Facebook Reports Third Quarter 2021 Results(investor.fb.com)
investor.fb.com
Facebook Reports Third Quarter 2021 Results
https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2021/Facebook-Reports-Third-Quarter-2021-Results/
99 comments
And I remember that :)
So thank you for the quality comments. Especially from people working in the ads industry. Which often get attacked on HN just due to its nature.
So thank you for the quality comments. Especially from people working in the ads industry. Which often get attacked on HN just due to its nature.
Is this because people still use Instagram and not "Facebook"?
Literally billions of people use Facebook.
It’s amazing how supposedly rational people on HN are perfectly willing to extrapolate from their own highly biased sample just because they don’t like company X. (See also “nobody uses Windows”, “nobody in America has an Android phone”, etc.)
It’s amazing how supposedly rational people on HN are perfectly willing to extrapolate from their own highly biased sample just because they don’t like company X. (See also “nobody uses Windows”, “nobody in America has an Android phone”, etc.)
Or iphone/apple have "sealed their fate" by not doing something like the headphone jack or a replaceable battery or whatever.
comments like that always remind of that rsync guy's comment on dropbox's launch on HN. I wonder how this weird blindspot develops in people.
right - and it assumes that a company like apple has given no thought to what might sell in the market when they come out with things like the "wildly overpriced" airpods.
Yes, when they came out, they cost a LOT more than the competitors (I used Jabra). But wow, did they WORK well. It was no comparison really and was a lot of little things (just fewer bugs I think rather than features, they ALWAYS paired with my phone, pretty quickly, and had good battery life).
For a lot of consumers, they don't care about features, they just trust apple more than they would for example govt run email or govt made phones.
Yes, when they came out, they cost a LOT more than the competitors (I used Jabra). But wow, did they WORK well. It was no comparison really and was a lot of little things (just fewer bugs I think rather than features, they ALWAYS paired with my phone, pretty quickly, and had good battery life).
For a lot of consumers, they don't care about features, they just trust apple more than they would for example govt run email or govt made phones.
A lot of people use Instagram, it’s the same company, what’s your point ?
FB is a unique ad platform. No other platform can more accurately target individuals. As long as this is the case it will keep on trucking
I find this so interesting because the ads I get on facebook are completely useless, and I've gone out of my way to edit preferences. It shows me ads for newspapers I already subscribe to, underwear for a gender I don't belong to, and electric bikes (I drive). I rarely, if ever, see an ad for something where I think "oh, huh, I want to buy that".
Exactly I do not understand how the ads I get are so totally useless if they are so good for others... They literally never give me anything I want, need or even vaguely find interesting. It looks untargetted, while Google is often spot on.
Interesting that Apple in April rolled out privacy prompts[1] that Facebook complained about (and tried to persuade public opinion with a full-page ad in December 2020) ... and yet it didn't seem to slow down Facebook's numbers by much:
- ads shown to iPhone FB users smaller piece of revenue pie than Android FB users
- advertisers keep spending the same amount (or more) even though they have less info because of less tracking of Apple users to correlate with dollars spent
People keep saying FB is in trouble but it doesn't matter if it's the leaked research about emotional manipulation, or the Cambridge Analytica scandal, or extra Apple privacy features. The revenue keeps coming in and growing. Who thinks all of today's press about the recent whistleblowers will have any effect on next year's numbers?
[1] 96% of iOS users opt out of app tracking: https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+apple+opt-in+privac...
2021-09 $28.2b revenue, $9.1b income +17%
2020-09 $21.2b revenue, $7.8b income
- ads shown to iPhone FB users smaller piece of revenue pie than Android FB users
- advertisers keep spending the same amount (or more) even though they have less info because of less tracking of Apple users to correlate with dollars spent
People keep saying FB is in trouble but it doesn't matter if it's the leaked research about emotional manipulation, or the Cambridge Analytica scandal, or extra Apple privacy features. The revenue keeps coming in and growing. Who thinks all of today's press about the recent whistleblowers will have any effect on next year's numbers?
[1] 96% of iOS users opt out of app tracking: https://www.google.com/search?q=facebook+apple+opt-in+privac...
It's all about revenue per transaction.
Facebook (and Google's) advertising platform and ability to onboard new customers is their core business model.
I urge any front end developer, UX specialist, or product designer, to closely study the workflow of https://www.facebook.com/business/ads.
The entire Facebook news feed is a side hustle.
Facebook (and Google's) advertising platform and ability to onboard new customers is their core business model.
I urge any front end developer, UX specialist, or product designer, to closely study the workflow of https://www.facebook.com/business/ads.
The entire Facebook news feed is a side hustle.
> advertisers keep spending the same amount (or more) even though they have less info because of less tracking of Apple users to correlate with dollars spent
Plot twist: You are the consumer, and ads are the product. Most of the data they got on you is garbage, and the algorithms they run on it have an unfalsifiable claim of usefulness.
Plot twist: You are the consumer, and ads are the product. Most of the data they got on you is garbage, and the algorithms they run on it have an unfalsifiable claim of usefulness.
> advertisers keep spending the same amount
Historically, advertising spend has been ~constant as % of GDP. It will keep being so even if they have to go back to billboards. At this point the game is how to dazzle advertisers with dashboards and graphs.
Historically, advertising spend has been ~constant as % of GDP. It will keep being so even if they have to go back to billboards. At this point the game is how to dazzle advertisers with dashboards and graphs.
Third possibility - FB fudges numbers.
You have your dates transposed.
Insane right? This is behemoth, they would need a near calamity to stop printing money.
FB is the least likely to be hurt by Apple's move since they have their own massive number of users across multiple properties and lots of tracking on the web. If anything they might benefit by smaller players that have less access getting hurt more by Apple.
I'm not personally a fan of FB (mostly due to the ad based business model), but today's negative press will have zero affect on them - mostly because (imo) it's bullshit. A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
If anything unseats them it'll be a technical shift that moves things to protocols 'web3'. Zuckerberg is an extremely good CEO though so I suspect he's already planning for this potential and FB's upcoming name change and structure is probably a way to accommodate this (in addition to having Oculus be a more separate entity for VR/AR and the next platform).
I'm not personally a fan of FB (mostly due to the ad based business model), but today's negative press will have zero affect on them - mostly because (imo) it's bullshit. A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
If anything unseats them it'll be a technical shift that moves things to protocols 'web3'. Zuckerberg is an extremely good CEO though so I suspect he's already planning for this potential and FB's upcoming name change and structure is probably a way to accommodate this (in addition to having Oculus be a more separate entity for VR/AR and the next platform).
> It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
They're also making money off 3 billion people. If it costs $1/month (on average) to moderate a single person, they can afford to do that and it wouldn't even cut their profits in half.
And I think $1/month is actually high for what it would actually cost. I think for $1/month you could have US-based employees do it.
You can complain that it's a high cost, but it's certainly not impossible.
They're also making money off 3 billion people. If it costs $1/month (on average) to moderate a single person, they can afford to do that and it wouldn't even cut their profits in half.
And I think $1/month is actually high for what it would actually cost. I think for $1/month you could have US-based employees do it.
You can complain that it's a high cost, but it's certainly not impossible.
I don't think giving some people special privileges that allows them to post revenge porn which ruins people's lives is the best they can do. I don't think allowing ads that they know are contributing to sex slavery is the best they can do. I definitely don't think allowing governments to organize genocide on their platform is the best they can do.
Their constraints are not impossible. They've just got to realize that their algorithm to detect rule breaking doesn't work and they need to hire minimum 100,000 moderators.
Their constraints are not impossible. They've just got to realize that their algorithm to detect rule breaking doesn't work and they need to hire minimum 100,000 moderators.
One just has to read the leaks of internal employee messages to realize that FB is clearly not doing the best they can do. Literally by admission of their own employees.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/facebook-p...
Your own examples cover a broad range of social and political issues that even the savviest state governments struggle to navigate. How could anyone possibly moderate for such delicate and complex expectations?
100,000 moderators? Perhaps our demands for censorship are what is unreasonable.
100,000 moderators? Perhaps our demands for censorship are what is unreasonable.
Facebook can easily afford 100,000 moderators. But that's not even the problem. Facebook knew they were causing the genocide in Myanmar. They knew they were contributing to sex slavery in Ethiopia. They decided not to solve those problems because they were concerned about the effect it would have on engagement. If they don't want to do what it takes to make their platform safe they should expect legal intervention.
Is govt doing a good job with this stuff off of facebook? I know plenty of folks who really had trouble getting even govt action on all sorts of harm (revenge porn / various internet scams).
I really hope at least govt can deliver on this stuff reliably - the risk is folks will lose faith in govt rather than these big companies (google / apple / whatsapp / instagram etc).
I really hope at least govt can deliver on this stuff reliably - the risk is folks will lose faith in govt rather than these big companies (google / apple / whatsapp / instagram etc).
Please eli5 web3. Keep seeing the term but haven’t found a good answer
It loosely refers to decentralized applications that have some form of protocol level way to incentivize users. This is often blockchain related, but not always (Urbit isn't except for its IDs).
An example would be Audius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s
That interview should give you some idea, the space is very young but the tech is interesting.
An example would be Audius: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zh0WlrFWBg&t=567s
That interview should give you some idea, the space is very young but the tech is interesting.
I took it to mean something about use of blockchain, especially but not limited to Ethereum, and "smart contracts", to create a new kind of distributed app platform. But I am not sure that's right.
It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
Nobody's going to sympathize too much with a company that brought its woes upon itself. If you can't handle moderating three billion people, don't put yourself in the position of trying to moderate three billion people.
Nobody's going to sympathize too much with a company that brought its woes upon itself. If you can't handle moderating three billion people, don't put yourself in the position of trying to moderate three billion people.
So what are you suggesting? For Facebook to decide to just turn off the lights one day? There is evidently market for a social network like Facebook so I’m sure another would step in before too long with the same problem.
There is plenty they could do. Just today it’s been reported that Facebook themselves “have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as vitality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why [hate] speech flourish[es] on the platform”[0]
FB doesn’t need to shut down, they just need to give a fuck about the safety of their users and the societies in which they live.
It’s been evident to anyone who cares to look that this has not been the case.
[0] “Facebook admits site appears hardwired for misinformation, memo reveals” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-...
FB doesn’t need to shut down, they just need to give a fuck about the safety of their users and the societies in which they live.
It’s been evident to anyone who cares to look that this has not been the case.
[0] “Facebook admits site appears hardwired for misinformation, memo reveals” https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/25/facebook-...
Limit the amount of active users until they prove they can safely run a platform of a certain size. It's like how buildings have max occupancy levels in case of fires. If a club is super popular, they don't get to cram in as many people as they can then claim "it's really hard to safely run a club with this many people, so you can't hold us accountable" whenever people are trampled to death trying to get to the exits during an emergency.
Federate. We went from walled gardens of the late 1980s and early 1990s to the federated Internet, but now we're back to walled gardens. It takes a diversity of approaches to solve the diversity of problems, and that's only really possible with separate organizations all competing to solve those problems for different niches.
How is that not what is happening right now? Would you recommend users take responsibility for being custodians of their own data? If so, how will the average user keep that data safe without resources and understanding of the threats their data face?
Facebook is a monolith with 3 billion users. Instead they could be a technology vendor helping communities of manageable sizes run their own private/public social networks with their own moderation and data privacy needs, along with other companies, federated across geographic, corporate, and community lines using standardized protocols, like the standardized international telephone system or email.
Isnt that Facebook Groups? Interoperability is part of upcoming regulations which will facilitate the standards you mention. FB is still a company, not a nationalised infrastructure.
Exactly humanity is on Facebook and there are different subsets of humanity who think differently (it would be a lame world if we all thought like each other .. who'd we argue and debate with and more). Facebook needs to and always remain a neutral party where there isnt physical danger occurring or happening.
The whistleblower is backed by Pierre Omiydar's foundatoin, the founder of E-bay. So it could be a bit of one billionaire using his money to go after another.
The whistleblower is a nothing burger and she now works indirectly for Ebay cofounder. She is having her 15 minutes of fame and Im sure people who cheer her on will hire her in the future.
The whistleblower is backed by Pierre Omiydar's foundatoin, the founder of E-bay. So it could be a bit of one billionaire using his money to go after another.
The whistleblower is a nothing burger and she now works indirectly for Ebay cofounder. She is having her 15 minutes of fame and Im sure people who cheer her on will hire her in the future.
To me "whistleblowing" is supposed to be about revealing criminal activity.
This stuff is just hard policy challenges without any easy answers. FB is generally open about that and what they're trying to do in order to reduce risk. The problem is mostly upstream.
I'm not an apologist and FB has made mistakes (Steven Levy's book Facebook: The Inside Story is a great look into a lot of the history and it's rare in that it's actually a fair account of things). Growth at all costs (Chamath's team) lead to a lot of problems in developing countries. Incentives around engagement and controversy, etc. FB has massive teams working on reducing the risks around this stuff, but it's impossible to eliminate because most of humanity believes insane contradictory things.
“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”
Put three billion tribal apes in one place and what do you expect? HN is the best case outcome and dang does a great job, but we're a pretty selected bunch, and even then it's difficult to pull off (and we're a smaller, focused community).
We're trapped in a local maximum largely because our computing stack sucks (imo) and everything has to be a SaaS due to the extreme complexity and cost to administer anything. I hope that Urbit succeeds and we get out of this, but I don't think this is something FB can really fix - it's not even a problem anyone should be responsible for fixing. The fact things are like this is an accident of history and hopefully an anachronism of our time.
It also doesn't help that our politicians (across the political spectrum) mostly just aren't very smart: https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick
This stuff is just hard policy challenges without any easy answers. FB is generally open about that and what they're trying to do in order to reduce risk. The problem is mostly upstream.
I'm not an apologist and FB has made mistakes (Steven Levy's book Facebook: The Inside Story is a great look into a lot of the history and it's rare in that it's actually a fair account of things). Growth at all costs (Chamath's team) lead to a lot of problems in developing countries. Incentives around engagement and controversy, etc. FB has massive teams working on reducing the risks around this stuff, but it's impossible to eliminate because most of humanity believes insane contradictory things.
“Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.”
Put three billion tribal apes in one place and what do you expect? HN is the best case outcome and dang does a great job, but we're a pretty selected bunch, and even then it's difficult to pull off (and we're a smaller, focused community).
We're trapped in a local maximum largely because our computing stack sucks (imo) and everything has to be a SaaS due to the extreme complexity and cost to administer anything. I hope that Urbit succeeds and we get out of this, but I don't think this is something FB can really fix - it's not even a problem anyone should be responsible for fixing. The fact things are like this is an accident of history and hopefully an anachronism of our time.
It also doesn't help that our politicians (across the political spectrum) mostly just aren't very smart: https://www.piratewires.com/p/jack-be-nimble-jack-be-quick
> To me "whistleblowing" is supposed to be about revealing criminal activity.
Whistleblowing has multiple descriptions. Whistleblowing, in a legal protections sense, is about revealing criminal activity. But it's frequently used to talk about bringing attention to unethical behaviors as well. Or even those that just violate norms.
The origin of the phrase, after all, relates to people violating rules in sports.
Whistleblowing has multiple descriptions. Whistleblowing, in a legal protections sense, is about revealing criminal activity. But it's frequently used to talk about bringing attention to unethical behaviors as well. Or even those that just violate norms.
The origin of the phrase, after all, relates to people violating rules in sports.
I just want to say I love this comment and I think you got a lot right
>It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
"moderate"? as far as i understand they stoke the fire. Whatever cultural wars are raging on FB, Coka vs. Pepsi, liberals vs. conservatives, FB gets engagement, ie. money, from the both sides. They are like fight cage owner - they get paid either way. And their "moderation" - just like the fight cage owner they may prevent the fighters from say using knives as it would adversely affect the quality of fight - ends too soon, etc. - and thus revenue.
"moderate"? as far as i understand they stoke the fire. Whatever cultural wars are raging on FB, Coka vs. Pepsi, liberals vs. conservatives, FB gets engagement, ie. money, from the both sides. They are like fight cage owner - they get paid either way. And their "moderation" - just like the fight cage owner they may prevent the fighters from say using knives as it would adversely affect the quality of fight - ends too soon, etc. - and thus revenue.
> A lot of the issues FB deals with are social problems at scale. It's insane that any one company is expected to successfully moderate three billion people, they're doing the best they can with impossible constraints.
This is a problem that they've created at scale. In the US our closest thing to social issue moderation is probably the police (though please leave any efficacy discussion at the door) and there are 17 officers per 10k people in the US that make 67.6k/annual. Amortized per capita we expend about $114.92 for law enforcement in the real world - Facebook doesn't need a similar per-capita expenditure to keep its platform, but if you think it ends up spending more than 5 cents per user in amortized moderation costs I've got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
This social issue at scale didn't exist before Facebook - it might have naturally existed over time through the popularity of platforms like Disqus and disjointed forums. But Facebook owns the problem and nurtured it into the beast we know today. The social problems are an externality of Facebook's business model which they want nothing to do with fixing - it should be treated no differently than a paper mill polluting a river.
This is a problem that they've created at scale. In the US our closest thing to social issue moderation is probably the police (though please leave any efficacy discussion at the door) and there are 17 officers per 10k people in the US that make 67.6k/annual. Amortized per capita we expend about $114.92 for law enforcement in the real world - Facebook doesn't need a similar per-capita expenditure to keep its platform, but if you think it ends up spending more than 5 cents per user in amortized moderation costs I've got a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
This social issue at scale didn't exist before Facebook - it might have naturally existed over time through the popularity of platforms like Disqus and disjointed forums. But Facebook owns the problem and nurtured it into the beast we know today. The social problems are an externality of Facebook's business model which they want nothing to do with fixing - it should be treated no differently than a paper mill polluting a river.
I think all of us own the problem. Technology and progress are not going to stop, if not Facebook then some other company would have brought us here. I think connecting people is a good thing, and Facebook made the world a better place so far (just my opinion), but misinformation is becoming easier and easier with technology and it won't stop here without some innovative ideas or groundbreaking regulations.
perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million. They said in the earnings report they will spend $5 Billion this year on moderation.
Feel free to file a complaint with the SEC.
Feel free to file a complaint with the SEC.
> perhaps you should do the math, 5 cents per user would be 2.81 billion * 0.05 = ~$7 million.
This is some creative math!
This is some creative math!
The newly updated DOJ complaint alleges collusion w/ google to deanonymize users to work around Apple's privacy changes...
>> 2020-09 $21.2b revenue, $7.8b income
>> 2021-09 $28.2b revenue, $9.1b income +17%
Let's not overlook the 5.4% inflation rate during this time period.
>> 2021-09 $28.2b revenue, $9.1b income +17%
Let's not overlook the 5.4% inflation rate during this time period.
FB wasn’t affected as every single user said “ok, don’t show this again” or some version of that.
1) Its the latter, iPhone remains bigger than Android in fb ad spend.
2) The whistle-blower stuff will have no effect at all on FBs numbers. Opinions on FB are set at this point.
2) The whistle-blower stuff will have no effect at all on FBs numbers. Opinions on FB are set at this point.
> didn't seem to slow down Facebook's numbers by much:
I guess it depends on what you mean by "much".
YoY 3Q advertising revenue growth was:
- 2019: 28%
- 2020: 22%
- 2021: 17%
Was it going to trend downward to 17% without the iOS change? Who knows.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "much".
YoY 3Q advertising revenue growth was:
- 2019: 28%
- 2020: 22%
- 2021: 17%
Was it going to trend downward to 17% without the iOS change? Who knows.
Their investor call was a lot more interesting than the numbers themselves. Facebook all but confirmed TikTok as an existential threat, and is spending billions over the next few years to retool their product line to focus on "young adults".
Metaverse came up as well, of course, and I still don't think anyone knows what that actually means.
Metaverse came up as well, of course, and I still don't think anyone knows what that actually means.
It means straight up Snowcrash. They are burning 10 billion a year on Oculus and related VR/AR bets. Metaverse/Horizons will be a social platform for VR and AR with a heavy focus on face to face socializing.
Interesting commentary on the 'metaverse'
>Starting with our results for the fourth quarter of 2021, we plan to break out Facebook Reality Labs, or FRL, as a separate reporting segment. As we have discussed, we are dedicating significant resources toward our augmented and virtual reality products and services
>We expect our investment in Facebook Reality Labs to reduce our overall operating profit in 2021 by approximately $10 billion. We are committed to bringing this long-term vision to life and we expect to increase our investments for the next several years.
>Starting with our results for the fourth quarter of 2021, we plan to break out Facebook Reality Labs, or FRL, as a separate reporting segment. As we have discussed, we are dedicating significant resources toward our augmented and virtual reality products and services
>We expect our investment in Facebook Reality Labs to reduce our overall operating profit in 2021 by approximately $10 billion. We are committed to bringing this long-term vision to life and we expect to increase our investments for the next several years.
Whilst I despise Facebook, I thought Zuckerberg was extremely savvy in picking up WhatsApp and Instagram (which I didn’t see coming), and also pursuing VR (which I absolutely did). But there’s a big difference between acquiring near-winners and building something entirely new. Perhaps I’m just being hopeful, but it seems unlikely to me that Facebook is an organisation that could construct something entirely new and execute it well. They’ll have lots of competition and buying it out will probably not be an option, given the intense scrutiny they’ve attracted. So I wouldn’t bet on Facebook to own the next generation of social platforms.
Market agrees. You get better returns just buying the S&P500 over FB shares. Hence their 50 billion stock buyback to slow down the falling share price.
I feel like "network effects" in the metaverse will be compounded cubic: the nodes, the edges, then the third mysterious component emerging from the shared hallucination itself ;)
I suspect the upcoming HW need of XR metaverse is in the foveal rendering required for low latency retina resolution immersive HMD. For cost/weight/power that probably means eye-tracking, which is gold standard for ad tracking and marketing attention metrics.
Give away the hardware to high status college students and sell their attention metrics to advertisers. Very FB! Of course you need content too, but users can provide that, right?
Give away the hardware to high status college students and sell their attention metrics to advertisers. Very FB! Of course you need content too, but users can provide that, right?
Pimax's Next-Generation Reality 12K QLED VR
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/pimaxs-next-generation-rea...
Note that it is dual HDR LCD with miniLED backlights not OLED as described, but it is retina and foveated rendering with eye-tracking from Tobi.
Note that it is dual HDR LCD with miniLED backlights not OLED as described, but it is retina and foveated rendering with eye-tracking from Tobi.
Right. Today, video game streamers prefer to disguise their identity behind 2D anime style virtual avatars ("v-tubers"). Same reach, but their irl persona gets shielded from trolls ;)
I'm really impressed that with Facebook's poor reputation and age that it's still able to grow by 11% daily active users in a year.
I'm impressed by the extent to which people actually believe media narratives match reality.
11% growth for FB would be very impressive.
However, the growth numbers are for FB, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp.
11% growth is for Monthly Active People (whatever that is). Monthly Active Users (MAU) - the more common metric - grew by 6%.
It's possible that FB is actually shrinking - while Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp are growing. They don't provide enough data to know that.
However, the growth numbers are for FB, Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp.
11% growth is for Monthly Active People (whatever that is). Monthly Active Users (MAU) - the more common metric - grew by 6%.
It's possible that FB is actually shrinking - while Instagram, Messenger, and WhatsApp are growing. They don't provide enough data to know that.
Instagram and whatsapp have to be growing.
Facebook itself? I think its dying personally.
Facebook itself? I think its dying personally.
This is not just a PR spin. Lying in their SEC filings is actionable.
That's not what they mean. They are alluding to negative press about Facebook which has led some to believe that Facebook is broadly disliked.
In reality, it seems that people are completely fine with Facebook.
In reality, it seems that people are completely fine with Facebook.
It's really ironic when you think about it. One of the things people hate on FB for is enabling echo chambers in online discourse. That FB has this corrosive effect because it amplifies toxic content and radicalizes users who get pushed further and further from the mainstream.
But us FB haters don't always realize that we're also in a bubble or echo chamber when discussing it. We see nothing but negative opinions on the company and don't realize that the larger world doesn't share these thoughts.
There are so many other topics I see this applying to. Amazon work conditions; whether Apple should scan for CSAM client-side; the whole Chappelle thing.
I'm a case in point. After a decade of ignoring Instagram, I'm now a solid DAU[1]. I probably see a dozen ad impressions each day; I know I've clicked through a handful in the last month. I do what I can to compartmentalize it from the rest of my online identity, but when looking at their growth metrics, I'm one of them in the 3rd quarter.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28360371
But us FB haters don't always realize that we're also in a bubble or echo chamber when discussing it. We see nothing but negative opinions on the company and don't realize that the larger world doesn't share these thoughts.
There are so many other topics I see this applying to. Amazon work conditions; whether Apple should scan for CSAM client-side; the whole Chappelle thing.
I'm a case in point. After a decade of ignoring Instagram, I'm now a solid DAU[1]. I probably see a dozen ad impressions each day; I know I've clicked through a handful in the last month. I do what I can to compartmentalize it from the rest of my online identity, but when looking at their growth metrics, I'm one of them in the 3rd quarter.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28360371
Political outcomes in the past year or so have really been driving this home for me: Twitter / the internet isn't "real life".
Taking a quote from Eric Adams:
> Social media does not pick a candidate, people on Social Security pick a candidate"
Taking a quote from Eric Adams:
> Social media does not pick a candidate, people on Social Security pick a candidate"
[deleted]
Anecdote, but my grandparents joined to connect with family members they couldn't regularly see due to the pandemic. They don't even own cell phones.
I doubt most people even associate Instagram with Facebook.
Probably creative accounting. Nobody really knows what their "users" actually mean anymore. There's no way to really grow users from their particular baseline.
The dollars on the bottom line kept going up as well.
The dollars can keep going up through collusion with Google, to give just one example. Or by smothering existing uses with even more ads. Or by charging more for ads. Or all of the above at the same time. Dollars and users are not directly proportional. Particularly the low-RPU foreign users responsible for whatever non-creative part of this growth that exists, if any.
The share buyback amount seems kinda high, I guess they are expecting even more free cash flow in the future?
It's only five per cent of outstanding shares. How much RSU comp dilutes the shareholder base each year? Gotta counteract that.
[deleted]
I loathe Fb as much as anyone, but if you're just looking to make money their stock is the biggest 'buy' on Earth. Their numbers only get better in the face of bad news, they've barely started tapping the potential revenue from Ig, and they haven't even begun to monetize Whatsapp.
Maybe but FB/google and Apple are in the cross hairs of the DOJ and it’s likely we will see a Microsoft level ruling come down on all three of them.
It's hard to say that MS was hurt by the DOJ given their current market cap.
Also, the US federal government is a shambles. They can't put together an inquiry on what lead to the seat of government being literally overrun, so I'd be incredibly surprised if they managed to take action against one of the most well funded entities on earth.
Also, the US federal government is a shambles. They can't put together an inquiry on what lead to the seat of government being literally overrun, so I'd be incredibly surprised if they managed to take action against one of the most well funded entities on earth.
It's started in the House anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...
You forget DOJ and the entire executive branch it reports to are pretty much bought by lobbyists, many of whom directly or indirectly work for FB and other big tech.
That too. The technical term is "regulatory capture".
I think point I think the insiders 90% "know" whether DOJ action is going to come down or not and have already built that into the stock price.
They will just pay a small fine and call it a day.
> I loathe Fb as much as anyone, but their stock is the biggest 'buy' on Earth.
Obviously has never heard of Crypto.
Obviously has never heard of Crypto.
> Obviously has never heard of Crypto
Obviously has never heard of revenue
Obviously has never heard of revenue
Obviously has never heard of DeFi.
Because those schemes are going great. Keep trying though.
This behemoth is unstoppable. Join or die.
As always, FB keeps on trucking.