
2017 Was Bad for Facebook. 2018 Will Be Worse - Cbasedlifeform
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-14/2017-was-bad-for-facebook-2018-will-be-worse
======
cabaalis
As a mid-30s guy, I use Facebook primarily to share pictures and updates of my
son and things we do together with my friends and family.

Every. Single. Person. that I personally know despises the political crap,
occasional venting of some personal problem, and news outrage fishing that
comes across on there. I wish there was some way to "categorize" these posts,
and to allow me to simply filter out what I don't want to see. As an example,
there is a person I am friends with on there who I greatly admire and enjoy
being friends with. But every time I see "Drumph" with a big red background, I
sigh and scroll on. I don't need that in my life.

Even if that makes me miss the odd post here and there, they are practically
valueless anyway and seeing only the categories of updates that I want greatly
outweighs that minuscule loss.

~~~
kovrik
I'm in the opposite camp: I stopped using FB because all friends were posting
pictures of their kids, family, trips, parties, whatever. I really don't
understand how people can post such things to FB.

I don't care what their kids ate today or how they fell asleep. I don't care
that they bought a new phone and now posting pictures of it. I think all that
stuff is personal and shouldn't be exposed to the public.

But I wish I could open FB and read political and tech news (no fakes please).

~~~
tgb
But ... why? You can read political and tech news _anywhere_ why read it on
Facebook? The only thing I want to see on Facebook are the things I can't see
elsewhere which are: personal updates and local events.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>The only thing I want to see on Facebook are the things I can't see
elsewhere which are: personal updates and local events.

You can only get personal updates on Facebook?

What a strange thing to say.

~~~
chuckkir
I think it's fairly accurate. If you have a couple dozen (or 100) friends
scattered around the world, it's a lot easier to see pictures of their kids or
new kitchen on a Social Media platform than to try to call them every day.

~~~
enraged_camel
Why do you feel like you need to see pictures of their kids and new kitchen if
they are scattered all over the world?

Does it make you feel like you care about them?

~~~
mac01021
I can't legitimately care about 20 people living in 20 different parts of the
world?

~~~
enraged_camel
That's not what I meant.

Here's what I'm getting at: if you _really_ cared about someone, you wouldn't
settle for the bare minimum of passively consuming their uploaded photos and
status updates.

I posit that Facebook is popular among people with scattered friends and
relatives because it makes them _feel_ like they care. However, in my opinion,
truly caring about someone warrants more than just _maintaining an awareness_
of what is going on in their lives by consuming their content on your news
feed and occasionally clicking 'Like' or posting a comment.

------
osrec
Facebook offers some good functionality for keeping in touch etc, but it's
littered with too much noise and too much influencing (to the point that it's
unpleasant to use). If they fix that, they'll be okay. If not, there may be a
mass exodus to something else once enough people get sick of it.

~~~
baby
I have this theory that they've noticed that the platform is being used less
and less, and is why we're getting so much ads mixed with our friends' posts.
They're milking the cow before it dies.

I feel bad writing that because I like facebook. But I use it less and less in
favor of messenger, just because I see less and less about my friends in my
news feed.

Now their other acquisitions instagram and whatsapp seem pretty healthy, and
VR is the future, so I wouldn't worry about the company as a whole.

~~~
thinkMOAR
That always makes me giggle, when i hear people say, "FB sucks, i don't use FB
anymore, i'm only on Instagram...."

~~~
bamboozled
Instagram is also becoming a monotonous and boring platform to use. The more
ads and other junk features they cram into it, the less people will want to
use it.

~~~
evanriley
Instagram used to be my go-to social media, and the millions of images of
peoples dinners didn't annoy me, but I find myself using it less and less
because of the non-chronological feed. I still don't understand how it can
possibly be better than a chronological one.

If anything I wish they would give an option in the settings to make it
chronological

~~~
bigdubs
Generally if they keep a feature it means that the majority of people were
more engaged by it, so the algo feed is probably increasing engagement across
the board but alienating a few users.

~~~
whatever_dude
This. When companies start looking at features and changes through the lenses
of a metric, everything follows that metric. I'm sure that drives more
engagement, therefore it's enforced on everybody.

Unfortunately they're not measuring abandonment or annoyance. Metrics like
these are the short-term gain investors of today tech, always looking into the
today and ruining the tomorrow.

------
YCode
> "ripping apart the social fabric." ... "literally changes your relationship
> with society, with each other ... God only knows what it's doing to our
> children's brains."

I'm not saying he's entirely wrong, but a lot of what he's saying sounds very
much like how TV was once described.

~~~
epicide
A particular medium is not (necessarily) to blame. Even the proliferation of
what can be perceived as low quality examples of a medium isn't purely to
blame. A large part of it is in how you interpret it.

Even with books, it's all in how you intepret it. If you just read the story
without giving it any thought, it's no better than watching "mindless TV". I
just think there is probably a positive correlation between people that are
willing to think critically about a topic and those who are willing to put in
the additional effort of reading vs watching.

To put it another way, if you knew nothing of painting or any the history
behind it, the Mona Lisa would likely be indistinguishable to you from some
random photo on someone's Facebook.

I will admit that some forms of media are easier to mindlessly consume than
others. I am just sick of seeing the "X is only for stupid/lazy/ignorant
people" (where X is TV, internet, videogames, etc.)

tl;dr you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Edit: to get back to the topic of Facebook, I think the _format_ of social
media is not the cause of the issue, but I definitely see a problem in people
having high exposure to insular opinions. Mostly because there seems to be a
large number of people who _only_ use Facebook as their source of information.
Like any tool, you can use it for good or bad.

~~~
folksinger
> A particular medium is not (necessarily) to blame. Even the proliferation of
> what can be perceived as low quality examples of a medium isn't purely to
> blame. A large part of it is in how you interpret it.

Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is
the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in
itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their
value.”

\- Marshall McLuhan

~~~
CoryG89
I would agree? Apple pie is pretty good for lunch, but if a clown is throwing
one at your face it might not be. Smallpox sucks when it's uncontrolled, but
the small amount kept for vaccines is probably a good thing.

~~~
gt_
I wouldn’t blame apple pie for that.

------
matte_black
2017 was bad? My FB stock doesn’t seem to think so.

~~~
nck4222
Are rising stock prices always a sign of company health?

~~~
edanm
Of course not. But they are a sign that professionals, who literally put their
money on the line, think the company is getting more valuable.

~~~
mtgx
Facebook may become better at monetizing the remaining users, even as there is
an exodus, and overall, it could show increasing profits and revenue. This
would "excite investors" but it doesn't mean the company isn't screwed in the
long term if things continue the way they are.

The other guy joked about Blackberry, because even as the US and Canadian
markets were dumping Blackberry, the company continued to see some nice growth
overseas, which also led to record sales, profits and so on. But it was
obvious Blackberry was fighting against time with the iPhone destroying its
_core markets_.

Most investors didn't see it at the time either, because they were just
following the "positive quarterly results," much like Blackberry's leadership
was.

~~~
spyspy
If you believe that investors don't look at non-revenue metrics like MAU you
are sorely mistaken. In fact, it's almost all they care about in this
category. Twitter's stock is in the toilet because their user growth has
tapered, whereas Facebook continues to grow at a healthy clip.

------
anderspitman
I removed the FB and Messenger apps from my phone about 2 weeks ago, and I've
mostly managed to not open it on my desktop until after 6PM, which has
drastically reduced my usage. What finally did it for me was trying to turn
off notifications for messenger and realizing there is apparently no way to
really do this. You can "mute" them for up to 24 hours but in 5 minutes I
couldn't find a way to turn them off permanently. Whether it is possible or
not is besides the point. It's an obvious feature and should be easily
accessible. I decided to start actively avoiding software that doesn't respect
my agency. I'm moving to open source where possible and paid products where
not. I'm sick of software designed for engagement rather than user experience.

~~~
nielsbot
You can use Messenger via the website. No need for Messenger.app...

~~~
jazoom
Facebook forces you to download the app to use Messenger when on an Android
device (possibly others). A third party app is required to avoid that
ridiculousness.

------
Mc_Big_G
I deleted my Facebook account a month or two ago and couldn't be happier with
that decision. I hope everyone else does the same.

~~~
jf
Congratulations! I did the same and it's dramatic how much my life improved as
a result.

------
iiiggglll
> A third line of attack is likely to become important soon, perhaps as soon
> as next year. Former Facebook executive (yes, another dissident insider)
> Antonio Garcia-Martinez argued earlier this year that Facebook's ad
> targeting based on data collected from users is essentially unethical (and
> also that Facebook oversells its targeting ability).

That last parenthetical about overselling points to a fourth line of attack:
fraud. There's been a lot of rumbling for years that FB (and Google for that
matter) are not doing enough to combat fake clicks / views / likes and are
essentially ripping off advertisers. If everyone smells blood in the water all
of a sudden due to these other issues heating up, there could be a lot of
pressure on these companies to provide more transparency. That could bring
their revenues way down.

------
tomgp
Surprised that the article didn’t mention the EUs incoming data protection
laws (GDPR) compliance with which is bound to be costly for Facebook as well
as shifting power towards individuals more broadly.

~~~
modeless
The unintended effect of GDPR, like other regulations aimed at particular
industries, will be to entrench incumbents like Facebook and insulate them
against competition.

~~~
dave5104
How so? I haven't read anything about GDPR, so I'm curious what it means.

------
danschumann
I still like that article "facebook is the junkfood of relationships". Such an
apt metaphor.

~~~
j_s
Facebook Is the Junk Food of Socializing (2015) |
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15782014](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15782014)
two weeks ago.

>kenning:

 _I think cigarettes are a great comparison. I heard it a few years back.

When popular, a huge amount of the population used cigarettes despite growing
research showing that it had a slight but consistent harmful effect. A hooked
individual is unlikely to stop using even when given this evidence, as the
product is addictive and gets stronger with network effects. Younger
generations understood the harm better and had to avoid regular temptation to
engage._

------
lkerrekfjk
I'm not sure what all these articles are complaining. Facebook is in the
business of selling influence, just like Google or Twitter, that's how they
make money. The product is people's attention span, just like TV or newspapers
or any website or business financed by advertisement.

So what is the problem here? the fact that anybody around the world can buy
influence on Facebook? When you needed millions before to buy a spot on TV or
newspapers?

It's the black smith complaining about the automaker all over again.

~~~
mistersquid
The issue is much more subtle than the blacksmith compaining about the
automaker.

A simplified version goes something like: Social media feeds are controlled by
computer algorithms (AI) and the psychological, social, and political effects
of social media are, at best, poorly understood and may, at worst, run counter
to the long term goals of the humans building and using those systems.

Also, because these systems are generally autonomous (complex-ish AI), systems
which do run counter to the goals of society may be doing so without the
intention of the systems' builders.

This was covered here on HN a few days ago [0] and the featured video by
Zeynep Tufecki is clear and accessible (23 mins). [1]

Another compelling analysis into the unexpected negative effects of AI in
social media (in the domain of YouTube children's videos) is James Bridle's
"Something is wrong on the internet" which was featured on HN back in November
of this year. [2]

    
    
      [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891014
      [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891014
      [2] https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the-internet-c39c471271d2
    

EDIT: word order

------
royalghost
I uninstalled the facebook app from my mobile and only use once in a day for
about 10-15 mins in the evening to get update on web. This has become very
effective and I still keep update with some of my friends/relatives there.

I think facebook has to do much larger research on the impact it is having on
wider group of people and not just in western world in terms of politics,
news, kids, humans behavior, etc. I have seen people spending hours and hours
of unproductive time on facebook in very poor and developing countries where
the same time could have been used for more useful stuff.

------
elorant
For me the biggest problem with Facebook is that you bust your ass to obtain
an audience and then you can't reach them all because they change the
algorithm and you have to pay extra. So you're paying initially to advertise
and reach an audience and then you pay again to actually be allowed to say
something to them. That's fucking pathetic. I mean come on Facebook, get your
shit together. Either you'll make money from advertising or from promotions.
You can't have it both ways. You're pissing off businesses, especially the
smaller ones.

------
734786710934
2017 Was Bad for Bloomberg. 2018 Will Be Worse. All of these anti-Facebook
articles should have disclaimers informing readers that they are in
competition with Facebook and that Facebook is winning.

~~~
kevinrpope
Genuinely curious - how do Facebook and Bloomberg compete?

~~~
tim333
For viewer time and attention I guess. As mentioned by another poster FB stock
is up about 50% on the year, the earnings are up a similar amount. I'm
skeptical 2017 was that bad for them.

------
bprasanna
Though many have mentioned in their posts and comments, following things made
me weary of using FB:

1\. More friendlier to businesses - after each N number of posts (where N
sometimes < 5) we can see sponsored posts

2\. Feeling of stalking - after searching few things in e-commerce sites (the
exact same items getting listed in advertisements of sponsored feed). Though
its through the Ad affiliation this happens, its totally creepy to see the
"things" you searched for following you all over the social media.

3\. Pushing for wider attention - though you haven't uploaded any picture of
you, if in someone else's photo you get a part (even in a corner) all your
friends will be notified!

4\. Always-on-top - Their messenger app displays always-on-top floating bubble
in mobile phones whenever there is a notification! Never ever look anywhere
else!

5\. Feeling of being their product - if the data we generate (not the moments
we cherish) is their selling point for being an attractive platform, then
there is no human part to it. We are just the products they sell!

6\. Getting annoyed when an user doesn't login for a long time - sending an
email and text message to say "if you have trouble logging please click this
link"

7\. Thank you animations other custom generated animations - All these
animations are auto generated (may be mostly using AI), though in the end of
the animation it says "Team FB", its more of a "AI @ FB". Why bother creating
it, if it is auto generated!

------
anocendi
Yes! It will definitely be worse for people who are not investing in FB stock.

~~~
dominotw
2017 was bad for people who didn't buy facebook stock.

------
aaavl2821
FB's business model will eventually clash with its value proposition to users.

The hedge fund and institutional investing world has fallen in love with
facebook because it obviously is growing like crazy and scale and in a
profitable manner, but also because it is viewed by many as a modern-day
"value investment" (strange as that sounds), in the sense it has a powerful
competitive moat and compounding returns on investment. but ultimately this
thesis comes down to placing more paid ads in front of users. facebook will
have to choose between cramming more and increasingly intrusive ads into its
platform or dealing with a falling stock price. when it happens who knows, but
it will at some point

the regulatory risk is real but vague. out of curiousity, i wonder how many
people thought the regulatory risk for microsoft in the late 90s was real

------
nikolay
I only use Facebook for work - promoting nonprofit events, but its utility is
diminishing as there is a growing share of people who flee Facebook and it's
now creating double work as I both need to support Facebook, and email and the
format of work are different. Facebook made it especially hard when they
removed the ability to invite the same people from an old event - now I have
to go thru my over 1,000+ and select who I should invite to which event, which
is total nonsense! For personal stuff, I still use Skype and Viber to keep up
with friends and family.

------
zxia31
The title and content is not matching. As a to-customer company, whether it is
a good or bad year depends on how much they earn from their customers and how
much they grow instead of how badly they are regulated or criticized. As long
as people love using Facebook, every year is a good year. If the article
describes that Facebook is losing their users either drastically or gradually,
I would agree with the title saying that it was bad for Facebook.

------
mk89
I think that the main reason of Facebook's failure is that people need someone
to listen to them. Facebook is just about sharing. People will hear you but
you want someone to listen to you, eventually.

So,this feeling of being heard can only satisfy you temporarily until a
certain point, meaning until you realize you need something more. Facebook has
failed iked at what their main purpose is: communication.

Is there an alternative? Yeah, it's called life, listening, opportunities,
etc.

My 2 cents.

------
fpisfun
I hate Facebook with such a passion I really hope this is true.

------
dmitriid
Does anyone take Bloomberg and their "predictions" seriously? I may be biased
(I think, most of the predictions I've seen are in "Apple is suffering badly
and will be suffering" context). But it looks like their "predictions" never
ever hit their mark and only serve to drive traffic.

~~~
kuceram
I think Bloomberg as any other online news try to come with catchy titles like
this one. Apparently, it works. Look at how many comments dit it bring here on
HN. :-)

------
jld
Facebook jumped the shark when it switched from being a social network to
being a news network.

------
riston
I stopped using FB because the feed was full of promoted posts, which made me
really mad. And when your interested in finance/fintech/investment you get
some really suspicious(most likely some scam) ads for promoting some X crypto-
coins.

------
robbiep
Every technological revolution has profound effects on society, our brains and
our ability to interact. Witness [0]. From the printing press to the internet,
a change occurs, it affects our brain and the way we interact, and then
eventually we begin to deal.

The start of the vaccine(/backlash/response) to social media has begun.

[0] [https://xkcd.com/1227/](https://xkcd.com/1227/)

~~~
zelos
Not that I don't take the point, but presumably if mankind were in an endless
decline into intellectual laziness, then each of the writers in that XKCD
comic would be correct: they'd each be sampling a different segment of the
same downward slope.

~~~
CodeCube
I'm torn between wanting to agree with you ("Idiocracy is a documentary!", et
al), and the cognitive dissonance of the greater and greater scientific and
technological achievements we continue to create.

Maybe there's an analogue at work here; like financial/wealth inequality, but
for intellect (that feels incredibly elitist to 'verbalize').

------
johnmarcus
TV also rots kids minds, making them complacent, in case you missed the memo
circa 1960. And now look at all these old zombies running around.

------
rndmwlk
So..their financials are great, and people are staying with the platform
despite their propaganda issues. I'm not following this article.

------
coldcode
You wouldn't know it from their stock.

------
debacle
FUD. Mostly unsubstantiated. Written like Facebook is a pre-IPO company not a
publicly traded one.

