How fashionable these platforms are seem to be inversely correlated with how deeply they've penetrated society. Once a teenager sees that her grandma is using Facebook, it starts losing its special luster.
That's not to say that shitty product choices don't also play a factor, but I have a feeling that it's a smaller factor than fashion at the end of the day.
If I were a social media mogul, my strategy would be to relaunch the same platform under a different name every 5 to 10 years. Put some new css in there, release some flashy ads, and users will think it's a different thing. Most IG and Whatsapp users are shocked when you tell them those apps are owned by the same company as FB.
On the other hand, there are some platforms so solid that they seem to transcend fashion. I'm thinking YouTube.
It’s closer to infrastructure than any other social platform out there. Kind of blends into the background as you browse it.
Also, there’s a better separation of the content from the vitriolic comments than other platforms. I use YouTube all the time, and literally never read comments. Instagram/Facebook, the comments are integral to the consumption pattern, showcasing just how very fuckin awful almost everyone is when they can be internet tough guys vs basically decent human beings in real life.
It'd take a very long time for something (like rumble/vimeo) to catch up or an amazingly large stuff-up at Youtube to drive people away.
Beyond that, I think social networks are heavily reliant on active creators. If those people feel like minnows amongst the masses and grandmas, they're more likely to strike out in new territory whether it's a fresh network or mode of creating. Become a bigger fish in a smaller pond. Which leaves behind less-active users or people who've found reward/profit on the previous platform, making that platform start to feel more like TV than a mingling, social space.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-net...
There are legimate concerns but saying that a company on track to do $120 billion in revenue for the year is collapsing is disingenuous.
"How can they possibly make so many decisions that run counter to customer preferences? There’s only one reason why they do this. They do it because they’re so dominant."
You're NOT the customer. Advertisers are. They do not make user-hostile decision out of arrogance, indifference or incompetence, they do it to make money. Preferable every quarter more.
Other than this, the lengthy article doesn't contain a single tangible point as to why Facebook would collapse.
This is obviously inadequate. Users are the product that are being sold to advertisers, therefore decisions that shed users affect the bottom line. Why would an outlet not fear shedding users even while taking user-hostile decisions?
I'm not offering an answer. But because they’re so dominant is a better answer than ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ for me.
> The main reason why they don’t care about serving users is because the user is not the customer at Facebook. The users (you and me) are the product sold to the actual customers.
"Do you think I’m exaggerating? Trust me, the people who run the company believe in 24/7 surveillance as the single most important feature on the platform. They absolutely must monetize your participation, and can’t do that without putting you under observation (as law enforcement officials call it.)"
There is also a graph lie. Even though the article was printed today, it shows that stock price from about Nov. 3 the price nadir at $90. It's been above $110 for 3 weeks.
I don't suggest that Facebook is a good way to spend time (it's boring). But the idea that it's even in the top 100 worst things in the world is crazy.
Anyway Ted was a decent music journalist who has been driven mad by tech hurting journalism. Tech derangement syndrome.
The real reason for Facebook's decline is that Apple knee-capped their advertising.
The lesson in this is: don't let another company be able to get between you and your customers.
Google took this lesson to heart some years back, hence the massive investment in Chrome browser and Android so that no company could come between Google and its users.
The growth rate in US/CA is basically flat while those regions are 3-5% YoY.
and still growing. it is isn't unreasonable for that growth to be slower than less penetrated regions.
but that still doesn't produce a conclusion of collapse
that facebook has such a high percentage of users in the most profitable parts of the world, doesn't connect with the posts claim that users are leaving
Does Spotify even know who was in the band? Is that metadata anyone attached to the tracks? Sure: if it wasn't they could have asked for it, but if they already have a ton of music without that metadata is the feature ever going to be useful as an afterthought? Does any other music platform have this feature? This example is so weird it is making it really difficult for me to concentrate on whatever point they are trying to make.
Currently, you can add a Bio, links to social media sites and create an image gallery, but the admin section isn't particularly smart, I can't see anywhere to set specific data like band members or timelines.
Not sure who's expected to admin all of this though, I'm published on 30+ streaming music platforms including Spotify and iTunes and I don't have time to go round adding data to all of them.
Elon Musk would do well to read that book.
