
Internal emails cause more trouble for Facebook and its C.E.O. - jaytaylor
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/facebooks-very-bad-month-just-got-worse
======
eksemplar
I wonder when Facebook is going to get disrupted. It seems to me their key
feature is having everyone connected, and while anecdotal, my friends list
sure hasn’t been affected by these scandals.

What has been affected is the perception. It’s no longer considered cool to
have a Facebook account. Meet-ups and interest groups are still heavily used
in my social circles, but it’s almost always with an apology for being on
Facebook.

Instagram has suffered less, but instagram isn’t really useful for anything
but wasting time.

Facebook on the other hand serves as a modern day yellowpages and meetup
combined, but with its popularity dropping and people slowly adopting privacy
concerns, it seems like the right company with the right business model could
displace Facebook.

Of course you could say something similar about google and how it’s search
engine is so terrible at finding anything interesting.

Maybe it’s my little anecdotal world playing tricks on my perception, but to
me, the whole web seems ripe for another revolution.

~~~
martinald
Agreed - though at least in my contacts in the UK, everyone uses WhatsApp (and
whatsapp groups) instead of FB. People used to make a FB event for a party now
make a WhatsApp group which everyone gets invited into.

I think what Facebook is very very good at is tracking the market and
identifying potential competitors and buying them up.

My previous thoughts (and still are) was that FB would become a media holding
company, similar to Comcast or Fox/News Corp.

The problems I now see for them is they are really starting to piss off
regulators, who will probably not look kindly to future acquisitions,
especially larger ones.

They also have a problem that WhatsApp is IMO cannibalising their core 'social
media' offerings and I can't see how they can commercialise that product
without eroding the privacy and/or simplicity aspects which make it so
popular.

In hindsight I think Apple locking iMessage to iPhone was a mistake. If they'd
released an Android version Apple would have surpassed WhatsApp in non-US
markets where iPhone penetration is lower, and would have dominated the
messaging space like it does in the US, as they'd be preinstalled on every
iPhone to seed the market.

~~~
TAForObvReasons
iMessage arguably serves as lock-in for the iPhone user base. If it were
supported on android, many people would switch to the less expensive Android +
iMessage ecosystem, likely enough to really make a dent in their cash cow

~~~
isostatic
There are many reasons to move off iphone (not least the lack of earphones),
but imessage is so integrated with SMS that I don't know anyone who considers
it different on any level other than geeks knowing it intellectually. On the
other hand there are benefits to the ecosystem - find my iphone for example.
Personally I, and wife, and motherinlaw, are on SEs because my mother's
android phone is crap. It's just stopped ringing again -- last time required a
software update.

iphones still Just Work. In my experience of people with half a dozen Androids
over the last 6 years, they are Just Shit. People buy them because they are
cheap, not because they are good. People buy iphones because they are good,
not because of messaging lockin.

However that aside, across android and iphone, people constantly use whatsapp
though because of groups and simplicity.

~~~
zolthrowaway
>People buy them because they are cheap, not because they are good.

This is quite the overarching generalization. Especially on a site like HN
where there are tons of financially well off people choosing to use Android.
Do some people buy Androids because they are a cheaper alternative to iPhones,
sure. Do some people buy Androids because they don't like things like Apple
intentionally slowing devices down, like having access to things like Termux,
the ability to flash their own ROMs and root, etc? Absolutely. I don't even
want to make this an Apple vs Android thing, but please don't reduce a valid
choice down to people's financial situation.

~~~
scarface74
Statistically the average selling price of an Android phone is $200. Even
Samsung’s ASP is $250.

An “overarching generalization” doesn’t mean there aren’t outliers. But most
people aren’t buying Android phones so they can flash ROMs and run Termux.

On the other hand, the “slowing down phones” meme is outdated - it was a
choice between slowing them down and then shutting off completely. All
batteries degrade over time.

~~~
zolthrowaway
I don't want to argue about Android vs iOS at all. You should buy what you
like, I just provided a couple reasons why I use Andoid. I'm assuming your
numbers are worldwide since you did not provide a source. If they're US
centric, I'd be very surprised. Living in the US, I know plenty of people with
Pixel 3s and S9s. These people did not buy these expensive flagship Android
phones because they were cheap. There are plenty of valid reasons to buy them.

~~~
scarface74
We have real numbers for the US also as far as people who bought Google
Pixels.

[https://www.recode.net/2017/10/4/16418170/google-pixel-
marke...](https://www.recode.net/2017/10/4/16418170/google-pixel-market-
share-2017-event-chart-data)

If Samsung were selling high end Android phones in volume, how many cheap
crappy phones are they selling for the ASP of all of their phones to be $250?

The high end Android market is minuscule.

------
makomk
"The documents also reveal that, in 2015, a permissions update for Android
devices, which users were required to accept, included a feature that
continuously uploaded text messages and call logs to Facebook."

Wow, that's some sleazy wording. While users were required to accept the
permissions update for the simple reason that Android at the time didn't offer
any way to pick and choose what permissions to grant, the very email they're
basing this claim on says that actually accessing and uploading call logs was
opt-in. Ironically, the coverage of this has demonstrated exactly why this was
(as the released email put it) a high PR risk.

~~~
epistasis
So they just uploaded everything, "just in case"? Your description doesn't
sound any better than the article's.

~~~
ForHackernews
No, I think the parent comment is making the distinction that the Android
permissions model at the time wasn't very granular, so Facebook's app had to
request more permissions than it intended to use, and that FB offered a
separate opt-in within their own app.

I don't use the FB app, and I have no idea how this was presented to users and
whether it was a legitimate choice or a "dark pattern" to trick users into
handing over everything.

~~~
makomk
Pretty much, though the problem isn't that the permissions weren't granular -
reading the call log has been its own permission since Android 4.1, and apps
targetting that version have to request it separately even if they support
older versions - but that there simply wasn't any way for users to grant only
some permissions. So Facebook had to request all the permissions they might
want to use from every single user, regardless of whether those users ever
opted into the features that required them.

The first official version of Android that allowed users to turn individual
permissions off was Marshmallow, released in October 2015 with the first beta
in May 2015 - the email in question is dated the start of February 2015 and
says they planned to ship it by the end of the month.

------
r3vrse
Every now and then I rise above the temporal miasma of popular web culture and
think: why is this surprising?

BBS, AOL, Netscape, MySpace, Tumblr, FB, Insta, Snap...

Why are we surprised by this progression? All "good" things go bad. The same
lessons, rinsed and repeated. Power, money corrupts. We burn effigies and mark
their passing. We move on.

Tempted to say a little more history and psychology instead of fiscal fixation
would make a difference. Tempted, but no. It's not how humans work.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>Tempted to say a little more history and psychology instead of fiscal
fixation would make a difference. Tempted, but no. It's not how humans work.
//

I don't think profit motive is innate, we're not Ferengi!

However, things can't go on growing forever, and the rich need growth to get
richer, and need churn to maintain fashion as the societal norm that feeds
growth, and feeds purchases of stuff in order to fit in ...

Things that work well enough and stably and are liked are prime for
exploitation for [more] profit. It's really only very few people driving that
exploitation -- though perhaps many more would if given the chance.

~~~
pas
not profit, but simple rational local optimization. if you were not selfish
enough, you would be dead. (or your ancestors would have died before
proceating.)

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-
moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

------
porpoisely
Facebook stopped being cool a decade ago when adults, parents, companies
started using it. Like most social media, it started with the young and was
cool. Then it got quickly adopted by the adults. If anything, instagram,
twitch, tiktok, etc is cool. Facebook is practically a utility now.

I doubt facebook is going to get disrupted any time soon. No more than Elon
Musk was going to jail or his businesses ( tesla, spacex ) taken from him.
Facebook is more than facebook. It's an ecosystem. It's the preferred login
mechanism of a lot of the web. Also, facebook owns Messenger, WhatsApp and
Instagram. Nearly 1.5 billion people use Messenger alone.

The media is in attack mode against facebook. Everything from the media about
them will be exaggerated and negative. So I'd take anything the news about
facebook with a grain of salt.

Even the new yorker doesn't believe facebook is going anywhere.

[https://www.facebook.com/newyorker](https://www.facebook.com/newyorker)

~~~
stedaniels
It wasn't that the "adults" adopted it, it's that the younger generation
inevitably grew up and turned into the adults.

~~~
rc_hadoken
Holy shit, this. The whole "my parents joined so I left because it wasn't
cool" isn't it. The people who adopted in the early naughts are now those very
adults we speak of. No Jane --although cute-- I don't care about your baby.
And is it really a good idea to put your baby on social media without their
explicit consent? Who owns a child's social media presence before they do?

~~~
dehue
I don't think so. I joined facebook back when it was 'cool', but it's not just
my generation that are now adults that are on there. My parents, my friends
parents, adults in their 50/60s+ have all joined facebook and are very active
despite not being on there when it was only used by college students. Part of
the reason why many younger people are no longer as active on Facebook is
because anyone from their boss to their aunt to their grandma is now likely to
see their posts.

------
ineedasername
It seems like Facebook got caught in a monetization trap. They started on a
model of "get the audience, figure out revenue streams later". But then when
it came to crunch time on figuring out monetization strategies, they realized
there was no easy answer. Charge for access? Sell your users & their data to
3rd parties in various ways? (I do wonder if a freemium model would have
worked.)

Either way it's like they had a panic and got it all wrong, began considering
& trying all kinds of shady things. Then to hide that fact they made it even
worse, first by hiding it and looking duplicitous, then by doing even more
shady things.

------
tzfld
There is an intensive negative media campaign against Facebook lately,
rightful or not.

~~~
janzij
Glad that I'm not the only one noticing it. Last time it was Uber. Now they
moved on to Facebook.

Uber didn't change much, and so won't Facebook, because the media will
eventually pick another target (I wonder which, I'm guessing Google) which
makes people click their links. They don't really care about reporting or
about making things right, they just need a dead horse to beat.

I am happy the power of the media dwindles year after year, they should have
no right to do something like this against certain people or companies they
don't like. They are bullies, that's all they are.

~~~
lithos
Facebook has had a long period of time where they were boring to the media.
Letting them make many mistakes, mostly SV style move fast deal with the
consequences later style.

Then they got caught doing (or not) interesting things. Meaning any competent
reporter will find LOTS if SV style mistakes when researching the original
story.

This is just what happens to anyone/thing that leaves a trail of interesting-
ness after they appear in the media the first time. Do you really expect
reporters to not report on things they find, or maybe you're asking reporters
to be worse at research.

------
sudovancity
I stopped using Facebook in 2009 when my parents and grandparents hopped on, I
was 19 and felt like it wasn't cool anymore. Now I am telling them all to
leave it due to privacy concerns, but hardly any of my family cares about
privacy concerns and are just worried about keeping in touch. Which I
understand but it is sad to see so little being understood about privacy.
However, I don't see people like my parents ever leaving Facebook, and if they
do, they will be the ones rejoining in a couple of days.

------
pers0n
It’s not a bad month unless they lose 10% of their users, until then they are
strong and will be around for many years. Yahoo and aol are still around

------
eezurr
HN Mods why are you allowing click bait headlines on here? You're throwing
another rock into the net we're carrying every time you allow this. Some day
the master fisherman are going to get sick of carrying rocks. ie, I come here
to learn from the fishermen, not the rock throwers.

I can "feel" this headline yanking my brain for attention. "How could it get
worse?!" "What did they do now?!" "How was this month very bad?!" "I for sure
enjoy perceived petty revenge against large evil corp".

Edit: We're allowed to have a different title than the actual article.

~~~
danso
I agree the headline is seemingly a little clickbaity. But the article itself
is 1,700 words from the New Yorker. Because it enumerates a variety of
controversies, "Very Bad Month" ends up being the most succinct way to
describe the content of the article.

I don't understand "fishermen" metaphor. Whose "we" in "You're throwing
another rock into the net we're carrying..."?

------
blfr
_the company had hired a right-wing opposition research group, Definers Public
Affairs, to dig up dirt on George Soros, after Soros gave a blistering speech
at the World Economic Forum in Davos decrying the power of social media,
especially Facebook and Google, for their “far-reaching adverse consequences
on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.”_

What is this about? Because it's weird friendly fire. Both Soros and
Facebook/Google want largely the same outcome from elections: liberal
politicians who keep the markets humming while allowing for easy international
trade and migration.

~~~
ben_w
I think what you identified is merely a shared instrumental goal, not an
objective goal for either of them.

I think, from how they talk, that Facebook wants to have everybody watching it
all the time. From how they talk, more even than making money.

I think Soros wants intellectual freedom. Not so sure about that, but it looks
that way from the philanthropy.

Both just happen to be using free markets to work towards their goals.

~~~
ForHackernews
I've never understood why Soros is such a bogeyman to so many people. As far
as I can see (from my position as a believer in so-called "western values"
like freedom of speech, rule of law and fair elections), his goals seem
entirely noble.

I get why despots like Viktor Orban hate Soros, but what about all the others?
Do they hate him because he's rich and spends his money on politics? Because
he comes off like a meddler, butting into other countries' affairs? Because
he's (apparently?) Jewish? What is it?

~~~
drewmol
While I'm not well informed enough to have a strong opinion on the matter, the
bad things I've heard are mostly related to his profits from currency
speculation and similar, which many people feel were immoral actions taken by
Mr. Soros and untimately harmful to the nations who's currency he profited off
by shorting. That's plenty of information regarding his past financial
dealings if you are interested.

~~~
rsynnott
Those were essentially the UK's fault, and it's not like Soros was the only
one taking advantage; if you're a market economy it's hard to blame a market
for acting like a market. Today, it'd have been automated trading systems,
probably.

Edit: I do think, by the way, that it’s telling that Soros is about the only
example people ever give in cases of market forces harming a country. When
Britain sold gold just before the gold bubble really inflated, no one blamed
the gold traders; they blamed Brown, say.

