Slashdot Mirror
Why Facebook's Network Effects Are Overrated
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from a contrarian take on the power of Facebook from hacker Benjamin Mako-Hill: "A lot of people interested in free software, and user autonomy and network services are very worried about Facebook. Folks are worried for the same reason that so many investors are interested: the networks effects brought by hundreds of millions of folks signed up to use the service. ... Facebook is vulnerable to the next thing more than many technology firms that have benefited from network effects in the past. If users are given compelling reasons to switch to something else, they can with less trouble and they will. That compelling reason might be a new social network with better features or an awesome distributed architecture that allows freedom for users and the ability of those users to benefit from new and fantastic things that Facebook's overseers would never let them have and without the things Facebook's users suffer through today. Or it might be a sexier proprietary box to store users' private information. It doesn't mean that I'm not worried about Facebook. I remain deeply worried. It's just not very hard for me to imagine the end."
Users don't care about who owns their data.
Sit down with the average user and explain to them that Facebook owns their comments, photos, videos, metadata - and they totally don't care. Suggest to them that Facebook might start charging the user for the service (obviously they won't) and the user will freak out as that costs them something real and tangible.
The author of this article is basically saying that Facebook is vulnerable to failure because the mass of people might leave and join another service. The reason for that happening would be to join a free and open network, but as I stated before (without evidence) most users don't care about a company owning their data anyway - so it's not going to happen.
For Facebook to fail it has to stop innovating and offering new features, and a competitor has to come up with something new and cool. People will not "leave" Facebook - they'll sign up with the competitor and forget to go back to Facebook to check on what's going on.
Facebook is going to be around for a while yet, regardless of if geeks "get it" or think it's worth something.
Facebook has reached the pinnacle of social networking - the only place to go now is downhill unless they change. They already have every user who wants a page, the only new users are young kids just getting online - not Facebook's target demographic. Also, they have just gone public which puts pressure on the company to make more money.
I predict Facebook will start to branch out into video and music more and more in an attempt to get more pages views - it must be galling for Facebook to see people sharing videos with YouTube advertising instead of Facebook's. They are going to have to be careful, users don't like change.
(One thing users don't want is a whole slew of different social networks. I am on Facebook and G+, but I would only use one if either gave me full control over who sees what. I think projects like Diaspora are always going to be niche ideas)
sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
Humans tend to not like being alone, but congregate in tribes. In fact we separate ourselves for punishment. If you can provide a easy (better) method for distant tribe members to communicate with each other they will use it. I am not worried. We will do what we do best.
Adapt.
... I registered for an account
The few times I was there I felt uncomfortable
Everyone was telling everybody else everything about themselves - their name, their phone #, their address, their hobby ... everything
Maybe I'm just old fashion. Privacy for me is something very important
I haven't been to facebook for years, and I don't miss it
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Humans tend to not like being alone
I do not feel comfy with large crowd
Maybe I'm a sub-human, or a droid, or something :)
...and offered only _one_ sexy feature, people would use it. Imagine the ability to securely share data you want to share (and only that) together with "real life" plugins that are handy for everyone (secure online voting, tax declaration help, shopping list analysis,...) people would not only use it, it would become more of a "personal information container/backlog" as fb is today...
The article is wrong because FB is not about new features or the architecture. FB power is that I can connect with easily with people of similar interests.
With FB it is easy to setup local group, and invite people, or for them to find it, of similar interested and then all those people plan, talk about or support the topic.
Until something new can get everyone to switch over to that system there is no value in me, a single person, switching to that new site. Even in the event that facebook does something totally stupid to upset the users it will not loose that many because the abaility it provides for communication is worth some hassles.
Wow, the article wasted a lot of words essentially saying nothing. Heres the article in 1 sentence: Facebook is big now, but like others before it, it may not be big forever.
See, was that so hard?
Monstar L
The first quarterly reports are going to give a huge reality check to investors (and to FB).
But then indeed why worry about FB? The one thing worrying about FB is the level of idiocy the posts are reaching there, even those made by people you thought had at least a few neurons.
It's really the low of the low that are still "expressing" themselves through FB.
I don't see anywhere near as much interesting (political, economical, technical, ...) posts as before: the smart users have realized how much of their privacy was exposed and "owned" by FB and decided to shut their mouth off. Same for pictures: people are turning to higher security settings (for the "knowledgeable ones") or simply not posting that much pictures anymore.
I know that the paid MS / FB astroturfing trolls are going to say that Google is dead and irrelevant but I find the quality of the posts on Google+ way more interesting. The only "posts" that are interesting on FB are some of the links to other websites or... To G+ posts! (a trend which I'm noticing is increasing).
FB is not something were people do put interesting contents: who cares if 25% of whichever website is coming from FB? These are just links. As soon as there's another way to find content, people will use it. My girlfriend loves the very visual "pinterest" for example.
It's the newest sh*t on the block for her and she's not into her FB as much as she used to.
I can't see FB reinvent themselves: they're the ultimate one trick poney (honestly when I read about the MS / FB astroturfing trolls telling us that Google is a one trick poney I can't stop laughing) and their trick has been exposed and users don't like half as much as they used to.
Yes, I do check my FB three times a week. No, I wouldn't miss it should it go away overnight.
The Internet as a whole wouldn't either. It would be replaced in a heartbeat.
Good luck with those quarterly reports. At $1 I may consider buying some shares ; )
It is feasible to create a distributed version of Facebook without the need for central servers accept to connect users together initially, in the way that Skype or a torrent file does. If you made connections invite via email, you could do away with the central site completely.
You would need always-on devices to make it work well, but the chief benefit would be that there was no need for your information to reside anywhere other than on your own machine (and in the cache of your friends if network speeds are an issue).
You would need one client per platform, and would need to allow a user to synch if they use multiple devices but that wouldn't be a big ask. The upside would be a much richer experience than a browser can give - you could seamlessly incorporate messaging and video into it.
users start caring when the os tells them that they're locked out of their user account for having michael jackson mp3's.
for most things facebook is a convinient single sign on platform, nothing more. the rest of the things is that it's a miniblog feed and mini wiki(for events and such).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Facebook doesn't own my data, I still have all my photos I uploaded
Actually by uploading your private data to Facebook you granted them a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide IP-license to use any of your stuff long as it is on the Facebook network even if it isn't posted there under your account. From their EULA:
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
fool uses his real name on FB? or birthday? or birthplace? or marital status? or educational background? or professional background?
FB is a toy. A time waster. A tool for *me.*
FB is increasingly becoming "uncool". Many users that I know aren't using their accounts that much and of course, they're still counted as "active" users - like Slashdot. There are users with UIDs in the two million range, but how many are really active? Sure, Slashdot can say they have over two million registered users, but if you advertise here, how many would you actually reach? And we're not even considering those of us with Adblock.
I see the same thing happening to FB.
And with the continuous bad press about privacy and data retention and ownership, FB use is doomed.
Facebook can turn this whole privacy thing on it's head with one smart business move - promise to keep your data public on the internet forever, if you pay for it during your lifetime. I have several dead friends now where the facebook pages they left behind are the best way to remember them, as they are full of pictures and movies and things they said and did. But there has never been a guarantee that the data will be there forever.
If facebook started charging people a few bucks a year to guarantee their data will never be deleted, I think that would be an excellent value-add.
It sounds like you're talking about wall wart servers. If so, I think you're on the right track.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
you might have a fancy club n all - but if all yr friends are down at the pub, where you gonna go??
nobody's going to switch from facebook unless all 300 of their friends have magically switched to another service at the same time as they have - this is why google's social network never caught on. having another social network with only twenty of yr friends is useless if the other 270 are still on facebook.
2cents from toronto
jp
Facebook is like a truly famous celebrity. It has a lot of clout and power. But if it uses that power, and someone else comes on the scene, it could quickly go the way of Warren Beatty Ishtar (names my kids have never even heard of). Google and credit cards have more access to private info and potential for abuse (I use gmail), but haven't made any really bad movies yet. The only problem I see with Facebook is what choices it will make with my data tomorrow.
Gently reply
Server in your fixed (wired) phone. Your backup is at your phone company (access provider) in the usual case, maybe at some specialy "cloud" company under certain special conditions.
Your phone serves your blog, your tweets, your picture and other sharing, your family bbs, etc. If it's your year to do the soccer club's site, you host it on your phone.
Google or LinkedIn or maybe FaceBok or some other similar company takes care of the links you use to connect with your virtual community.
Simple.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Same stance, but more eloquently worded & thought out:
http://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia
You can't reasonably expect to go back through everything you've ever posted on Facebook. The further you go into history the less likely it is that what you're trying to bring up will ever load. They want you to forget the past. Problem with that for them is that if you forget the past it can't tie you to them, either.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Humble Bundle apparently has more followers on G+ than Facebook and Twitter combined.
Facebook is popular because most people thought it was the most popular social network and joined it. It was exactly like most businesses choosing Microsoft windows in early 1990s because they all believed most businesses were choosing Microsoft windows. One of the consequences of lek courtship behavior in birds is that, species that practiced it produce the most ostentatious males with outrageously useless features like seen in peacocks and birds of paradise. Much in the same way Microsoft in its heyday and Facebook now go for so many bells and whistles whether or not they are useful.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Maybe Facebook isn't for you but 99% of the human race seems to like it.
That's about the same percentage of the human race that has absolutely nothing of value to offer humanity, isn't it?
That's what counts, not what a bunch of old-timers think of it.
Thanks for the laugh. One day sooner than you think, you'll be an "old-timer", too. That's the nice thing about aging - it happens everyone at the same speed - too goddamn fast.
Real kids already think Facebook is for you old-timers anyway. Tomorrow, they will respond to you with "Facebook who, old man?"
Again, thanks for the laugh, Old Pup.
Recently the wife and I tried an experiment, we put an ad on Facebook for a few days about her eBook. I targeted it to 18+ females with an interest in reading/romance/kindle and so on... In theory it's pretty cool how you can target an audience based on their profiles. Facebook will tell you dynamically exactly how many people meet the criteria as you add and remove options.
We saw no effect in book sales. Before, during and after the advertising, sales remained on average the same.
Everyone was telling everybody else everything about themselves - their name, their phone #, their address, their hobby... everything
OMG the horror. People making social connections and finding things to talk about.
Facebook will flourish for a thousand years and more. Promise. Really. Yes.
cb
A lot of hipsters incensed that Facebook isn't honest and a few old timers trying to tell then (to deaf ears) of the facts.
Facebook has their market share because they were available and easy when the great unwashed masses of old people decided it would be cool to get on a social site. Right place, right time.
The reason facebook will fail is because someone will not just make a better site - it could be argued that Google has done a technically "better" site at least twice now. Facebook should be worried when all of the old people are at another site. MySpace died because they hung their hat on youth - and youth is very trendy and fickle. It's no big deal for them to change overnight, and they adapt very quickly. Facebook has all the people for whom moving to another site that's "better" has no payoff unless all of their friends are already there as well.
The momentum is strong with the facebook users. These are the folks who still have aol and yahoo email accounts. Until you get them all to move, none of them will bother.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
FTA:
A lot of people interested in free software, and user autonomy and network services are very worried about Facebook.
How is free software related to this topic?
The Social Web is still in its infancy, and Facebook is just one of many boom towns that have sprung into existence to feed the movement. It won't be long before all of the Social Web upstarts (I should say the remaining ones) go the way of the dinosaur to be replaced by the next generation of innovation. I envision a near future in which 'social' evolves beyond a product and becomes more of a service or protocol. Much like what happened with Email and messaging.
We all thought google was a fad, the same way Lycos and Altavista, and even Yahoo were before them. Google was easily the third major contender for the crown of most used search engine. Social networking has had about three leaders so far. There's been friendster, Myspace, and now Facebook. Unless there's a sudden shift in the way Americans behave (because lets face it, we're the only ones that matter), then Facebook is not going away anytime soon. The problem being that old people never change, and they're all finally migrated away from Yahoo groups. And it's not like that was an easy task mind you. Do you have any idea how many granbabies needed to be born, or how many teenagers had to beg their grandparents to get on Facebook for that to happen? Christ, it's almost unfathomable. That said, the market is about as big as it's going to get. At least domestically. So anyway, good luck getting people to change. Especially old people.
This signature intentionally left blank.
... to topple Facebook. Incidentally I ran a bunch of simulations on them to settle an argument a while ago. http://sdaction.kytt.org/?p=8 and http://sdaction.kytt.org/?p=1 in particular might be interesting. It turns out that the next thing needs to be very compelling indeed to compete and have a _larger_ network effect than FB has at the moment. FB is the 300 pound gorilla in the room, like it or not.
I guess the real question with Facebook is how much of the information they have on there is real and how much of it is fake? How many accounts are completely bogus with no valid information attached to them or false information? How many of the legitimate profiles contain false data (eg. DOB, school attended, likes, etc.)? I would suspect it's a significant amount. So taking the remaining legitimate accounts how many of them actually buy anything on Facebook via games etc? i could go on but I'm seeing ever dwindling numbers here. Granted, when you start at 800 million users you can still end up with a large number but it seems to me that Google's ads are much more effective in terms of targeting real people that want to buy real things.
Why is everyone hating on Facebook? It's just a shitty company.
We all thought google was a fad, the same way Lycos and Altavista, and even Yahoo were before them. Google was easily the third major contender for the crown of most used search engine. Social networking has had about three leaders so far. There's been friendster, Myspace, and now Facebook. Unless there's a sudden shift in the way Americans behave (because lets face it, we're the only ones that matter), then Facebook is not going away anytime soon. The problem being that old people never change, and they're all finally migrated away from Yahoo groups. And it's not like that was an easy task mind you. Do you have any idea how many granbabies needed to be born, or how many teenagers had to beg their grandparents to get on Facebook for that to happen? Christ, it's almost unfathomable. That said, the market is about as big as it's going to get. At least domestically. So anyway, good luck getting people to change. Especially old people.
Take a look at what salesforce.com and data.com .data.com are doing with Facebook, and other social sites. This is where it get's interesting, or scary.
I don't participate in FaceBook because it manipulates my real data (name, address, phone) and it's overloaded with mind-crashingly moronic ads and games. If there would emerge a lightweight anonymous system without ads and stupid games, I would be there. I reckon many others would as well.