I very much hope this isn't just words. The core problem, IMO, is that content that makes us angry, anxious or jealous is a much better driver of clicks than content that makes us happy. I'm sure Facebook knows this. If they really mean it, they'll accept that they will make less money as a result of this change. It would be the right decision in the long term, but the short term will hurt.
Good intentions or not, we must remember that history has proven time and time again, when any entity has far too much unchecked power, it is inevitably exploited by bad actors. A user base of two billion users without any real accountability is a scary thing. The only people policing Facebook are Facebook. We would never agree to a having a single dictator who answers to no one, why should Facebook be treated any differently?
I wonder if enough of the core-base was eroding that they were forced to make this change. I've been logged out of Facebook since October, and I know a few other friends who have as well. That's not really relevant, except that this group all had membership on Facebook at the 1 year mark - early 2005.
Josh Marshall just now: "Announcement to publishers who reshaped business models around Facebook. Bye."
I'm beginning to wonder if Facebook has begun to realize that being the source of ads while temporarily beneficial to their bottom line is actually destroying their long-time value to advertisers. Chasing eyeballs for ads necessarily warps the things you present to those eyeballs and eventually you're in a race with every other eyeball chaser. The problem with that race is that you no longer have an undistorted understanding of viewer/user preferences but instead only understand their reaction to your attempts to capture attention and clicks, which is a more mechanical understanding of behavior rather than understanding underlying motives and preferences.
Ad companies have long specialized in the mechanistic side of things so Facebook really brings nothing new to table for them, and merely being "a giant audience" isn't especially worthwhile either since a "run of network" ad buy for Adsense or the like is cheap. Facebook's differentiator was "we have all this insight into users!" and while that was true at the time they began courting advertisers what I suspect advertisers and Facebook discovered was that those insights became less and less accurate as users responded to the changes Facebook began to make in order to try and increase ad effectiveness, thus beginning the distortion spiral.
I wonder if Facebook is making an attempt to return to the insight side of the business, allowing advertisers to use the info Facebook has regarding people as targeting for ads that occur away from Facebook. They return to a demographic/insight source rather than an advertising platform.
There’s still something eerily uncomfortable about how they want me to log in so much and check everything. They basically lie about it now, finding any excuse to put a colored flag on something.
Recent example: while I was logged out, they put my picture on their “quick login” page with a little red number “2” on my photo. Well gee, turns out there wasn’t “2” of anything in my profile to see: no unread messages, etc.; no, it was just made-up crap to make me want to go check Facebook again.
Not sure why Facebook is so desperate for attention that they need to LIE to get it but advertisers should be concerned: anything Facebook claims about “active users”, etc. is probably greatly exaggerated.
Mark Zuckerberg's post on this change: https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571
Facebook press release: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-...
I've unfollowed everyone. My feed only shows past memories. I love my feed. I highly recommend it.
I'm guessing that this change won't affect the dopamine-release strategy they were engaging with before. There are far more issues with Facebook rather than the need to tweak the network to ad post ratio in the news feed.
Wait, Facebook cares about engagement between people instead of between people and ad-supported lowest common demoninator content? Could have fooled me over the past several years. I’m really cynical about FB but it really has earned it.
I hope it becomes more useful, because for me their original value proposition to users was great but has totally lost its way as they’ve monetized.
"Sharing" is spamming.
I'm interested in what my friends write. I have little interest in what they share, especially if it's commercial content.
This change was tested for months in several smaller countries including mine. I am not on facebook, but I know that media here hate the change. They lost tens of percents of traffic overnight.
You can of course do that "overhaul" yourself by installing a filter like F.B.Purity
I looked through my newsfeed this week for the first time in several months.
I thought the amount of trash posts and videos (which caused me to leave Facebook) had greatly declined, but wasn’t sure why. If it’s related to this change, it’s a good start.
While I’m skeptical of Facebook, I appreciate their attempt to improve if it’s genuine.
Funny this was reason I've been using G+ to share photos with friends and family since they 'stay' in the news feed.
Sounds like they're returning the feed to what it was back around 2007-2009 ish (when I first remember it). Or at least attempting to do so.
I am very surprised by the general vibe in here that FB are doing this for the users or to promote responsible social networking. IMHO They poisoned the well by disrespecting their users  and are now trying to undo the damage. Just like Apple were very sorry after they got caught slowing iPhones.
Important to note, Facebook has been hiding posts by pages in the feed to users in Eastern Europe (Serbia, where I live), and it results in a much cleaner and less noisy feed, but people can still go to the Explore Feed and see posts by pages...
More on this: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/23/facebook-page-feed/
The FB feed has been terrible since it changed from a chronological list. Doubt this will improve anything.
I believe this is step 1 in entering/dominating another industry: influencer marketing. Hear me out. I have 3 friends who have started “influencer marketing” companies that fly out 20 or so influencers, and brands pay for posts during their trip. I’m not too well attuned to the economics of it, but from what I can see, it’s profitable.
Facebooks move of doing this is probably to ultimately purposefully change the incentives for advertisers. Now, advertisers, who have went all in to social networks will have to retain that channel, since it happens to work so well. And they’ll be paying more per ad, as a result of the economics of this new marketing paradigm. Influencers (when FB takes over this market, I’m sure they/we won’t be called that) and Facebook is, please excuse my use of a buzzword, a true synergy. I mean, who wouldn’t want free stuff* (with the catch that you have to post about the product x times in a given time frame)? By using the whole network as a conduit for advertising, I think this is going to be huge.
So, like it was in the beginning? That's some innovation right there, boy.
I see. FB is adopting a similar model to Tecent's WeChat Moments in which users primarily see content shared by friends and family. It worked for WeChat but let's how it goes for Facebook.
I think Facebook is basically the replacement of the newspaper at this point. Oh well....
I have long critiqued Facebook for chasing after ad revenue at the expense of the experience they offer users. In light of this news, the following quote comes to mind: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
I generally feel that Facebook has traveled so far in the wrong direction, coming back to any sense of morality will be an extremely hard job. That being said, I wonder if they truly understood the extent of their "shady" tactics. It's all too easy to focus on shareholders and forget about the real people using your service. All told, this does at least feel like a step in the right direction.
yes please! The reason I don't use facebook anymore is because it doesn't present me anything I care about. Just memes, news and updates in some sale groups I am part of. I'm not complaining that it doesn't hog me as much as it used to, but the reason why I still have a account is to keep in touch with friends and acquaintances and see what's going in in their life
Oh brother... the quote at the end there? "It’s important to me that when Max and August grow up that they feel like what their father built was good for the world." Why does it bother me? Let me analyze.
OK 1) There are people out there who live their whole lives according to good values pretty much the whole time, and don't need the shock of parenthood to finally make them care about acting like a decent human being. And most are not 2) billionaires. However, quite a few apparently do need that little kick in the pants, which explains 3) how trite this sentiment is.
But owing precisely to how common it is, we may never know if this is something Zuckerberg actually feels, or if it's 4) just something he picked up that he thought sounded like something an earthling might say. A nice platitude to conceal the true market-driven motivation for this move, and 5) you just know there is one.
Also even assuming it's sincere, there's a prominent tone of 6) narcissism in it, when people suddenly start caring about their legacy. (Like "my legacy" and "how I will be viewed" as opposed to anything about the kids themselves or you or me or anyone that person might've hurt.)
I feel like as outlandish as it is, South Park's animated version of him, voiced like a badly dubbed Hong Kong martial arts actor, saying "Ha ha ha, you cannot block my shtoyle" and such, is more convincing & realistic than the reality!
Facebook = weapon of mass disinformation Smartphone = weapon of mass distraction The 'perfect' storm.
next? AR/VR = weapon of mass delusion?
Horrible news. Now this stupid thing will be less horrible and will keep people who were leaving.
Or maybe it will just go back to the point it was when I left, in 2013, which was already very unbearable.
I welcome the changes, and am open to giving Zuckerberg's pledge to investigate decentralization this year a fair shake.
He has a lot of work and convincing to do to fulfill these lofty goals and inspire us to take him seriously. Nothing against Zuckerberg specifically, even -- just that corporate incentives and business momentum are mighty forces to be contended with, even assuming Mark is acting in good faith and full capacity.
It’s long past time to GET OVER FACEBOOK.
Ugh, I was so hoping for more political posts...
Hopefully I won't miss the deaths of any of my friends now.
Still a douchebag company.
In essence, they got its users (me included) to sign away our sovereign data before we knew its value. I feel the equivalent is colonialists in Africa getting African chiefs to sign away their land for a bottle of whiskey. I would go as far as to say Facebook is a neo-colonialist land-grabber - except its not your land you've given away, it's your most personal information. Zuckerberg = world's biggest douche. A modern day Cecil Rhodes.
Facebook = weapon of mass disinformation Smartphone = weapon of mass distraction
next? VR/AR = weapon of mass delusion ?