
Ask HN: Is Facebook dying? - z0a
I&#x27;ve noticed many of my friends have become less active on Facebook over the past year, and my newsfeed is becoming less personal (random news articles and ads being more than half of what I see). I&#x27;ve also noticed myself logging into Facebook less often and when I do, it&#x27;s usually for specific groups. Quite frankly, Facebook is boring and very different than when I first joined. I&#x27;ve checked with some other people and they all share a similar experience.<p>I wonder if this is a universal thing -- who else feels the same?
======
kafkaesq
I don't use FB, but the overwhelming "temperature check" from friends who do
jibs with your assessment. In general people are saying they get far fewer
genuine "friend-to-friend" updates, and more "news in my bubble", "come to my
event" etc type updates. Almost to the point where they wonder if their (real,
actual) friends divorced / got depressed / decide secretly de-friend them
(only to eventually find out that "No, I just don't really have time to post
all my shit all the time anymore.")

So it may not be "dying" per se -- but does appear to be slowly transitioning
from a "stay-in-touch-with-friends" service to a YANA-type ("yet another noisy
aggregator") service / thingamajig.

That is, the same transitional state that all of its (smaller-scale)
predecessors (Digg, FriendFeed, Myspace) wallowed in for so many years before
meeting their inevitable fate.

------
fumar
Facebook is working to adopt as many "social network features" as possible.
That means that they replicate features at will to maintain their position at
the table. Personally, I do see less up to date sharing from my friends. The
new real-time constant update stream is from Snap and instagram.

The idea of posting an update (whatever it may be) to a personal thread that
is then displayed to your network when an algo decides, removes the "true"
sharing sensation. I would argue instagram has made similar updates (Fb
company). I prefer the real-time non-adjusted update stream path. It feels
more natural, if I miss something from 2 AM, that is fine. I wasn't there to
experience it at that time (around that time). It takes away from the
spontaneity of sharing and being exposed to shared content.

I imagine teenagers would feel this at an accentuated rate. Their lives
revolve around friend groups at school, sports, hanging out. Seeing shared
updates at non-related algo determined intervals would impact their FB
experience and leave an "uncool" feeling.

~~~
ikeyany
I really want your comment to receive more attention. A few years ago,
Facebook got rid of the feature that displays your news feed by the most
recent posts. Even when you insisted to sort by recent, they decided that you
should instead view the most "recent" comments/likes, rather than the most
recent posts.

They hoped no one noticed.

~~~
fumar
Two reasons Facebook's data points to algo determined newsfeed is better;
addictiveness based on time spent and interaction, more display ads.

They can control the FB experience and show "relevant" ads because they create
the relevancy by choosing what content to display around the ads. The real
time newsfeed can't be controlled, humans uploads can't be predicted. More$$$
from advertisers by owning and crafting the story for every user every time.

~~~
ikeyany
It's mass social engineering, shaping how we interact on a primal level, with
clicks/views as the guiding metric. And there's diddly squat the common man
can do about it.

------
alistproducer2
I, personally, closed my account in January. I became wary of my personal
outrage echo chamber. Every time I logged in my feed was just things or links
to things pissed about or people's opinions on what they were pissed about. I
felt like the good of feeling connected to folks that were, in reality, now
strangers was being far outweighed by the pervasive negativity I was being
subjected to.

I don't know how universal my experience is, but I walked away from FB feeling
like I was part of a massive experiment gone wrong.

~~~
tutufan
After several temporary deactivations over the years, I finally deleted my
account as well in February. My reasons were similar. The constant flow of
outrage seemed to be decreasing my quality of life, and indeed, I feel happier
without it.

------
ziszis
No. Instead, this is probably an example of people on this forum not being
representative of global Internet users. If you want actual data, look at
their quarterly earnings [1] where they report user engagement metrics. Daily
active users reached an all time high of 1,227 Billion in Q4. DAU/MAU reached
an enviable all-time high 66%, etc.

There are some challenges in how they present the data and it is unclear what
you are including in the definition of "Facebook". The report doesn't break
out Instagram & WhatsApp separately. So there could be a decline on
Facebook.com which is offset with increases elsewhere.

[1]
[https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q...](https://s21.q4cdn.com/399680738/files/doc_presentations/FB-Q4'16-Earnings-
Slides.pdf)

~~~
erik998
"We define a mobile DAU as a user who accessed Facebook via a mobile
application or via mobile versions of our website such as m.facebook.com,
whether on a mobile phone or tablet, or used our Messenger mobile application
(and is also a registered Facebook user) on a given day. The numbers for
mobile DAUs do not include Instagram, WhatsApp, or Oculus users unless they
would otherwise qualify as such users, respectively, based on their other
activities on Facebook."

What does that mean?

Why did they use the word "accessed" vs "authenticated"? Did the user leave a
tab on their cell phone open after they logged into facebook?

Many users log in once and forget to logout... Does that continue to present
itself as someone accessing facebook?

How many users access via the app? via the mobile web page?

If you take out people who used Messenger app what would this number be? Also,
can I be a Messenger user and not a registered Facebook user?

Pay attention to the footnotes. It shows up on many pages of the presentation.

I would prefer knowing how many logged in each day. How many did something
purposefully like look at a friends timeline, search a friend, look at
possible friends. How many posted a comment, did a "like", clicked on an ad...

~~~
ziszis
Good call on the footnote. The Facebook 10K [1] clarifies the definition of
DAU:

"The numbers for our key metrics, our DAUs, MAUs, and average revenue per user
(ARPU), do not include Instagram, WhatsApp, or Oculus users unless they would
otherwise qualify as such users, respectively, based on their other activities
on Facebook." -> This clarifies that they are measuring users without
considering any Instagram, WhatsApp or Oculus uplift.

"We define a daily active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and
visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger
application (and is also a registered Facebook user), on a given day." -> This
clarifies that they only count if the login happened that day or they did a
visit during that day. Not passive open tabs.

It does also have this note "For example, while user-provided data indicates a
decline in usage among younger users, this age data is unreliable because a
disproportionate number of our younger users register with an inaccurate age."
-> This might be some of what people are experiencing. A shift in demographics
to older people.

[1]
[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680117000007/fb-12312016x10k.htm)

------
gdulli
I think it's no longer relevant for young people, it's firmly the social
network of your parents and grandparents. But it will take decades for those
parents and grandparents to turn over, and the younger people will maintain a
token presence there so they're not sought out on their real social network.
So it's not like Facebook is going anywhere soon.

------
remarkEon
They've definitely evolved from their original charter as a "social network",
where I'd interact with friends over content we ourselves put on the site. Now
I feel like my feed is (was) 95% ads plus linked and shared news articles and
then maybe 5% posts from friends. People still interacted with each other, but
it was definitely less organic like you said and more banter about things
external to your personal relationships. I don't like Facebook, I probably
never did, and I finally got my Spotify login linked to my email instead of my
Facebook account so I'm done with the site. Over the last year and a half I
realized it's evolved into a giant surveillance vector and just got too
creepy.

All that said, no I don't think it's dying for two reasons: 1) young people
today (whatever we're calling the generation that comes after millennials)
seem to be unconcerned with "oversharing" and appear to derive some kind of
dopamine hit from it. So the things that come across as creepy to me probably
don't affect that generation in the same way. 2) I could be wrong, but
Facebook does also appear to be attempting to diversify their business.
They've done this in the past, and I don't see too much reason to panic right
now (if I were an investor that is).

Honestly, I would indeed prefer that it died. I think it makes people unhappy,
harms relationships, and ends up being a replacement for reality for a lot of
people - and I was only a once-every-few-days kind of guy. Some of my friends
compulsively use that thing, even if _they 're actually out with real people
not the manufactured online personae on display in your "profile."_

------
120bits
I quit facebook like an year ago. Couldnt be much happier. Initially, I
started using facebook as my one stop website for everything. Check on my
friends and same time I will read and go through news. Later, I was really
upset about targeted ads. I'm cant say its dying, all my friends still use it
day to day. But I feel is the trend is changing. instead of daily "status
updates" people are sharing more content.

------
mmgutz
Facebook are where my cuckoo "friends" hangout and post political and
religious views. My observation is the more personal problems you have and the
stronger your views, the more likely you will post on Facebook to get
attention. It's a big turn-off.

I realize you can unfollow friends without unfriending them but my facebook
stream is not worth visiting weekly anymore.

------
auganov
Everybody's on Messenger. I don't see people making many posts either.

If you want to see what's going on in your friends' lives Snapchat is where
it's at.

I don't think they're dying anytime soon, but their obsession with stuffing
Snapchat stories into every FB product shows they're at least worried. They
will be in trouble if they can't monetize Messenger.

~~~
mrfusion
Hmm if I deleted Facebook and still used messenger would I gain any privacy or
not really? I'd consider doing that.

~~~
foobarchu
It's worth noting that the Messenger app requires none of the android app
permissions to run. It will happily work with every single one of them turned
off.

It also means facebook doesn't get how long you look at each thing in your
newsfeed, which is nice. They still get to access all the messages, obviously.

------
EJTH
Same for me. I miss the times where I only saw babies, cats and dinner plates
on my feed, it was personal, now its just garbage news, garbage ads, garbage
IP-theft (videos grabbed from YT etc.)

~~~
mrfusion
Mine is 90% pictures of people I don't know! Just photos friends have liked. I
don't know why I need to see that.

I once tried to go through all of my friends friends and block them but I got
tired after twenty minutes

------
_kyran
Just an anecdote about the immense value that can be derived from it amongst
all the newsfeed crap:

This week, I moved 16000km away from home. Brand new to the city, after being
here for 3 days, I get a notification that friend X has posted a local
facebook group I'd joined that week.

I hadn't seen friend X (more of an acquaintance) in 4 years or so, but because
of seeing this notification, he also saw a similar notification from a post I
made, we both reached out at the same time, sent a few messages and ended up
spending the entire day together.

Turns out we're both here for at least the next 6 months with similar
intentions and have way more in common than we'd previously thought.

I've got a few other examples of serendipity that have happened due to social
networks and as much as I hate the cancer that populates the newsfeed,
messenger, groups, instagram and the directory itself provide immense value.

------
smt88
Facebook is doing great. People are just using it differently (which may make
you enjoy it less, of course).

I can't find the article now, but I recently read that Facebook users post
their own stories far less often than they used to. Much of Facebook.com is
now the swapping and discussion of news stories.

Some of the more social, personal activity you're missing has probably moved
to Instagram.

------
bythckr
I was really annoyed with many new news sources putting crap on my page.

Personally, I removed the Facebook app from all my devices. But I still have
the messenger app. That is a real time killer. It's a quick distraction, but
often I regret later for spending time on facebook instead of doing my chores
or something useful. I have seen the same with many people in my circle. Maybe
it's because I am getting older, but I do not hear people talking about
tagging people on facebook photos, these days

Another issue is with Govts & employers looking at your social media presence.
I am seriously considering just abandoning my facebook page as I feel it will
seem suspicious if I delete it and I did see a couple of people complaining of
how facebook activates deleted facebook profile.

------
meesterdude
I think the answer is yes. Their engagement has dropped and continues to drop
- maybe something to do with why you find FB boring.

I stopped using facebook because i got gaslighted by the algo again and again.
If I "share" my friends see it, but anything else and magically nobody sees
it. So FB isn't even a way to stay in touch with my friends because... it
won't let me.

But it _is_ changing, and as a company they've taken steps to stay relevant,
and are still the big social media company. I don't think they'll go down
without a fight, and strategically they may one day pivot away from the FB app
towards a suite of ones they've bought up.

------
jbyks
Facebook News has become more of an RSS reader for all of the pages I've ever
liked (or a personalized advertisement reader). They have banned updates from
friends to the top right corner on desktop and it has disappeared from mobile.
This is unless the content is "engaging" enough. The other screen/time real
estate is being used to show as much of their paying customer's content as
possible.

The advertising business model works in contradiction to finding the most
relevant content for you. I've unliked every page to get the most stripped
down version of my feed possible.

------
minimaxir
No. However, Facebook no longer has a monopoly on social media which is why
they are deathly afraid of competitors like Snapchat.

------
siddharthgdas
Facebook's login page says "connect and share with friends".

1\. The connection part is true, partially. Facebook for me keeps my hold of
people I knew or met in the past. But I almost never add new connection via
facebook. It is always via, whatsapp or linkedin.

2\. The sharing part is done well (for uploaded or created content) but there
is a lot of noise from all the pages and ads. So,even when done well, it
doesn't encourage me to share much over there given it only reaches to
probably only a fraction of my connections.

------
JSeymourATL
FB User Growth Outlook: Strikingly, close to half of all of the new users will
be adults 65 and older. > [http://www.investopedia.com/news/report-facebook-
user-growth...](http://www.investopedia.com/news/report-facebook-user-growth-
could-decline-2017/#ixzz4cd0kIM1g)

------
edimaudo
It is not dying. People are just using it differently. Mostly using chat and
groups. Also, people are putting up more ads.

------
Philomath
I don't know if Facebook is dying, but what I can assure is that every day I'm
getting more and more tired of it. They are connecting everything to
everything (Whatsapp is dying for mee too due to this). I prefered the time
when it was simply about sharing content with friends.

------
gingerbread-man
Facebook content used to be two things: photos of your friends, and "status
updates" on what they were doing.

Photos have been taken over by Snapchat and Instagram, and discussions/ witty
updates seem to be more concentrated on Twitter.

------
tmaly
I stopped using it in the traditional sense 3 years ago.

Recently I picked it back up, but now I spend most of my time in private or
public topic groups. I find there are some decent posts in groups where
members have to be invited or approved to join.

------
bsvalley
Facebook (inc) won't die anytime soon because the most active social platform
in 2017 (after youtube) is instagram. That's why they don't really do anything
about FB dying...

------
27182818284
As others have mentioned, it is being used differently.

Snapchat adoption is crazy high where I am, but most of those people are still
on Facebook too—they just use them differently.

------
erik998
For me, it died when they dropped the *.edu email requirement.

I used it differently after that. I don't use it much at all any more. I have
everyone's story hidden. I may pop back in to figure out a birthday date or
some other fact about someone.

Many people use it like that now. They just block off a bunch of
story/timelines and focus on a small subset of people.

~~~
kazinator
I don't use FB and don't know much about it.

Googling around, it looks like this lifting of the .edu restriction happened
eleven years ago in 2006, around two years after FB launched in 2004. Contrary
to your own declining experience, this was actually _before_ FB became
relevant to masses of people around the world. Most of the FB history and
success has taken place "post-edu" now.

Requiring people to have .edu addresses ranges from being bat shit crazy to
crudely elitist, unless it's just intended as a temporary limitation as part
of a pilot launch, which is what it looks like this may have been?

I'm actually quite surprised to learn about this bit of Facebook history.

~~~
erik998
Initially, there was also a college/university requirement. You had to be in a
Boston area university. Then they added Ivy League schools. Eventually, any
school with an email address ending in *.edu.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/jul/25/media.new...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/jul/25/media.newmedia)

At the time, many were under the impression it would continue as such to
prevent the proliferation of middle school/high school students from joining
and contaminating the site like MySpace.

Back then, MySpace had some horrible user interface experiences. Users would
add javascript plugins and themes to their pages that provided too much
individuality. At times, the changes were so drastic you could not tell if a
user's page was on myspace without looking at the URL.

To this day, Facebook carries a signature look & feel and will never allow any
drastic changes to the UI to accommodate a user's distinct style.

------
borplk
Even if it is it will take a few decades for it to die.

------
19eightyfour
I don't want to pee on the sacred ground that is Facebook mythology but it
seems that, an ad and investor supported CMS for social, that becomes a public
company, and applies a similar editorial algorithm to diverse cultures and
demographics, needs must optimize for its most significant stakeholders.
Investors want advertisers, advertisers want eyeballs, eyeballs can god damned
be force-fed whatever content makes them click most. If Facebook news feed has
become a rage-filled bubble-chamber that's because powerful forces demand it
become that: human psychology, the zeitgeist, demographics and economics.

Bear with me while I lay it all out for you. Notice your natural rising rage
to this presentation because the zeitgeist dictates you will prefer outrage to
the deterministic positions of others, and I'll explain for you why that's the
case in a minute.

Human psychology lets news feed push our buttons to make us come back. Our
reptilian brains have enslaved us to be click slaves working for the world's
bankers! The new exploited class... What a pitiful result for the first
generation online and with the shiny tech. Information superhighway... Of
broken dreams. But we are mostly happy in our blissful exploitation, and so
the bankers are happy, because the best slaves are the ones that believe
themselves free.

The zeitgeist dictates that outrage engages because outrage has become the
main currency you can trade in for being right. In a world that has exchanged
old authority values for new authority values, there's a transition period of
authority looting which is where we are now. The crowd naturally gets a little
mad and scared when the values that used to lead the crowd suddenly
dematerialize, and in the age of authority looting everybody runs around
trying to get as much authority for themselves as they can. And it turns out
that the way individuals can loot authority for themselves in these troubled
times is by taking it from others. So outrage engages because outrage let's
you pretend others are wrong so you can pretend you are right, thereby lootin
some sweet authority for yourself. And social CMS systems are obviously an
efficient arena for this.

Demographics mean the global billion-user social CMS must optimize its
algorithms for people and groups who are the largest and of which you are not
necessarily a member. Prepare for moments of jarring discomfort as you
encounter the Other, algorithmically abstracted for you for your viewing
pleasure.

The economics of its revenue and financing structure, means that the Face is
answerable to investors, advertisers then us. Human churn is less costly than
advertiser churn. To run a business like this and make it profitable you have
to be ruthless about the things which earn you money and about the things
which dont.

But we must never fall into the trap of criticising our benevolent billionaire
overlords, who graciously provide these systems for our benefit. They are
simply trying to connect all of humanity in a harmony of unity and the beauty
of oneness....hmmm, I could believe that if by connecting everyone you meant
put them in a glass jar with little air and watching them fight for scarce
resources of credibility and popularity. But who knows... Maybe this pressure
cooker actually improves humanity in some way. I guess the question is are
such systems a selective pressure for good ideas or does it simply bring out
the worst of our natures?

The Face is clearly a social experiment. And it's an adaptive company. If the
Zeitgeist was different I'm sure their algorithms would be optimizing to
create different sorts of experiences for us.

And I don't think the Face is dying unless our whole human civilization is.
Which I think is unlikely. It might be ugly, but Facebook is a reflection of
us. It's the interactive mirror. Some people don't like looking in the mirror.
It's not surprising. It can be uncomfortable. To see your true Face.

If you don't like what you see don't blame The Zuck blame yourselves. It's
just showing you who you really are. To get where you're going you got to
start where you are right? Maybe it's a good thing that we can all see
ourselves so clearly now.

------
swah
No, its growing a lot.

------
FT_intern
the stock says no

