Recently, I was cleaning my apartment and I moved a heavy piece of furniture to vacuum the dust underneath it and I found a set of clear plastic retainers for teeth.
They must have belonged to the previous tenant who had moved out about 6 months earlier.
The retainers looked like they were 3D printed (lots of small ridges on them) and I told my wife that when I had mine (a decade earlier), they were kind of expensive but these ones were 3D printed so they must be a lot cheaper and we can probably just throw them away.
The conversation lasted no more than a minute.
Next day, I was browsing yahoo.com and the ad banner had a picture of a clear plastic retainer and was advertising 3D printed retainers.
Neither me not my wife had posted anything about the retainers anywhere or discussed it with anyone else or even looked it up on any website (neither of us cares about the subject at all; neither dentistry nor 3D printing).
This is the first time I ever saw advertising related to dentistry or 3D printing.
This is not the first time that I've experienced a creepy ad but it was definitely the most disturbing because:
1. It was an extremely specific and niche subject matter which does not relate to me in any way; it was based on an extremely unlikely freak occurrence.
2. I only spoke about it with my wife in an extremely casual way. Neither of us looked it up online on any website afterwards (we verified). The subject matter only occupied our thoughts for an extremely small amount of time.
3. The ad came up the next day after having the conversation.
I have no interest in golf, I have never searched or cared about golf in any way whatsoever. Yet, the next few weeks I started getting ads about golf stuff in FB. The only other real explanation would be that Verizon is selling my viewing information and this is somehow being linked back to my FB account.
Here it is: http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5769a61e91058425008...
I guess all that growth must come from countries that recently got into Facebook.
Facebook was in my no-thanks bucket for a long time, but that has really changed and it didn't involve any significant privacy compromises beyond the usual ad-sales stuff.
By the way, there are a LOT of people using assumed names in these groups. Some of them get reported and return to unleash their annoyance on the rest of the group for "whoever did that". It's a really awkward aspect of the experience IMO.
and then they resolve to stolen identities which makes this whole fb thing awfully fraudulent
Teenagers usually don’t use FB. They have other means to keep in touch with their peer group and they don’t want to be on the same platform as adults are on. But you see once they move away and want to keep in touch with family, they are more likely to be on it.
About 51% of US/C check facebook or messenger every day, and 67% every month. So 16% of people check it but less than daily.
Every once in a while I think about deleting my account but then I remember I have all those people I know only through Facebook.
I have worked for companies with big, really big, user bases. As time passes companies get way better at getting more value from each user. They have more data. They have better software to offer promotions, advertisements, etc. You may be better off with half the users but getting more money from each one of them than with more users but giving low value. Depending on where the lines in the graph cross less users and more money is possible.
I have missed meetups, other social engagements, family photo shares, news and such that were on FB only. Get routinely made fun of by family and friends since I am the "techy" who is "afraid" of technology as they say.
But people I care about I contact via email, chat, talk in person or phone. Maybe I am strange and I just never felt the need to either broadcast to everyone what I am doing or keep an eye on what everyone else is doing unless I am talking to them one one one.
But there is hardly a messaging platform as ubiquitous as Facebook messenger. Not everyone uses it as their main messaging client but almost everyone has one. Having an active Facebook page and group has also done more for my online business than any ad marketing. And Facebook marketplace is like Craigslist but better in almost every way.
I don't care if people make a Facebook account or not but there is certainly value in one, even if you don't care about the "News Feed".
Most of what I've noticed is people no longer posting something on Facebook, then Instygram, then Twitter, then Tumblr, then whatever else is out there. They seem to be coalescing into one or two favored platforms.
People were sharing less and that seemed to be a major issue for them.
I wonder if there is sort of the uncool factor going on. People might "use" FB but it's not cool to post very often or admit to it. 1.56B DAUs, that's 20% of the planet, if you include whatsapp, I think it's staggeringly more. Either they are somehow lying about their numbers and risking potential shareholder lawsuits or it is like shopping at Walmart or eating at McDonald's where the "cool kids" never admit to it but very clearly a good sized chunk of them still do. Lying about the numbers just seems sort of silly to me.
It's odd, none of my same age friends post much on FB; it's vacation brag pictures, various life events or children's milestones sort of stuff. At the same time, messenger might be the best way to contact many of them, better than SMS.
Facebook Inc (FB.O) beat analysts’ estimates for revenue on Wednesday, even as the world’s largest social network agreed to pay a $5 billion fine over data privacy and announced a U.S. antitrust investigation.
In the current political climate, I don't see an antitrust investigation ever leading to any major impact but it's almost inevitable, over the coming decade or so, to see a ton of regulation and forced splits for tech giants. The current system simply can't be healthy.
Patience. Everyone will get their turn.
I hadn't thought about it, but let's make a few assumptions and see how realistic that is.
* 7.7B people in the world.
* Subtract 1.4B people in China (even though plenty of those people actually have FB and login when abroad or via VPN, there are more countries where Facebook is blocked, plus outliers where usage is low).
* We don't want to count people who are really young. There's also a decay in popularity related entirely to age. I'm going to use ages 15-64, simply because the World Bank made it easy to get an estimate: ~65% of the global population.
* We have (7.7-1.4) x .65 = ~4.01B people between 15 and 64 years old in countries with Facebook. Given that Facebook growth skews towards countries with younger populations, I'd say this is a hard floor on what I'll call the "eligible Facebook population".
50% is high at first glance, but keep in mind that we've already excluded most of the low hanging fruit that would make it definitionally impossible for someone to use Facebook. I'd say their number is high, but not spit-take high.
Riddle me this: why would they lie? Shareholders could sue, since they try to infer some value from it there could be other legal consequences. If they only had, say 1billion daily active users instead of 1.56billion, would that really water their value down much? I don't see a competitor coming to eat their lunch that would rationalize lying about that stuff.
Their fraud prevention stuff flagged a bunch of them but >50% of them are still active.
It literally did nothing of real value and was a complete waste of time. And in the case of Facebook probably set them seriously behind in doing actual good marketing because their social graph was completely destroyed by the artificial campaigns.
I would certainly believe 50% of the total population for MAU or numbers hovering near it for the US/C and probably most of Europe for monthly active users. That matches my anecdotal observations, however they claim 75% of the total pop for US/C and 48.9% of the total pop for Europe MAU. To think that somehow they claim the rest of the world has over 50% of its population using facebook once a month, when even Europe doesn't seem to meet this threshold just seems.....
I have just noticed that they try to lump duplicate and false accounts together and give a number of 11%, but then later they state that false accounts are actually 5% bringing the total fake accounts to at least 16%, which I still think is low, but it is getting to a point to where it may not be as clear cut fraud. I would bet their total account numbers would also be helpful in showing how many are duplicates or fake, but not sure they disclose that anywhere, probably due to their shadow accounts as well.
I did consider people with internet access, I just didn't call it out. I think it's beyond reasonable that Facebook has >50% penetration of the total eligible Facebook population with internet access, and I'd believe upwards of 80%. Internet.org essentially exists because Facebook knows that they've been approaching this ceiling for years.
Also, referring to duplicates+false as 11% and then false as 5% doesn't imply 11+5=16. It just means that "not unique individuals" is a superset of "not actually real people at all".
Europe includes all users in Russia and Turkey and Rest of World includes all users in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.
I do agree they probably do mean that mean a superset, the wording is kinda odd maybe to downplay the number of false accounts, which are the real issue not the duplicate ones.
I still think these numbers are false, I think it is probably a service to the people working at instagram and whatsapp, that they aren't reporting these numbers, which basically require them to always go up.
It is highly unlikely they are falsely claiming those numbers. What is likely is that they are including loose interactions e.g. OAuth Login as MAUs.
"Facebook revised its definition of MAU: It would no longer include "third-party pings"—that is, people who are not active Facebook users, but who share content only via another site that's integrated within the Facebook login."
They do mention that they think 11% of their accounts are duplicates. But even then I think the numbers smell off.
It looks fishy
Maybe anything using facebook login counts as an activity. I.e. people that login to spotify with FB, but never use FB.
. We define a monthly 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), in the last 30 days as of the date of measurement. MAUs
are a measure of the size of our global active user community on Facebook.
"The numbers for DAUs and MAUs do not include Instagram, WhatsApp, or Oculus users unless they would otherwise qualify as such users, respectively, based on their other activities on Facebook."
Their old 10Q said this:
> An active user is someone who visited Facebook.com and logged-in (or has been logged in) or who has taken an action with a Facebook feature (for example, clicked a ‘like button.)
The current ones say this:
> a monthly 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), in the last 30 days as of the date of measurement.
Clicking a like button is no longer sufficient to count as an active user. I believe there were articles about this when they changed it, but I'm not sure.
I won't get into my mom's use case. I think she mainly uses them to friend with and snoop on people. Weird lady.
If it is a problem, it sounds like a great one to have. What's best: new old people are being made every day and they are a huge cohort right now.
This will also surprise the youth-o-philes in SV, but young people eventually grow up to be old people and they almost always change drastically in political views, media consumption, and purchase decisions. Sure, they probably won't be on Facebook and the current Republican party will change, but that just means Instagram will be the new old people place and the future Republicans will have made their mark.
This is true. I knew a bunch of really lefty people in the colleges I went to. Now that they're full adults, only one still adheres to that mantra.
My guess about it all is that it's easy to be conservative when you have something to conserve. It's easy to be liberal when you're not invested in a house, neighborhood, career, children, etc... because most of your life is ephemeral.
Given by the amount of youth that support communism I sincerely hope you're wrong.
> Given by the amount of youth that support communism I sincerely hope you're wrong.
As someone in that demographic it sounds like you're listening to way too many conservative sources trying to scare you. I'm very heavily liberal and even I know maybe 1 in 1000 that actually want any form of communism. Most people my age in the US (Millenial / Gen Z border) on the left are very much for the hybrid socialism / capitalism of Bernie and much of Europe.