Six Reasons Meta (Formerly Facebook) is In Trouble (msn.com) 117
Meta's stock plunged 26% Thursday — its biggest one-day drop ever, lowering its marketing valuation by more than $230 billion. And then on Friday it dropped just a little bit more.
A New York Times technology correspondent offers six reasons Meta is in trouble: User growth has hit a ceiling. The salad days of Facebook's wild user growth are over. Even though the company on Wednesday recorded modest gains in new users across its so-called family of apps — which includes Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp — its core Facebook social networking app lost about half a million users over the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.
That's the first such decline for the company in its 18-year history, during which time it had practically been defined by its ability to bring in more new users. The dip signaled that the core app may have reached its peak. Meta's quarterly user growth rate was also the slowest it has been in at least three years. Meta's executives have pointed to other growth opportunities, like turning on the money faucet at WhatsApp, the messaging service that has yet to generate substantial revenue. But those efforts are nascent. Investors are likely to next scrutinize whether Meta's other apps, such as Instagram, might begin to hit their top on user growth....
Apple's changes are limiting Meta and Google is stealing online advertising share. Last spring, Apple introduced an "App Tracking Transparency" update to its mobile operating system, essentially giving iPhone owners the choice as to whether they would let apps like Facebook monitor their online activities. Those privacy moves have now hurt Meta's business and are likely to continue doing so...
On Wednesday, David Wehner, Meta's chief financial officer, noted that as Apple's changes have given advertisers less visibility into user behaviors, many have started shifting their ad budgets to other platforms. Namely Google. In Google's earnings call this week, the company reported record sales, particularly in its e-commerce search advertising. That was the very same category that tripped up Meta in the last three months of 2021. Unlike Meta, Google is not heavily dependent on Apple for user data. Mr. Wehner said it was likely that Google had "far more third-party data for measurement and optimization purposes" than Meta's ad platform. Mr. Wehner also pointed to Google's deal with Apple to be the default search engine for Apple's Safari browser. That means Google's search ads tend to appear in more places, taking in more data that can be useful for advertisers. That's a huge problem for Meta in the long term, especially if more advertisers switch to Google search ads.
Meta's other problems include competition from TikTok (and the problems with monetizing "Reels," Meta's own TikTok clone on Instagram), as well as pending antitrust investigations (and the way it hampers future social media acquisitions). But with Meta expected to continue spending more than $10 billion a year on virtual reality, "still the province of niche hobbyists [that] has yet to really break into the mainstream," the article also suggests its final reason for why Meta is in trouble: that "Spending on the metaverse is bonkers."
A New York Times technology correspondent offers six reasons Meta is in trouble: User growth has hit a ceiling. The salad days of Facebook's wild user growth are over. Even though the company on Wednesday recorded modest gains in new users across its so-called family of apps — which includes Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp — its core Facebook social networking app lost about half a million users over the fourth quarter from the previous quarter.
That's the first such decline for the company in its 18-year history, during which time it had practically been defined by its ability to bring in more new users. The dip signaled that the core app may have reached its peak. Meta's quarterly user growth rate was also the slowest it has been in at least three years. Meta's executives have pointed to other growth opportunities, like turning on the money faucet at WhatsApp, the messaging service that has yet to generate substantial revenue. But those efforts are nascent. Investors are likely to next scrutinize whether Meta's other apps, such as Instagram, might begin to hit their top on user growth....
Apple's changes are limiting Meta and Google is stealing online advertising share. Last spring, Apple introduced an "App Tracking Transparency" update to its mobile operating system, essentially giving iPhone owners the choice as to whether they would let apps like Facebook monitor their online activities. Those privacy moves have now hurt Meta's business and are likely to continue doing so...
On Wednesday, David Wehner, Meta's chief financial officer, noted that as Apple's changes have given advertisers less visibility into user behaviors, many have started shifting their ad budgets to other platforms. Namely Google. In Google's earnings call this week, the company reported record sales, particularly in its e-commerce search advertising. That was the very same category that tripped up Meta in the last three months of 2021. Unlike Meta, Google is not heavily dependent on Apple for user data. Mr. Wehner said it was likely that Google had "far more third-party data for measurement and optimization purposes" than Meta's ad platform. Mr. Wehner also pointed to Google's deal with Apple to be the default search engine for Apple's Safari browser. That means Google's search ads tend to appear in more places, taking in more data that can be useful for advertisers. That's a huge problem for Meta in the long term, especially if more advertisers switch to Google search ads.
Meta's other problems include competition from TikTok (and the problems with monetizing "Reels," Meta's own TikTok clone on Instagram), as well as pending antitrust investigations (and the way it hampers future social media acquisitions). But with Meta expected to continue spending more than $10 billion a year on virtual reality, "still the province of niche hobbyists [that] has yet to really break into the mainstream," the article also suggests its final reason for why Meta is in trouble: that "Spending on the metaverse is bonkers."
Facebook VR is likely to be moot soon (Score:4, Interesting)
With Apple reportedly planning a VR headset that will target the iOS market (which covers the overwhelming majority of young people these days), Facebook's only-compatible-with-Windows system is in a world of trouble, IMO. I figure they have maybe 30 days to have Oculus Link working on Mac and iOS, or they're doomed. And even then, without the marketing hype that companies like Apple bring to the table, they're probably still doomed. They sat on their laurels too long compatibility-wise.
IMO, Facebook's best bet would be to spin Oculus off into a separate company again and cut its losses now before Apple's expected announcement takes their stock price down a peg.
Re: Facebook VR is likely to be moot soon (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Quest 2 sold more than 10 million units last year, that's more than the Xbox series x. It's becoming mainstream and that is why apple is making their own. And the Quest is a standalone VR headset that doesn't require a PC. That's how most people use it and Apple's plan for their headset.
The critical detail you're missing is that people already own iOS games, and would have to buy a second copy on a different platform to play the games on Oculus because they don't support Oculus Link on anything but Windows. Chances are, anything Apple builds will run iOS games natively out of the box.
Re: Facebook VR is likely to be moot soon (Score:2)
Quest is in stock, unlike Xbox (Score:2)
The demand for the XBox X is intense, and Microsoft has had serious supply difficulties. XBox X sales are massively limited by people's inability to actually buy the thing. If they were in stock, they would sell many times more than they have.
The Quest 2 is in stock. I can buy one tomorrow from a choice of retailers and that's been true for a while. I can't buy an Xbox X tomorrow off the shelf (either online or in a shop) tomorrow from anyone. I can join a long queue, or participate in a retailer lottery, o
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Meta VR doesn't need a PC, it hardly even supports it anymore. Link still exists, but that's more a backward compatibility crutch than something they actually care about. They have no new PCVR games in the making and all new features (hand tracking, AR, etc.) are Quest2-exclusive and not even supported on the PC side. Their focus is completely on Quest2 and PCVR is little more than a failed experiment from the past for them, no surprise given that Quest2 has sold 10x as much in year than their all their pre
Re: (Score:2)
With Apple reportedly planning a VR headset that will target the iOS market (which covers the overwhelming majority of young people these days), Facebook's only-compatible-with-Windows system is in a world of trouble, IMO. I figure they have maybe 30 days to have Oculus Link working on Mac and iOS, or they're doomed.
The distortion field is strong in this one. The iOS is overwhelming only in a certain North American market. If it works in Android and Windows, they probably have the whole world south and east of Mexico already covered. Which isn't to say I'm in favor of any mobile version of the Meta gear (whatever it's now called). I see a zombie apocalypse of Walkers wearing VR goggles.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The iOS is overwhelming only in a certain North American market.
I assumed he was talking about North America and other advanced countries of high income. I don't think anyone assumed that, I don't know, in Cambodia, the iPhone was the most popular device.
Also, note they said "overwhelming majority of young people." I think that's probably true in a lot more than the US. Apple in Japan for example already passed 50% market share [imore.com]. And if you look at the age demographic breakdown you will see it is especially popular amongst younger people. We can quibble over what
Re: Facebook VR is likely to be moot soon (Score:3)
In most Asian countries, Apple products are a status symbol. This doesn't refute your point but should potentially make it more clear how fashion can change and if it does turn against apple, you will likely see the greatest fall from grace in history. However Apple understands this and puts lot of effort into maintaining it's position and branding.
Re: (Score:1)
> the iOS market (which covers the overwhelming majority of young people these days)
LOL
No.
No point even bothering with the rest of your post. When you're that wrong from the very outset it's just pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
VR is not compelling. If Apple insists on winning VR, it will be the hill they die on.
What facebook really needs to do is stop taking bribes from google and implement header bidding themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Oculus is plenty compelling. It could benefit from more GPU power and wider field of view,
but it works pretty well. Well enough to burn some experiences into people's memories.
I was surprised how good the hardware was. The software offerings though, suck.
Not much imagination and it's either cartoon world, zombie/war world, or zoom-face-hugger world.
There are a few titles that show promise as a new story telling medium.
It's just early. Apple will probably blow it wide open in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
With Apple reportedly planning a VR headset that will target the iOS market (which covers the overwhelming majority of young people these days), Facebook's only-compatible-with-Windows system is in a world of trouble, IMO. I figure they have maybe 30 days to have Oculus Link working on Mac and iOS, or they're doomed. And even then, without the marketing hype that companies like Apple bring to the table, they're probably still doomed. They sat on their laurels too long compatibility-wise.
IMO, Facebook's best bet would be to spin Oculus off into a separate company again and cut its losses now before Apple's expected announcement takes their stock price down a peg.
Do you think Apple is really going to reveal their AR/VR Goggles at their March Event? I figured it would be the "One More Thing" that is teased at WWDC (although that could be the ASi Mac Pro).
But you're right; Oculus/Meta has ignored Apple for far too long. . .
Re: (Score:3)
Doubt it, but who knows. I'd expect that to be a separate event. It's a big enough change in direction that they would want a big media splash, and you don't get the hype machine going nearly as well with a "one more thing".
Then again, I'm not sure I would necessarily expect an Apple Silicon Mac Pro in 2022. I mean, I'm not ruling it out, but it's iffy, IMO. The way I look at it, Apple has so far built only up to an eight-core chip. (I'm deliberately ignoring the low-speed cores, which are great for p
Re: (Score:2)
Doubt it, but who knows. I'd expect that to be a separate event. It's a big enough change in direction that they would want a big media splash, and you don't get the hype machine going nearly as well with a "one more thing".
You're probably right.
But it could still happen in a "Featured Segment". But since it is a Mobile Device (here comes GoggleOS!), it will likely be revealed in the Fall.
Then again, I'm not sure I would necessarily expect an Apple Silicon Mac Pro in 2022. I mean, I'm not ruling it out, but it's iffy, IMO.
I think a couple of factors are Pandemic slowing pretty much everything down, and TSMC's Capacity (or lack thereof). And you're probably right that Apple is waiting for that 3 nm Process Node, to make the Mx CPU/SoC in the Mac Pro (and new iMac Pro?) work with a reasonable Power Budget (and cost/yield)!
Plus, I think they are having quite a fe
Re: (Score:2)
The way I look at it, Apple has so far built only up to an eight-core chip. (I'm deliberately ignoring the low-speed cores, which are great for people idling in Safari, but are mostly uninteresting in terms of actual performance.) And there's a good reason for that. Building a massively multicore architecture is... enormously complex, and you get less and less CPU performance with each added core
The Mac Pro currently maxes out at 28 cores. The M1 Max currently is stomping that 28-core Mac Pro's CPU at single-core performance (1782 Geekbench versus 1152 for the Mac Pro), but its multicore performance still falls short by a decent margin (12786 Geekbench multicore versus 19950 for the 28-core Mac Pro). That puts its multicore performance just barely better than a 12-core Mac Pro (11882). Given that Intel had to bump the core count by a factor of 2.3-ish to get a 1.67x increase in speed, you can probably assume that Apple would have to roughly double the core count (to 16 high-speed cores) to compete with the 28-core Mac Pro in multicore performance. And that would result in a chip that is so large and complex that they'd never consider using it in anything else.
But wait!
We really can't necessarily compare the gain-per-core percentages of the Itanium (Xeon) architecture with the Apple Silicon architecture. Just can't compare Apples to Bunnies so easily. . .
Sure. It all depends on the connectivity between the cores, and whether they have similar bottlenecks with regards to things like RAM speed, shared cache speed, etc. So that's just an educated guess, obviously. The diminishing returns could be somewhat better, or it could be a lot worse.
Or they could just buy or hire a company that has experience building massively multicore chips, such as Ampere [crn.com]. There's nothing that says that the future Mac Pro has to have an Apple-manufactured CPU in it.
Then again, maybe somebody in Apple's chip design team is just itching to bring back ccNUMA support in the Mach kernel, and they'll use two separate M1 Max CPUs (possibly with separate RAM) like some of the pundits have suggested. :-D (No, I'm not serious. I'd be absolutely shocked.)
Actually, it seems that xnu/mach is not NUMA-aware. Instead, it runs the memory of the Xeon Mac Pros in Interleave Mode:
https://apple.stackexchange.co... [stackexchange.com]
That's becaus
Cash generator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With Apple reportedly planning a VR headset that will target the iOS market (which covers the overwhelming majority of young people these days)...
While there are deffinitly more Apple users among young people I wouldn't say it's "overwhelming" https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] . Still a significant potential problem for Meta though.
Re: (Score:1)
Well that was by far the most steaming pile of idiotic shit Ive seen here for a while, HCQ Zinc and worm tablets do fuck all to help covid, now fuck off back to the lunatic asylum and let the adults talk.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With you except for Zinc:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov]
Zinc plays an important part in the immune system, most people will get enough Zinc through normal diet but athletes can need to take supplements because a lot of exercise will deplete your bodies Zinc, poor diet likely could also be a cause for Zinc deficiency. /off-topic
Re: (Score:3)
You aren't trying hard enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What is it like to be such a fucking moron like yourself? What does it feel like to be manipulated by Uncle Vlad and Chairman Xi and Donald Trump at the same time? No wonder you're fucking nuts!
Re: (Score:1)
I have other criticisms (Score:5, Interesting)
I use fb for my business, showing my products and seeing what my customers are making. I clearly see a lot of problems.
Anti vax nonsense is abundant, along with the most awful political hate and misinformation. The fb response is to use moderation robots that inaccurately flag and penalize harmless stuff while leaving the toxic stuff untouched.
Then there is the fraud. Over 90% of the ads I see are fraudulent. The scammers scrape a legitimate video for a $10K tool and offer it for $29.95. I often see 10 or 20 of these, each with a different seller's name, each day.
Finally, the quality of the content itself is disappointing. Few people take the time to write an original post or show an original photo. Most simply "like and share" some stupid meme.
Between toxic crap, fraudulent ads and mindless memes, only a tiny fraction of what I see is useful
Re:I have other criticisms (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not supposed to be useful, it's supposed to be addictive.
Like any drug though, people get saturated. They don't get the same high after they've been doing it for a while.
Re: (Score:1)
FAANG - MAANG (Score:2)
The market favors gatekeepers - which means platform owners - and nobody else. 38% of the world population are active Facebook users, supposedly. If even at that size they are subject to google and Apple's whims, then google and Apple own the internet, period.
Re: (Score:2)
38% of the world population are active Facebook users, supposedly. If even at that size they are subject to google and Apple's whims, then google and Apple own the internet, period.
That is an extremely good point.
Don't forget about the people getting kicked off (Score:1)
Re:Don't forget about the people getting kicked of (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it be ok to censor any conservative content, or other content for that matter? I get the hate thing, kkk, nazi, etc. They want to physically harm / kill people. I'm not conservative, so I don't get what they post unless someone brings it up as I was banned for this.
Considering one side thinks anti-vaxxers want to physically harm / kill people, and the other side thinks vaccine pushers want to physically harm / kill people... when is Musk heading for Mars again?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am planning to delete my facebook account, so I logged in to prepare my content for downloading, which took a few minutes. While the archive was preparing, I chatted with a few old friends, looked at updates etc. The point is, I was using the site. When the archive was ready (it was only about 18MB) I tried to download it. Boom, all of a sudden, facebook says "ooh, we don't recognize your device, now we will log you out." WTF, I was interacting with their site the whole time. The only conclusion I can dra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't forget about the people getting kicked of (Score:5, Interesting)
I think maybe you don't grasp the fact that Facebook's customers aren't its users. The users are the product. Facebook only cares when it loses users that advertisers want.
Parler is estimated to have fewer than a million active users. Facebook stock is having trouble because its number of active users has topped out at twenty-nine-hundred times that figure. The great illusion of Facebook is that the world is populated with people just like you, so when people like you abandon the platform it seems like it *has* to be a big deal. And to you it may be, but Facebook doesn't care unless it loses ad revenue. That's just not far-right conservatives; it's any group of outliers.
Now my Facebook universe is populated with people who really like science fiction books. If people like that moved to a new sci-fi discussion forum, it would seem to *me* like a big change, but in fact people who *buy books* are not that important to Facebook. It'd rather we be interested in things more profitable to them, which is why it keeps trying to engage us in superhero movies and TV shows. It has never attempted to get me to buy a *book*, because book publishers don't buy ads. Disney does.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh noes! (Score:3)
Aboutface (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Signal is like whatsapp but open source and not owned by facebook. It's not easy to convince your friends to try it, but if you can, it's pretty good as a messaging app.
Real Reason (Score:4, Interesting)
The real reason that facebook is failing is because it abandoned it's original purpose and turned in to shit. It used to be that facebook was a neutral platform to keep up with friends, family, and share ideas in groups with little intervention from the platform.
Now they routinely fact-check, censor, and remove posts that do not fit the "community standards" of the platform. People do not like having their ideas edited or censored by a 3rd party. These attempts to regulate what is on the platform are driving people away in droves. Three fourths of my friends on facebook no longer comment there, most of them have abandoned the platform. For the record my friends on facebook are people I actually have known or know in real life. Not some random stranger that just wanders by.
Re:Real Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
It used to be that facebook was a neutral platform to keep up with friends, family, and share ideas in groups with little intervention from the platform.
Now it's kind of hard to use it to keep up with friends. Facebook would rather show you outside news stories than stuff from your friends.
Re:Real Reason (Score:5, Informative)
That to, and over abundance of ads, and scams. There was 4 scams on my facebook "wall" in one day. I reported everyone and facebook refused to take them down. Tell me that Ellen DeGeneres commenting on one of my comments on facebook offering me free Amazon cards is not a scam. Especially, if that Ellen DeGeneres account has less than 200 followers and is only 3 months old?
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, Ellen is prolific and friendly. Shame on you for being a doubter, hater.
I will have you know that I recently bought a thousand NFT tokens that Ellen offered me. We are probably personal friends now. They are going to be worth a lot soon.
Hfsp.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just the same here. used my last modpoint to upvote you, which ended up in a +2 Troll rating for your post, hence i bothered to reply.
The problem not limited to facebook. It seems moderating content is a mission-impossible and the 'better' the algorithm , the less useable it gets. Youtube having similar issues. I'd like to see post by my friends and subscribed groups please, but if they do i don't see them, and they post less and less, me included. There's just too much noise. At least put why my friends po
Re:Real Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
I would agree with this assessment. We where in a private group talking about Chicago gangsters of the '30s. I posted a picture of Al Capone wanted poster. It got flagged as "promoting a dangerous individual" by some idiot or algorithm. On what planet is a gangster that has been dead 75 years a dangerous individual?
Re: (Score:2)
In general I might agree, but /. keeps me coming back because as long as the topic is not politically sensitive to the Chinese or Russians it tends to be a good discourse.
We all need to find things that bring us together rather than angry at something. Real information might avoid some of those issues, but the truth is that without reinforcing a common benefit it is useless.
Re: (Score:3)
The real reason that facebook is failing is because it abandoned it's original purpose and turned in to shit. It used to be that facebook was a neutral platform to keep up with friends, family, and share ideas in groups with little intervention from the platform. Now they routinely fact-check, censor, and remove posts that do not fit the "community standards" of the platform. People do not like having their ideas edited or censored by a 3rd party. These attempts to regulate what is on the platform are driving people away in droves. Three fourths of my friends on facebook no longer comment there, most of them have abandoned the platform. For the record my friends on facebook are people I actually have known or know in real life. Not some random stranger that just wanders by.
Just what part of this is a troll? Nothing thats what.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots, that's who - a well reasoned argument that I agree with. +5 insightful would be appropriate.
Re:Real Reason (Score:4, Interesting)
The real reason that facebook is failing is because it abandoned it's original purpose and turned in to shit. It used to be that facebook was a neutral platform to keep up with friends, family, and share ideas in groups with little intervention from the platform.
Now they routinely fact-check, censor, and remove posts that do not fit the "community standards" of the platform. People do not like having their ideas edited or censored by a 3rd party. These attempts to regulate what is on the platform are driving people away in droves. Three fourths of my friends on facebook no longer comment there, most of them have abandoned the platform. For the record my friends on facebook are people I actually have known or know in real life. Not some random stranger that just wanders by.
You're about half right. The problem isn't the censorship so much as that they feel that the censorship is necessary. And the reason they feel that the censorship is necessary is because they're using algorithms to determine what content to show people based on how much you react to similar content, so if content p**ses you off and you reply to it, you'll probably see more of it....
The entire effing model is wrong, from top to bottom. There's too much algorithmic manipulation, and their cure for algorithmic manipulation is more algorithmic manipulation. Yet at no point did anybody think to let users be in charge of what types of content that they want to see. If they did, I'd say "less news, fewer images with text in them, more photos, more personal posts".
Re: (Score:2)
Almost on the money. I don't think it has to do with censorship/regulation though. It's because they moved from being a "friends" platform to being a "friends plus social groups plus business plus whatever people want to sell you" platform.
I really don't care about anything other than the friends parts. Once they added the rest, it was all a bit commercial shit-show, and one that I quickly abandoned.
Dog pilling onto Facebook (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
At the end of the day, they will be going nowhere for the foreseeable future. Everyone is just dog pilling onto Facebook and since it went down 26%, it's now going to $0.
Could I interest you in some myspace stock? https://myspace.com/ [myspace.com]
The idea that Facebook is some kind of too big to fail juggernaut, never to not be the 500 pound gorilla of social media is pretty optimistic.
Re: (Score:1)
How's Google+ doing?
As Facebook goes, so will meta (Score:3)
Problem is that first the kids joined FB, then got bored with it, then the old folks joined and it got plenty weird. A lot of them seem to be getting bored with it as well. How much medical disinformation and left-right wing hatred can you put up with? Along with FB's radicalizing one step at a time "Suggested Pages" can you get anything that's less fun?
I submit you cannot.
And now Meta appears to be going woke, with sexual harassment as a thing between pixels.
As I've said many times, I have to be there for work. Otherwise there's just no way. Boring and annoying at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
And now Meta appears to be going woke
Woke. n. Something I don't like and by the way I'm a fuckwit.
The actual evidence is that facebook favours right wing opinions, and you'd have to be a complete moron to believe that Mark Zuckerberg is left wing, and that one of the largest capitalist organisations on the entire planet is too.
As I've said many times, I have to be there for work. Otherwise there's just no way. Boring and annoying at the same time.
No you don't have to be. You won't die and there's plenty of
Facebook will always track you (Score:5, Interesting)
giving iPhone owners the choice as to whether they would let apps like Facebook monitor their online activities
The point is not to allow Facebook to track you. They can and they always will. The point is to allow all other apps to track you for Facebook. *That* is what is now not possible anymore. So that when your "whatever" app launches, it doesn't know which Facebook user you are.
That's a definitive plus for privacy. Let's see when Google follows in those tracks (hint: never). And yes, I know, Apple doesn't care about your privacy. It's just that their interests align with ours for now on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to tone down the hate messages though. Take a deep breath.
Six reasons and they missed the big one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, when MSN spun this with six reasons they missed the big one:
Heavy censorship has led much of their user base to migrate to other forums
Not only do they censor opinions held by roughly half the (US) population, but their algorithms and/or human censors routinely misinterpret statements, missing humor, misinterpreting idiom, etc. (This is especially true for posters who are conservative, rural, strongly (Christian or several others) religious, or otherwise non-urban and non left-wing, and it can also just crop up randomly.)
Many posters who were heavily hit, both conservative and otherwise, have established accounts at other, less- or differently-censoring sites, and taken their activity there. Many of those interested in their postings have followed them, as well. The original Facebook account is typically not killed off, but its activity drops off, perhaps to an occasional post informing any straggling followers where to go to find their old friends.
Facebook alternatives where these people can "talk" more freely have achieved critical mass and reputations as "places to go". There's a lot of positive feedback in such moves. So I expect them to continue, and don't expect Facebook to be able to recover its previous status, even if they now completely scrap their censorship policies and processes (which I doubt they'd be able to do even if they realized how badly this hurt them).
Re:Six reasons and they missed the big one. (Score:5, Informative)
Purely observation bias. Because people in your circle are getting censored, you think "you" are getting more censored than others.
But you don't know whether "The Other Side" also gets censored, since you don't know anyone there.
There's plenty of research out there that basically says there is no inherent "Anti Right Bias", just as there isn't an inherent "Anti Left Bias".
There is however an "Anti Bullshit Bias" which a lot of people get caught up in. But again, not noticeably more on one end of the political spectrum than the other.
Re:Six reasons and they missed the big one. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Six reasons and they missed the big one. (Score:4, Insightful)
Purely observation bias. Because people in your circle are getting censored, you think "you" are getting more censored than others.
The point isn't whether conservatives (for instance) are being censored more than others. The point is that people are being censored and reacting by moving to other platforms.
The conservatives (and several overlapping groups) have a perception that they are being systematically suppressed and a big enough mass to set up alternative venues and move to them - breaking the ice and providing some venues that others might use.
But broader and more "egalitarian" censorship (and/or misfired "rule enforcement" on postings that don't rate it) just means that Facebook is driving off even MORE of their user base. So the problem for their bottom line is even WORSE.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, when MSN spun this with six reasons they missed the big one:
Heavy censorship has led much of their user base to migrate to other forums
Not only do they censor opinions held by roughly half the (US) population, but their algorithms and/or human censors routinely misinterpret statements, missing humor, misinterpreting idiom, etc. (This is especially true for posters who are conservative, rural, strongly (Christian or several others) religious, or otherwise non-urban and non left-wing, and it can also just crop up randomly.)
Many posters who were heavily hit, both conservative and otherwise, have established accounts at other, less- or differently-censoring sites, and taken their activity there. Many of those interested in their postings have followed them, as well. The original Facebook account is typically not killed off, but its activity drops off, perhaps to an occasional post informing any straggling followers where to go to find their old friends.
Facebook alternatives where these people can "talk" more freely have achieved critical mass and reputations as "places to go". There's a lot of positive feedback in such moves. So I expect them to continue, and don't expect Facebook to be able to recover its previous status, even if they now completely scrap their censorship policies and processes (which I doubt they'd be able to do even if they realized how badly this hurt them).
Alternately I avoid FB because I don't want to argue with acquaintances or even relatives who post inflammatory content.
I was very close to unfriending and breaking ties with one friend who kept posting Tucker Carlson and other white supremacist propaganda. After FB announced one of its algorithm changes the stream of inflammatory content suddenly from his account stopped as well.
What you see as "censorship" is also preventing a toxic atmosphere.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Russia spies do; they pretend to be Ukrainian.
Re: (Score:3)
"Tucker Carlson" "other white supremacist propaganda" lol just to funny!
Tucker Carlson's long time head writer and protege resigned after being outed as a white supremacist [cnn.com], he's repeatedly packaged up white supremacist talking points [esquire.com], he's even talking 'great replacement' theory now [rollingstone.com].
I'm sorry, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist pushing white supremacy to his audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really ;) lol OK!
So do you deny his long-time head writer was a white supremacist who bragged on white supremacist forums about getting white supremacist talking points into Carlson's show, or do you think this individual's beliefs and actions do not reflect on Carlson and his show?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there were a mod of "-1 overuse of bold face", maybe. But "-1 troll" should not be used for "I don't agree."
Sorry 'bout that. I tried to copy the original article's "bold the summary sentence, back to non-bold for the details" style. But I didn't get the /b tag in correctly.
Circle of life. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the real reason.. (Score:2)
Kids don't want to be on the same social network as their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Kids don't want to be on the same social network as their parents.
Until they have kids, then they insist on it.
Meta is inherently fraudulent (Score:1)
Meta is only possible because very few people understand how much information they collect about us. When given a fully informed choice, most people reject the privacy invasion. This is not a fair deal but rather a fraud, and that cannot be a sustainable long-term business model. GDPR is closing in, and other legislators have also seen the business model for what it really is.
Facebook must, and will, be replaced and destroyed. The sooner, the better.
They made it a moral issue (Score:3)
It would be one thing if Facebook was just in doldrums because of demographic change in it's userbase (younger users shift to different platforms) or a practical sense (site has gotten too complex, usability, other social media is more focused, etc) and those issues are also true but on top of that there is the issue that even among the other large tech firms there is a (deserved) reputation of really damaging and unethical behavior. I think for many it's a step over the line of what we have come to expect out of soulness corporate profit seeking.
It's probably a small percentage but there is some amount of pepople who will just refuse to use Facebook products on pure principle grounds and I would imagine that percentage is higher than Google, Microsoft, Apple, and even Amazon.
Wait... (Score:2)
Six Reasons Meta (Formerly Facebook) is In Trouble
There are only six?
TikTok are pushing ads HARD these days (Score:2)
I'd say around 50% of the ads I see when playing sort-of-free games on iOS are for TikTok but I've never seen a single ad for Facebook, Meta or Oculus.
stop treating us like children (Score:2)
On the one hand, FB is very clearly not for children, with rules in place for not allowing kids 13 on the platform.
On the other hand, as adults, we're getting suspended ("FB Jail") for not just profanity, but even just clever metaphor.
So yeah, you wonder why adults are quitting? Treating us like children is gonna do it real fast. You wonder why teens and college kids aren't bothering to join? They're hearing their parents yell about getting treated like children and put in FB jail for telling a fascist he
Re: (Score:1)
> When it happens enough times, combined with getting more posts from pages you don't care all that much about and very little posts from your own real-life friends, the "I don't give a crap anymore" takes over.
Live by the network effect, die the by network effect.
They're still Facebook (Score:2)
And their in trouble for exactly 1 reason: Joe Biden has shown every sign of actually enforcing anti-trust laws, and the way Facebook has survived is by buying out their competitors and then funneling the users back into Facebook.
This is necessary because no kid wants to be on the same network as their parents. Meaning every few years a new social network com
Reputation catching up with facebook? (Score:2)
Maybe people are beginning to realize that doing business with facebook long term is a bad idea.
Facebook has been replaced (Score:1)
Overblown media hysteria (Score:1)
This is great time to buy Meta stock. $11 APPU, $30 ARPU x 3 billion
Users of 1 app hit a ceiling because they have the whole planet. They can refine and pivot it.
They have the deep pockets to experiment with complex new apps.
The best thing would be for Facebook to announce an international incubator of independent apps that they provide support and assistance to launching. This way, it's "cool indie" and not "apps for old people."
on Meta/Facebook being in trouble (Score:1)
well, it COULD be... (Score:2)
...that they have been the focus of a dogpiling media and most of the political elite for at least 5 years, for their part in providing data to Cambridge Analytica that helped Trump win, presumably making them complicit in his victory. (Since it's inconceivable, you know, that half the country would vote for him for reasons.)
Oh, and they sold what, $50k in ads to the Russians, allowing them, in Ms Clinton's words to "hack the election" in favor of Trump, the candidate her own planners promoted as their ide
toxicity (Score:2)
People are finding Facebook really toxic. Many people, including myself, use it as a communications platform not a dopamine hit and block all the other crap and STILL can't escape it. Facebook's algorithms only know how to make things more toxic.
I think there numbers on user decline are massively understated. If they add up user hours and active users I think it would paint a dramatically more dire image for them.
There are many voices out there complaining about censorship on facebook and all this, but pe
No Value (Score:2)
In the end, capitalism runs on the value proposition: is the quo worth the quid? Though connectivity was appealing at the beginning, people are beginning to realize that FB and all social media are nothing but gimmicks--more like attention traps--to distract users from all the ads they are being fed.
The user pays a massive quid in terms of time and attention, and there is no quo. The transaction is so one-sided that it is tantamount to rape.
Reason Meta (Formerly Facebook) is In Trouble (Score:1)
Can we hope? Can we hope? (Score:1)