
The Facebook Papers, Part 1: The great unbundling - walterbell
http://www.recode.net/2016/5/9/11610100/the-facebook-papers-part-1-the-great-unbundling
======
cft
The big media made this choice themselves [1]. Recode in particular [2]. So
they should own up to their past decisions.

1\. [http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-
sectio...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/)

2\. [http://www.recode.net/2014/11/20/11633104/a-note-to-
recode-r...](http://www.recode.net/2014/11/20/11633104/a-note-to-recode-
readers)

------
morgante
In reality, this actually has very little to do with Facebook and has a _ton_
to do with mobile. Even if Facebook didn't exist, I have little doubt that
media companies would be seeing falling recirculation—it's intrinsic to the
platform.

On another note, does anyone know what this quote is referring to?

> Newsrooms have been supported by billionaires and test-prep businesses for
> more esoteric reasons than this.

~~~
siyer
It refers to the Graham Holdings Company which used to own The Washington
Post, still owns Slate, and also owns Kaplan.

~~~
dforrestwilson
They also owned a cable company for revenue stability reasons.

------
walterbell
Could human upvotes of HN stories influence the dispersal of an atomized story
across algorithm-driven social networks? HN loads quickly on mobile and HN
comments provide social context for media stories, while the HN front page
drives traffic from a tech-literate audience.

------
morley
It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with
large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at
least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone
like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal?

~~~
jchendy
The big difference between Facebook and YouTube is that YouTube has the
content directly within their application, whereas with Facebook, users are
still going directly to the original site to access the content. So in your
example, BuzzFeed is still getting money from all the ads on their page when
somebody follows a Facebook link, but Beyonce wouldn't be getting anything
from a YouTube view without the revenue sharing.

But this could all change if instant articles catch on.

~~~
soft_dev_person
My understanding is that publishers can put their own ads in the instant
articles, too. Unless that possibility is revoked, they still get ad views per
article view.

------
Splines
This feels a lot like the deep linking arguments that have been around for a
long time.

------
Aelinsaar
I've just never enjoyed using Facebook. I tried, I instantly despised it, and
have never looked back. It seems like a vast time sink with almost no value
that isn't better derived elsewhere.

~~~
morley
This type of reply always appears on posts _mentioning_ Facebook, let alone
about the product. Yet the fact still stands: billions of people around the
world use Facebook every month. I personally find the stock "I don't use
Facebook" comments off-topic and tiring. Facebook's effect on society is worth
having a reasonable discussion about, whether you use it or not.

~~~
bduerst
It kind of reminds me of the "I don't own a TV" person from the 90's - i.e.
whenever a group starts a discussion about their favorite TV show, that person
let's it be known how much better their life is without TV.

~~~
Aelinsaar
"TV" is an entire medium. Facebook isn't. The difference between someone not
finding use in a single site or service, vs. writing off the entirety of what
an entire a/v format can delivery over decades isn't really similar.

~~~
saganus
Maybe the comparison is made more in terms of the contemporary context for
each medium, instead of in a pure 1 to 1 relation.

Nowadays I would say that Facebook is more of a "format" of sorts than "just a
service", in that it has tremendous power to sway the opinion of large groups
of people all over the world, kind of how the TV was a "format" with a lot of
impact during its time.

Maybe in the past you could've argued the same in e.g. a comparison between TV
and theaters (or other previous format). Maybe people more used to going to
the theaters could've made the same comparison saying that TV is just a "show
in a box" and it's not delivering the same impact as a play.

I could even make the same distinction between Facebook and say Snapchat. To
me, when I use Facebook, "at least" I can get some interesting stories, some
interesting discussions among friends (very seldom but they are there), vs
Snapchat which to me looks like "just a service" to take pictures, but I'm
pretty sure that a teenager could give me a full dissertation on how Snapchat
is much more than just a service and is instead the prime communication media
of their time.

My point being that I believe you might be biased due to age or due to being
born with the TV as the main world-wide reaching medium vs today's kids for
which that medium is now FB/Snapchat/whatever the new thing is, even though in
strict terms you are correct in saying that FB is a service (i.e. it's "just a
webpage") but in the end, taking account the contemporary context for that,
it's really much more.

~~~
Aelinsaar
I don't have any problem understanding why people enjoy and use Snapchat, or
Twitter, or a number of other social media apps and sites. Facebook in
particular however, has always seemed like a place that people go to spend
time that ultimately makes them unhappy.

~~~
dguaraglia
See, I don't care for Snapchat. Always thought it was a dumb idea sold on a
false premise ("oh, but you are safe because the image is gone immediately!",
like anyone but their engineers know exactly what's going on at the storage
level.) But that's me, some of my friends love it and spend hours doing face
swaps and sharing mustached pictures.

So, to each their own. The fact that you don't like Facebook doesn't mean you
can dismiss it any more than I can dismiss Snapchat. Just look at the numbers
mentioned in the article. We couldn't care less about these systems, and yet
there they are. I guess that's what everyone here is trying to say.

------
askyourmother
Shame on all of you here that use fb, build apps or services on it. You do
know better, yet help them continue with their behaviour as mentioned in the
article.

~~~
pwnna
This comment is not productive. Using facebook doesn't mean you support the
company. It just means that your friends hangout there and you don't have
choice.

It's the same as in college when your friends all went to a particular place
to eat by default and since you want to remain friends with them, you have to
go there regardless.

~~~
loceng
Of course you're supporting the company. They benefit from you being on there,
and therefore they earn revenues from that.

~~~
yeukhon
Would you say living in country X is also supporting country X her wrongdoing
because otherwise we back to the argument "we don't have choice."

By the way, having a FB because friends are on is not a choice problem. It's
simply because some people find FB convenient to connect with their friends.

~~~
ryandrake
Choosing convenience is still a choice. Many of my friends are probably on
Facebook, but I neither know nor care. That doesn't mean I can't keep in
touch.

~~~
yeukhon
Right, I meant to say "no you do have a choice" to his "no sometimes we don't
have a choice."

