tortures and abuses their users are willing to endure are really none of my business.
They should really roll the site back to its 2010-2013 iteration. It was much easier to search for content in your/your friend’s feeds, the UI was much less cluttered with sponsored content and news and the site actually felt like…social media.
IMHO enforcing public groups is probably just a way to collect data from user’s public activity, which allows for better targeted advertising without boring (themself) with privacy. Which is fine if used in a good way.
It's like a combination of Reddit and Google+ Circles
do you guys think there's room for another big social mobile app, maybe unbundling some of facebook/instagram's features?
Yes. Facebook says the future is private, and I agree. I just don't think they're the ones that will do it right.
could you elaborate on this? when did they say this and what did they mean? like apple?
It would be nice to see the space get more federalized. Lots of different apps that do one thing really well.
They got some spaghetti code in it for sure. I don't know if React is the cause of it.
Anyway I hope they will not introduce some other spying/backdoors in the app (more than now)
Anyway I hope they will not introduce some other spying/backdoors in the app (more than now)
so facebook is becoming reddit without anonimity?
tweestagram
There are a million articles about this all over the internet. Why does a paywalled one (that too from a non-tech focused publication) make the front page?
And of all the things announced at their conference "less blue" is the one that hits the front page?
Me, I'm really excited about the Quest. The Ars review is incredibly positive:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19790212
Me, I'm really excited about the Quest. The Ars review is incredibly positive:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19790212
It used to be that copying the url and pasting through Google would allow you to see the content. This has since stopped working. Does anyone know why wsj doesn't get penalized for this anymore?
They also seem to have blocked the archive.is and outline.com paywall bypasses.
Articles from the WSJ get to the front page often. I don't get it either.
itsaidpens(4)
vorpalhex(1)
Yawn ... let me know when they redesign their core business.
Facebook's design isn't the problem. The unethical use of our data is the problem.
Looking at the screenshots, it’s not too bad looking. It looks much simpler.
But I doubt they’ll actually simplify the underlying data-model, which makes the design a lie.
A lie at best, a confusing UX at worst. Time will tell.
Either way, as a quitee, I’m entirely unaffected and very happy about that.
But I doubt they’ll actually simplify the underlying data-model, which makes the design a lie.
A lie at best, a confusing UX at worst. Time will tell.
Either way, as a quitee, I’m entirely unaffected and very happy about that.
The truly sad part is that continual media theatrics like this will make 99% of the public believe FB has changed and is now privacy conscious.
It feels like they redesigned the website and the app with less blue on it. But there is no indication or emphasis of security of the user data. End to end encryption is good but what happens when data ends getting stored somewhere, there is nothing been talked about it?
That's just one minor example. There's crap like this throughout the app. The web site is also glitchy as hell these days. When I brought up m.facebook.com the other day and went to type a status update, for every space I typed, two spaces were inserted.