6 ms·

Facebook is doing more than just taking away something from their users, they're being downright dishonest. Until recently Facebook's pitch to users was that it

by ccc3 16y ago

Facebook is doing more than just taking away something from their users, they're being downright dishonest. Until recently Facebook's pitch to users was that it was a way to connect with people that you actually know. They were deliberately closer to the closed/private end of the spectrum. And back when they had real competition (myspace), privacy was one of the key differentiators. I still think privacy is one of the big reasons that Facebook's popularity took off like it did. Now they're pulling a giant bait-and-switch. Attract users with privacy, kill competition, then kill privacy to gain easy profitability. This alone is pretty disingenuous, but to make these changes behind users backs (for example, pictures that were once private became publicly viewable) shows a blatant disregard for the trust that users gave Facebook when they signed up.

jacquesm 16y ago
I think you've nailed it, bait-and-switch is the frustrating bit. That said though, I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant. So the only way to maintain that - and for facebook monetization has always been an issue - was to squeeze the lemons a bit harder. Some of them will squeal, but as long as the majority stays you can't really fault them, no matter how sleazy it is. Network of friends = lock in, lock in => abuse. It's always been like that.
- tansey 16y ago
  Facebook was monetizing just fine. They had simple ads that were generating millions in revenue and profit. The problem is that they are trying to hyper-monetize. Zuckerberg turned down a $2BN offer from Yahoo, so clearly he believed he could make the company worth more than that.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    On that scale the money they were making was relatively little compared to other sites (for instance google, yahoo) with the same number of pageviews / uniques. Zuckerberg is actually proving that they're worth more, the way in which he goes about it is not the most elegant though. I'm still willing to bet he'll succeed but the image of facebook is tarnished for ever, and it could very well be that if he does manage to sell for a much higher valuation that the buyer will find themselves with another broadcast.com.
    - DrSprout 16y ago
      Back when that deal was being floated, it was pretty obvious that most of the potential buyers would probably cause users to leave in droves. Especially since the most likely buyer was looking like Microsoft. Facebook is very dependent on being a single entity. If it sells, it has to sell to a company larger than itself, and that's about the only thing scarier from a user standpoint than what Facebook has already done.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Zuckerberg turned down a $2BN offer from Yahoo, so clearly he believed he could make the company worth more than that. I thought that Yahoo offered $1B and Microsoft (later) offered several (15?) billion. Note that Zuckerberg may have interests other than money. For example, he may be happier running a company worth $3B than having $5B.
    - mbreese 16y ago
      If I'm remembering correctly, the Microsoft "offer" was an investment that valued the company at $15B, not a complete offer.
    - ctkrohn 16y ago
      Microsoft didn't offer 15bn... they invested a couple hundred million (~250mm, if I recall) to buy a certain percent of the company. That led to a 15bn valuation.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        They also got something else (an exclusive contract of some kind, I can't remember exactly) for that $250 million, so the $15B valuation was always phony.
      - anamax 16y ago
        From http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/technology/facebook_excerpt_full.fortune/ http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/technology/facebook_excerpt_... But Ballmer had come with something more sweeping in mind. "Why don't we just buy you for $15 billion?" he replied, according to a very knowledgeable source. Zuckerberg was unmoved even by this offer. "I don't want to sell the company unless I can keep control," said Zuckerberg, as he always did in such situations. Ballmer took this reply as a sort of challenge. He went back to Microsoft's headquarters and concocted a plan intended to acquire Facebook in stages over a period of years to enable Zuckerberg to keep calling the shots. Zuckerberg also rejected that offer. The deal that was struck was for $250M at a $15B valuation
    - tansey 16y ago
      Fair enough, I believe it was only a rumored $2BN offer from Yahoo.
- silkodyssey 16y ago
  I like the Ning model. I think the value of a social network is in the common traits among users. Ning facilitates this extremely well by allowing users to create their own social network. The creator of the network pays for the network so no need for Ning to monetize people's private data because the users are the customers unlike facebook where they're the product.
  - timmaah 16y ago
    Ning is the model Facebook should follow.. Seriously? They have screwed their network creators over time and time again.
    - silkodyssey 16y ago
      Well maybe Ning's execution of the model leaves much to be desired but what I wanted to express was the idea that a social network where the owner of the network paid for it is a good system because the provider of the service has to cater for the needs of the customer. And if the customer is a user and not an advertiser then I think the user should get better service.
      - timmaah 16y ago
        And how does the owner of the social network get that money to pay Ning? They exploit their users all they can.
        silkodyssey 16y ago
        I think you're focusing too much on Ning. What I am really referring to is the business model that it uses. As you've suggested it's imperfect and maybe Ning hasn't run their business very well but I don't think because of that we should say that another company cannot implement the model successfully. The model I envision is very similar to the shared hosting model employed on the web. You sign up for hosting and you install a CMS like drupal or wordpress and you have yourself a community and you pay a subcription fee. But instead of drupal there could be a social networking application. Each network creator would be responsble for it's promotion and marketing but I think it's a viable model because there are existing real world communities that would like to establish an online presence and something like this may be a great way to do that.
- TrevorBramble 16y ago
  Network of friends = lock in, lock in => abuse Bingo! Facebook is the best available means of keeping up with geographically distributed and loosely connected friends and family, which was the core conflict I faced when I decided I didn't like how I was being treated by Zuckerberg, et al. I resolved it internally when I realized that they were essentially holding my relationships hostage to get what they want out of me. After that it was easy to leave.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Yes, and another aspect of this is that Facebook has a network of users who feel trapped in Facebook rather than happy with Facebook. They talk about this on and off Facebook. Facebook's brand is hurt, its level of respect goes down and a mass-exodus becomes more likely when the means appear for users to leave taking their friends with them.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  "That said though, I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant." The way to avoid it is to align the incentives of customers and users, ideally making them one population. Google faces the same issues that FaceBook does, but less so. With targeted advertisements, the user has at least indicated their intent to buy something: they want something, the advertiser wants the same thing, and both their incentives are at least partially aligned. The happiness breaks down when the incentives come out of alignment, eg. when advertisers advertise (and Google collects money for) things that people don't want to buy. Apple has a more pure form of this. Its users pay for products - the user is the customer. And so Apple does everything they can to keep them happy. That's why Apple customers tend to be fanatically loyal: they want a good product, Apple derives all their revenue from giving them a good product, and so Apple has every incentive to keep giving them a good product. Note that this doesn't preclude Apple from pissing off other groups. They're notoriously developer-hostile, for example, because Apple doesn't see third-party developers as being critical to its bottom line. Follow the money if you want to see who a company is really working for.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant You just proved that no big corporation is to be trusted. Each will eventually abuse its position, should that look profitable. Facebook's buisness model was prone to abuse from the start. They were bound to turn evil at some point. It is worth bearing in mind when (if) singing in. Too bad so much users didn't.

by ccc3 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

I think you've nailed it, bait-and-switch is the frustrating bit. That said though, I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant. So the only way to maintain that - and for facebook monetization has always been an issue - was to squeeze the lemons a bit harder. Some of them will squeal, but as long as the majority stays you can't really fault them, no matter how sleazy it is. Network of friends = lock in, lock in => abuse. It's always been like that.

tansey 16y ago
Facebook was monetizing just fine. They had simple ads that were generating millions in revenue and profit. The problem is that they are trying to hyper-monetize. Zuckerberg turned down a $2BN offer from Yahoo, so clearly he believed he could make the company worth more than that.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  On that scale the money they were making was relatively little compared to other sites (for instance google, yahoo) with the same number of pageviews / uniques. Zuckerberg is actually proving that they're worth more, the way in which he goes about it is not the most elegant though. I'm still willing to bet he'll succeed but the image of facebook is tarnished for ever, and it could very well be that if he does manage to sell for a much higher valuation that the buyer will find themselves with another broadcast.com.
  - DrSprout 16y ago
    Back when that deal was being floated, it was pretty obvious that most of the potential buyers would probably cause users to leave in droves. Especially since the most likely buyer was looking like Microsoft. Facebook is very dependent on being a single entity. If it sells, it has to sell to a company larger than itself, and that's about the only thing scarier from a user standpoint than what Facebook has already done.
- anamax 16y ago
  > Zuckerberg turned down a $2BN offer from Yahoo, so clearly he believed he could make the company worth more than that. I thought that Yahoo offered $1B and Microsoft (later) offered several (15?) billion. Note that Zuckerberg may have interests other than money. For example, he may be happier running a company worth $3B than having $5B.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    If I'm remembering correctly, the Microsoft "offer" was an investment that valued the company at $15B, not a complete offer.
  - ctkrohn 16y ago
    Microsoft didn't offer 15bn... they invested a couple hundred million (~250mm, if I recall) to buy a certain percent of the company. That led to a 15bn valuation.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      They also got something else (an exclusive contract of some kind, I can't remember exactly) for that $250 million, so the $15B valuation was always phony.
    - anamax 16y ago
      From http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/technology/facebook_excerpt_full.fortune/ http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/06/technology/facebook_excerpt_... But Ballmer had come with something more sweeping in mind. "Why don't we just buy you for $15 billion?" he replied, according to a very knowledgeable source. Zuckerberg was unmoved even by this offer. "I don't want to sell the company unless I can keep control," said Zuckerberg, as he always did in such situations. Ballmer took this reply as a sort of challenge. He went back to Microsoft's headquarters and concocted a plan intended to acquire Facebook in stages over a period of years to enable Zuckerberg to keep calling the shots. Zuckerberg also rejected that offer. The deal that was struck was for $250M at a $15B valuation
  - tansey 16y ago
    Fair enough, I believe it was only a rumored $2BN offer from Yahoo.
silkodyssey 16y ago
I like the Ning model. I think the value of a social network is in the common traits among users. Ning facilitates this extremely well by allowing users to create their own social network. The creator of the network pays for the network so no need for Ning to monetize people's private data because the users are the customers unlike facebook where they're the product.
- timmaah 16y ago
  Ning is the model Facebook should follow.. Seriously? They have screwed their network creators over time and time again.
  - silkodyssey 16y ago
    Well maybe Ning's execution of the model leaves much to be desired but what I wanted to express was the idea that a social network where the owner of the network paid for it is a good system because the provider of the service has to cater for the needs of the customer. And if the customer is a user and not an advertiser then I think the user should get better service.
    - timmaah 16y ago
      And how does the owner of the social network get that money to pay Ning? They exploit their users all they can.
      - silkodyssey 16y ago
        I think you're focusing too much on Ning. What I am really referring to is the business model that it uses. As you've suggested it's imperfect and maybe Ning hasn't run their business very well but I don't think because of that we should say that another company cannot implement the model successfully. The model I envision is very similar to the shared hosting model employed on the web. You sign up for hosting and you install a CMS like drupal or wordpress and you have yourself a community and you pay a subcription fee. But instead of drupal there could be a social networking application. Each network creator would be responsble for it's promotion and marketing but I think it's a viable model because there are existing real world communities that would like to establish an online presence and something like this may be a great way to do that.
TrevorBramble 16y ago
Network of friends = lock in, lock in => abuse Bingo! Facebook is the best available means of keeping up with geographically distributed and loosely connected friends and family, which was the core conflict I faced when I decided I didn't like how I was being treated by Zuckerberg, et al. I resolved it internally when I realized that they were essentially holding my relationships hostage to get what they want out of me. After that it was easy to leave.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  Yes, and another aspect of this is that Facebook has a network of users who feel trapped in Facebook rather than happy with Facebook. They talk about this on and off Facebook. Facebook's brand is hurt, its level of respect goes down and a mass-exodus becomes more likely when the means appear for users to leave taking their friends with them.
nostrademons 16y ago
"That said though, I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant." The way to avoid it is to align the incentives of customers and users, ideally making them one population. Google faces the same issues that FaceBook does, but less so. With targeted advertisements, the user has at least indicated their intent to buy something: they want something, the advertiser wants the same thing, and both their incentives are at least partially aligned. The happiness breaks down when the incentives come out of alignment, eg. when advertisers advertise (and Google collects money for) things that people don't want to buy. Apple has a more pure form of this. Its users pay for products - the user is the customer. And so Apple does everything they can to keep them happy. That's why Apple customers tend to be fanatically loyal: they want a good product, Apple derives all their revenue from giving them a good product, and so Apple has every incentive to keep giving them a good product. Note that this doesn't preclude Apple from pissing off other groups. They're notoriously developer-hostile, for example, because Apple doesn't see third-party developers as being critical to its bottom line. Follow the money if you want to see who a company is really working for.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
> I wonder if there is a way a big corporation can avoid this path, they'll have to monetize somehow and once they're monetizing they'll have to do better and better every year of they will look like they are stagnant You just proved that no big corporation is to be trusted. Each will eventually abuse its position, should that look profitable. Facebook's buisness model was prone to abuse from the start. They were bound to turn evil at some point. It is worth bearing in mind when (if) singing in. Too bad so much users didn't.