Why the Instagram founders really quit(theverge.com)
theverge.com
Why the Instagram founders really quit
https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/4/17/18411363/why-instagram-founders-quit-hamburger-button-location-tracking
111 comments
The linked Verge article has some strange editorialization in it. I find it confusing, because I'm not sure what they're getting at.
> Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave.
> With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities.
Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sensitive about Facebook's demands? Or are they making fun of Facebook here? It seems like the author tried to inject some attitude into the piece without nailing down their point of view.
> Systrom then immediately peaced out for a few months of paternity leave.
> With Systrom on leave, Facebook began testing location tracking and a disgusting hamburger button inside Instagram, offending Systrom’s delicate sensibilities.
Is the author saying that Systrom was being to sensitive about Facebook's demands? Or are they making fun of Facebook here? It seems like the author tried to inject some attitude into the piece without nailing down their point of view.
"Offending one's delicate sensibilities" is a stock phrase. It's generally used in a tongue-in-cheek/mocking manner, referring to someone who is being overly dramatic; often used together with phrases like "clutching one's pearls".
I think they're mocking both Facebook and Systrom at the same time.
I think they're mocking both Facebook and Systrom at the same time.
To what end? They think people care too much about UI design?
It sounds like the Verge writer is trying to demonstrate that he has a perspective wider than any of the principals like Systrom and the FB management team, and is thereby entitled to judge them. (Systrom is effete, and the FB team is ruthless.) It does wear thin.
That Systrom checked out but was also checked-in enough to throw a fit over the direction facebook decided to go in his absence/checked-outness.
I barely glanced through the Verge piece once I saw they were basing it off a Wire piece they admitted had a lot more depth to it. When another news outlet regurgitates an article in this way I at least want it to be in service or more analysis and interpretation of that original piece, which wasn't really happening here.
Yes, some poor word choice for journalism. “aesthetic sensibilities” would have had fewer negative connotations.
No. They’re saying Systrom finds the hamburger menu is ugly, crude, and completely out of place on Instagram.
Well, that is essentially Verge's modus operandi: strong opinions over original reporting. Even much of the original reporting they do is heavy on the "hot take" style.
The primary definition of delicate: fine in texture, quality, construction, etc.:
a delicate lace collar.
I read it as a compliment.
If he had said "delicate ego" it'd be a different story.
I read it as a compliment.
If he had said "delicate ego" it'd be a different story.
Delicate is synonymous with "fragile". Delicate lace collars are fine when in appropriate context, but that context is fairly narrow (when you know it will be protected enough to survive).
As for people, I don't think our culture values fragility in an individual. Conversely, we definitely do value resilience. I'm not sure of a case where you could refer to a physical or mental aspect of someone as delicate or fragile (when it's relative to the norm where it's not) and it comes out positive.
As for people, I don't think our culture values fragility in an individual. Conversely, we definitely do value resilience. I'm not sure of a case where you could refer to a physical or mental aspect of someone as delicate or fragile (when it's relative to the norm where it's not) and it comes out positive.
Most people who read that phrase see "delicate" = fragile. Sensibilities are not like a lace collar.
Thanks for sharing the Wired article - it's really good and I have read the entire thing.
What stood out was the conclusion to me, when Zuckerberg was asked how FB would be in 10 years, and his replies show that he does not understand the implications technologies will have on society and the dangers they enable - it sounds like that's his main repeating pattern. From comments like dumb fucks, to impossible FB had any influence on the presidential elections, to being excited about future mind reading devices FB should build - Facebook (Zuckerberg) doesnt seem to learn to enable technology with safeguards.
That's what continues to stand out to me, and why I would not trust FB any time soon again.
What stood out was the conclusion to me, when Zuckerberg was asked how FB would be in 10 years, and his replies show that he does not understand the implications technologies will have on society and the dangers they enable - it sounds like that's his main repeating pattern. From comments like dumb fucks, to impossible FB had any influence on the presidential elections, to being excited about future mind reading devices FB should build - Facebook (Zuckerberg) doesnt seem to learn to enable technology with safeguards.
That's what continues to stand out to me, and why I would not trust FB any time soon again.
I think Zuckerberg's attitude (whether he really believes this or it's just a PR tactic, I have no idea) is that if Facebook does it, then it must be a good thing by definition.
> I would not trust FB any time soon again.
I agree, although I would say that I won't be able to trust FB ever.
> I would not trust FB any time soon again.
I agree, although I would say that I won't be able to trust FB ever.
Thanks for linking to this, the story is interesting without a shadow of a doubt. From Verges point of view looks like Zuckerberg has a clear tendency to be monopolistic personality, which is sort of typical for huge CEOs. Currently reading on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos scam, control freak to say the least.
I can't help but feel like there's no actual narrative being formed throughout the article - the vignettes keep coming one after another until your eyes glaze over - the story can't keep its eye on one thing at a time - I'd recommend skipping to section VII.
"Questions I'm going to investigate..."
By reading Wired.
By reading Wired.
Instagram remains enormously popular because it's not exclusively 1:1 mutual relationships, has a minimal interface/feature set, and most importantly isn't easily susceptible to outrage and anger gawking like twitter/FB are.
They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share any time soon.
They can keep adding hamburgers and FB thirst traps but as long as they don't mess with central idea (big photos only with captions) they won't cede share any time soon.
I use Instagram much less than I used to because of mainly three things:
1) The feed is no longer reverse-chronological.
2) I see way too many ads in my feed.
3) Feed clutter: I don't want to see suggested hashtags or follows in the feed. I don't need the feed to randomly remind me about a few people's Stories. I just want the photo posts, and nothing else.
I expect all of those things were driven by the FB side of the house. If so, for me, FB definitely has ruined IG. I no longer consider it to have the "minimal interface/feature set" you rightly cite as being so important.
I do appreciate that IG isn't as susceptible to inflammatory outrage posts like FB is (one of the reasons why I'm effectively off FB with the exception of event invites), but it's just not enough.
1) The feed is no longer reverse-chronological.
2) I see way too many ads in my feed.
3) Feed clutter: I don't want to see suggested hashtags or follows in the feed. I don't need the feed to randomly remind me about a few people's Stories. I just want the photo posts, and nothing else.
I expect all of those things were driven by the FB side of the house. If so, for me, FB definitely has ruined IG. I no longer consider it to have the "minimal interface/feature set" you rightly cite as being so important.
I do appreciate that IG isn't as susceptible to inflammatory outrage posts like FB is (one of the reasons why I'm effectively off FB with the exception of event invites), but it's just not enough.
You can't put links in natural Instagram posts which probably drives many to advertisements. It'd benice to show a link to just your followers who are interested in an upcoming event but currently you are allowed a single link in your profile and nowhere else. So you need to say something like "Go to my profile, follow the link to my linktree page, and click on 'Easter promotion'". So everyone is left running ads which clutters our feeds.
There are a lot of ads in your feed because that's the number Instagram has decided. Companies buy ads because it's an effective platform for advertising. I don't think links would stop any of this but it would contribute to a much noisier feed.
The app design makes it harder to repost something and nudges you to post your original content about your daily life. Casual, low-key, not polished every day life stories from friends and even people I don't know that well are the main reason I open Instagram, and unlike the main feed (where everything is polished and photoshopped), it feels authentic.
[deleted]
Well, there's also Instagram Stories, which is Snapchat with better UX and not resorting to stupid technical workarounds like doing screenshots of camera apps
since at least 2018 snapchat hasn't used the "screenshot the viewfinder" thing on most/all devices afaik
> FB thirst traps
What is this referring to?
What is this referring to?
They've given more and more nudges over the years to funnel people from IG back to FB. I have no idea but doubtful it's working, just smells of desperation.
>badged notifications inside Instagram begging people to open Facebook being maybe the most prominent example.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/25/17903556/instagram-founde...
>badged notifications inside Instagram begging people to open Facebook being maybe the most prominent example.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/25/17903556/instagram-founde...
Facebook designs its dark patterns to have the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the face.
On some level it's actually a minor blessing because they're all so grating and obvious. If they had any sense of tact they'd probably do a better of job of lulling people into indifference about them the way Amazon and Google do.
On some level it's actually a minor blessing because they're all so grating and obvious. If they had any sense of tact they'd probably do a better of job of lulling people into indifference about them the way Amazon and Google do.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/thirst-trap/
"A thirst trap is a sexy photo posted on social media to attract attention."
"thirsty" is a slang term that refers to someone who is desperately sexually frustrated to the point of engaging in activities (like browsing and commenting on Instagram, posting lewd comments in forums, paying erotic personalities on Twitch to acknowledge you) whose motivation is sexual gratification yet have an infinitesimal likelihood of success.
"A thirst trap is a sexy photo posted on social media to attract attention."
"thirsty" is a slang term that refers to someone who is desperately sexually frustrated to the point of engaging in activities (like browsing and commenting on Instagram, posting lewd comments in forums, paying erotic personalities on Twitch to acknowledge you) whose motivation is sexual gratification yet have an infinitesimal likelihood of success.
I assume ways to get you to shovel your data to FB via IG.
The big question is... What can replace fb groups. For any non-tech topic they seem to be the goto replacement for good old discussion boards.
Reddit of works as a good alternative. However, the steep-ish learning curve of it seems to keep the average person away (for the better?)
FB now only serves the following uses for me:
1. Finding housing in a new city (FB groups are still king here)
2. Checking friends Birthdays, and to get in touch with them when I don't have their contact info
3. Checking events happening in my area / generating interest for an event I'm attending
That's it, and I can't wait to find alternatives for each.
FB now only serves the following uses for me:
1. Finding housing in a new city (FB groups are still king here)
2. Checking friends Birthdays, and to get in touch with them when I don't have their contact info
3. Checking events happening in my area / generating interest for an event I'm attending
That's it, and I can't wait to find alternatives for each.
Have you used Marketplace? I was wary but had a better experience than the previous de facto local option Gumtree. I suppose having a real name and face for accountability works on some people.
No. I use craigslist.
For rentals I use the cityname-housing groups that have 50k or so users each.
For rentals I use the cityname-housing groups that have 50k or so users each.
"Zuckerberg was intent on making him miserable enough that he would quit" - I thought only the lowliest managers keep doing this bullshit and in bigger companies they are more grown up and they have a spine. Politics are the ugliest of all the crap that one has to take in the IT world. And no-one can avoid it. You can be in the lowest position they will still drag you into. I feel bad for Systrom. I really do.
No sorry, the bigger company the more nasty they get. I used to work for Oracle and IBM and it blew my mind how grownups with children would play childish games and jump at each other throats at every occasion.
I also work for less known company with revenue of $100MM and was the same stuff. My manager used to tell me: If you have family [to go home to after being at the office for 12 hours] don't work here.
I also work for less known company with revenue of $100MM and was the same stuff. My manager used to tell me: If you have family [to go home to after being at the office for 12 hours] don't work here.
> the bigger company the more nasty they get.
Yes. This is why I strongly prefer working for small companies. They tend to offer much more interesting work with a much better working environment.
Yes. This is why I strongly prefer working for small companies. They tend to offer much more interesting work with a much better working environment.
I bet he cries himself to sleep at night on a pillowcase stuffed with cash.
I mean, yeah, it's a nasty feeling. But there were compensatory factors.
I mean, yeah, it's a nasty feeling. But there were compensatory factors.
It happened to Steve Jobs even back in the 80s.
I'm surprised there is not one mention of the word "vesting" in the entire article. Systrom left six years after the acquisition (likely full vested) and shortly after returning from paternity leave.
A 6 year vesting schedule would be highly unusual. AFAIK it’s usually 2 (or maybe up to 4) years after an acquisition. Therefore I don’t think that this was a factor in his decision.
I don't have a citation here but I think facebook tried to create a slow vesting schedule for these aquihires so they would have golden shackles
Is this just your assumption? The WhatsApp acquisition was pretty famously on a 4 year vest [0], not sure why IG would have been different.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-re...
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/whatsapp-founder-jan-koum-re...
It's also not uncommon for companies to drop that and have majority vest quicker to get rid of founders faster (provide a good encouraging deal) - especially if they dont play ball.
mmm I was pretty sure I read it. I cannot find the reference so I think you are right. I'm going to edit my comment.
Things are different at that high level. Not always “vesting” technically, but various retention bonus payout milestones.
It sounds like despite the criticisms in the article, Instagram has done it right. Everyone still uses the app, with no backlash the way Snap did. My wife and all her friends are using it like crazy still, it's sometimes the only way I can get in contact with her. So Facebook deserves a lot of credit for that, despite the tone of the article.
I'm just a single data point, but my IG usage has dropped considerably over the last year or so. Too many ads, the non-chronological feed, and "feed clutter" (follow suggestions, Stories reminders) have ruined it for me.
Counterpoint: I love the Stories feature. Stories are for dramatically different content than the primary feed. They are for the mildly-interesting, curious little joys that permeate our lives, but are not interesting enough to merit documentation for posterity. And yet, it is still different that the type of content you see on Snap because the audience is different.
You fact checked she doesn't carry a insta-hubby on the side?
Which is what makes the FB internal position on Instagram's growth so silly. If users are moving off of your old thing onto something else, you WANT to own that new thing! Otherwise someone else does, and your business slowly dies.
The only alternative to this is for people to keep using FB forever and ever, but that ship sailed a very long time ago due to many decisions they made over the years.
Basically, they made one of the best acquisitions in tech history and then got upset that it worked so well. Madness.
The only alternative to this is for people to keep using FB forever and ever, but that ship sailed a very long time ago due to many decisions they made over the years.
Basically, they made one of the best acquisitions in tech history and then got upset that it worked so well. Madness.
Not seeing the meat on the bone here. It's quite normal at large companies for interview requests to be approved by someone. It's quite normal for infrastructure, support, tooling, resources to get moved around a lot. It's quite normal for people in one department to be irked at the (perceived) extra attention another department receives.
I'm not FB fan but I'm pretty sure MZ isn't jealous of the growth of anything.
I'm not FB fan but I'm pretty sure MZ isn't jealous of the growth of anything.
Yeah this sounds like trying to dramatize what is normal business operations. There's going to be politics at any company larger than a sole-proprietorship. The fact they stayed for 6 years is honestly a remarkable retention assuming this is at least 2 years beyond vesting.
So they crippled a better performing product to protect a lesser product - or rather to protect some egos.
I refuse to believe they are that stupid.
I refuse to believe they are that stupid.
Never underestimate the importance of ego. :-) Companies frequently make bad acquisitions due to the ego of the founder. (This is not an example) Other times founders spike the pet projects of their rivals.
M&A guy here - I concur. People would be amazed to know that there is a non-zero number of situations where companies get acquired for non-financial reasons.
A similar situation happened at my company: it's not just egos. You have a legacy product that is still bringing in a majority of the revenue, and then you have the new thing that will _eventually_ be the key rev driver. It's not easy to convince employees that they should just shut up and accept their bonuses to be dependent on converting a loss leader to "the future of the company".
> You have a legacy product that is still bringing in a majority of the revenue
Ah the old Kodak Kompany Killer, by the time the company decides to pivot to new technology it is already too late, the entrenched highly paid people can't or won't change.
Ah the old Kodak Kompany Killer, by the time the company decides to pivot to new technology it is already too late, the entrenched highly paid people can't or won't change.
It looks stupid because you're assuming all actors have the same goal: make the company they work for the "best," however that is measured. But that's often not the goal of executives. They are often more interested in protecting and gaining power.
Principal-Agent problem. :-) The interests of managers frequently diverge from the owners, and even each other. You see this with execs sub-optimizing for their personal metrics (or size of empire) at the expense of the whole.
Offering equity helps, but if people’s contribution doesn’t impact the stock price, there is less incentive to act holistically.
Offering equity helps, but if people’s contribution doesn’t impact the stock price, there is less incentive to act holistically.
Companies do this all the time, and single-product companies are especially vulnerable if the one product is the founder's pet product.
Facebook app probably has better ad revenue potential?
I just opened up instagram and scrolled through for a bit and I didn’t see a single ad. Seems very different from the Facebook experience.
I just opened up instagram and scrolled through for a bit and I didn’t see a single ad. Seems very different from the Facebook experience.
I don't know which Instagram you're using, but every two or three posts for me is an ad. The "second person's story" when watching stories is an ad. Instagram has, by far, more ads than any other app that I use.
Mine used to be completely devoid of adds, and then all of a sudden every 2-3 posts became an add, and the second story - just like yours.
I don't know how I had a glorious ad free instagram, but some people do. At the time mine was ad free, others complained of constant ads.
I don't know how I had a glorious ad free instagram, but some people do. At the time mine was ad free, others complained of constant ads.
Perhaps it depends on your average engagement with the app (the official iOS one, to be clear). I only open it once a month or so, and follow only a few dozen accounts. Perhaps it doesn’t know enough about me to target ads or there is some algorithm that avoids showing ads when you come back after a long break.
Don't-scare-new-users-away mode. Ease you back in with a gradual increase in ads the more engagement they see from you?
If you don't care about notifications uninstall the app and use the web interface in a browser. It's not quite as slick and responsive as the app, but I've never seen an ad there.
me too ever since about Nov/Dec? is when I noticed the increase in "sponsored content". and the result has been me spending less time looking at IG
I also think instagram ads are actually pretty close to normal posts [embedded effectively] so to me they are more effective. another reason to avoid being used by zuck
I'm scrolling through my IG feed to compare notes. Of my feed posts, the following are ads:
2nd, 6th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th…
Of my stories, the following are ads:
2nd, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th, 21st, 25th, 29th, 33rd…
2nd, 6th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, 30th…
Of my stories, the following are ads:
2nd, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th, 21st, 25th, 29th, 33rd…
There's a small subset of people on Instagram that have "ad free" accounts. I have two Instagram accounts, a larger and older one, and a newer and smaller one. The larger one has never gotten ads despite following several hundred people. The smaller one has ads even with zero followers and an empty feed.
Mine was completely add free for the first few years that I had it, then suddenly changed one day. Since then I've mostly stopped using it and only scroll through it via their web interface where UBO makes it tolerable.
It's a tough pill to swallow, I'll give you that, because it challenges the idea that we live in a just and ordered world. If it turned out that nobody was in charge, or that those in charge are no smarter than we are and don't particularly deserve to be in charge, or even that they're mismanaging things grossly... well that means nobody in the world really knows what the hell's going on and we're all just floundering along. That feels like being orphaned. Or pushed out the door into the cold night with no shirt. "Le Roi est mort - vive le Roi!"
History is full of awkward acquisitions and politics where business decisions are made poorly and for all the wrong reasons.
you don't seem to understand organizations and their politics then, or more charitably, you're being intentionally obtuse. egos, esteem and positioning are the primary drivers of decision-making in an organization (i.e., a political body).
the good of the product is of secondary concern in most organizations. it's the opposite in (young) startups, because their success depends on it. this, to me, is one of the main reasons to work for a startup, not the financial rewards or the vague experience of it. it's to build a product you're proud of.
the good of the product is of secondary concern in most organizations. it's the opposite in (young) startups, because their success depends on it. this, to me, is one of the main reasons to work for a startup, not the financial rewards or the vague experience of it. it's to build a product you're proud of.
Instagram may have been better performing when it came to users, but likely FB is more profitable per user.
Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently, somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.
At this point Zuckerburg has pissed off much of America. Doesn't have to be an insider; there are plenty of outsiders that would love to see him gone and can bankroll a few media hatchet jobs.
It probably also doesn't help that Facebook has turned most media outlets into digital sharecroppers fighting for reshares, and they know it. Big Tech in general is not popular within the media, because they've essentially destroyed the media's business model and took most of it for themselves.
It probably also doesn't help that Facebook has turned most media outlets into digital sharecroppers fighting for reshares, and they know it. Big Tech in general is not popular within the media, because they've essentially destroyed the media's business model and took most of it for themselves.
> Who wants Mark out? Too many critical articles from many angles recently, somebody on FB's board must be eager to get rid of him.
I believe Zuckerberg is still Facebook's controlling shareholder, so no one's getting rid of him until he wants himself out (or does something so egregious that the government removes him a la Hans Reiser or Musk with his SEC shenanigans).
I believe Zuckerberg is still Facebook's controlling shareholder, so no one's getting rid of him until he wants himself out (or does something so egregious that the government removes him a la Hans Reiser or Musk with his SEC shenanigans).
Yea good question, who wants him out? The journalists, a lot of people, but probably not the shareholders.
Or maybe his true character is emerging, as it inevitably does with anyone who has such a high profile. You can't keep putting makeup on a snake forever and keep fooling everyone.
This is an insightful perspective.
How much did FB save on due options by forcing founders of their big acquisitions out? I think for WhatsApp it was like 800 million that was conditional on the monetization.
Hmm. When in that timeline was it that Instagram switched to "algorithmic feeds"? That one really annoys me with no end and I can't imagine that this was supported by the "old" Instagram leadership.
The introduction of the article discuss the title, then it detours to analyze social media, Twitter, Russia, China. Looks like 3/4 social media articles stitched together
That is intentional - it's a regular column about social media:
"The Interface is a daily column about the intersection of social media and democracy. Subscribe to the newsletter here."
The headline is the leading story and the final paragraph before "Democracy" brings the story to a close.
"The Interface is a daily column about the intersection of social media and democracy. Subscribe to the newsletter here."
The headline is the leading story and the final paragraph before "Democracy" brings the story to a close.
The Interface is a newsletter, that's why it seems all over the place.
I predict that Zuckerburg, when he's old and seeking new prestige, will abandon his (dirty) capitalistic activities and take on the philanthropist persona that many other tech giants (who we often forget the dirty methods they used to reach their heights) have.
The EU, with its often absurd laws (re: link tax, cookie rules) may be the only threat to the juggernaut that Facebook is (and by extension, the power that a cutthroat nerd holds over others).
As for TFA, by now we should not be surprised. This is what happens when you sell your company to Facebook. You hopefully get a nice cash-out, which maybe you can use to do more and better things, but you certainly give over your dear creation for ultimately dark purposes.
The EU, with its often absurd laws (re: link tax, cookie rules) may be the only threat to the juggernaut that Facebook is (and by extension, the power that a cutthroat nerd holds over others).
As for TFA, by now we should not be surprised. This is what happens when you sell your company to Facebook. You hopefully get a nice cash-out, which maybe you can use to do more and better things, but you certainly give over your dear creation for ultimately dark purposes.
> ... and take on the philanthropist persona that many other tech giants (who we often forget the dirty methods they used to reach their heights) have.
No, I think he'll be like the ones who don't. He'll take on some expensive hobby and claim it is for the greater good.
No, I think he'll be like the ones who don't. He'll take on some expensive hobby and claim it is for the greater good.
> No, I think he'll be like the ones who don't. He'll take on some expensive hobby and claim it is for the greater good.
So less Bill Gates and more Larry Ellison?
I once watched a Youtube video about OpenSolaris where and ex-Sun Engineer stated the only times Larry Ellison has donated to charity were to 1) settle a lawsuit, and 2) fund research into the extension of his own life.
So less Bill Gates and more Larry Ellison?
I once watched a Youtube video about OpenSolaris where and ex-Sun Engineer stated the only times Larry Ellison has donated to charity were to 1) settle a lawsuit, and 2) fund research into the extension of his own life.
I believe he already has a foundation:
https://chanzuckerberg.com ?
https://chanzuckerberg.com ?
Indeed he does, but his primary activity (and public persona) is Facebook CEO.
Someday he will pass the reigns, at least publicly, and begin the philanthropy tour.
Someday he will pass the reigns, at least publicly, and begin the philanthropy tour.
Back when his reputation wasn’t so low: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mark-zu...
Saturday, 17 April, 2984. London Nova, Archmuseum of Human History, 21st Century Repository.
965th anniversary of “Early 21st century’s Uniform Resource Locator portraying a slice of the time’s Gordian technological landscape.”
965th anniversary of “Early 21st century’s Uniform Resource Locator portraying a slice of the time’s Gordian technological landscape.”
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think Zuckerberg and Page should exercise their clout as a media moguls. Murdoch is scared of them. Also, Obama and Trump's Presidential victories show how a well coordinated social media campaign can win you the Presidency. Zuckerberg wants "to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us." He should double down on that. You are right though.. Europe is really the only regulator we can rely on right now... but the global alt-right movement is trying to change that (see Steve Bannon in Europe).
Do you seriously believe the generic PR-speak of "to give people the power to build a global community that works for all of us."?!
No.. I think they should double down on strategies to curb fake news and misleading ads and adopt some rules similar to the Fairness doctrine.
And what kind of strategies would those be? Never mind that I woud not trust anyone in SV to decide what is and is not "fake news". OK, not only in SV, but letting Facebook "curb faker news" and create an impression that the content there in any way decent sounds even worse than the status quo where you at least know that FB is a cesspit of depravity.
[deleted]
Perhaps the founders were really just dead weight and were forced out because they contributed no value to the product.
What's so unique about instagram? Only thing I can think of is that it's popular. It doesn't seem to be novel from a technology standpoint. There doesn't seem to be any secret sauce for making it generate cash. What would you say, the founders did successfully after the acquisition? Given unlimited power, what could they have done?
I think the answer is not much. The founders did a good job at getting some capital and making a popular product. Mission accomplished. Time for them to move on.
What's so unique about instagram? Only thing I can think of is that it's popular. It doesn't seem to be novel from a technology standpoint. There doesn't seem to be any secret sauce for making it generate cash. What would you say, the founders did successfully after the acquisition? Given unlimited power, what could they have done?
I think the answer is not much. The founders did a good job at getting some capital and making a popular product. Mission accomplished. Time for them to move on.
It's popular because it's not an enormous junk drawer of features that tries to be everything to everyone.
Their success was in keeping a design that was brainlessly simple and easy to use/understand.
Their success was in keeping a design that was brainlessly simple and easy to use/understand.
Well, then I suppose they weren't needed any more. A full time C-level/VP-level position who's mere job is to say "Don't change anything!" doesn't seem very useful.
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-15-mont...