I tell people all the time that the single greatest tool an aspiring lawyer can have is a background with programming, as the analytical and algorithmic mindset is FAR more important than being "good at public speaking" or any of the other base skills often cited as desirable for lawyers. I've also said the second greatest tool an aspiring lawyer can have (in my personal opinion) is a significant background in foreign language learning, as that is a skill that is closely related to programming, though a bit abstracted and coming from a different angle. I'm going to see if I can use this article to support that.
Having just started (and slogged through the interminable intro piece that is tonally completely unrelated to the main game), I'm keeping an open mind, but it feels like this is scratching a very particular itch for a very particular group of gamers who have been largely ignored for a decade or more. It's not bad at all and I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes, but the turn-based approach feels _very_ old (in both good and bad ways), and the dialogue system..
"We leave tomorrow." click A
"Huh" click A
"We must drink tonight" click A
"You're a bad influence" click A
"Huh" click A
Someone will probably tell me this is the convention in the Final Fantasy style and that's FINE, and this would go a long way to explaining the reaction. It feels like a well above average game that is a GREAT game to a subset of gamers because they haven't had a game like this in so long.
The game is actually quite innovative compared to the average game. The combat is turn based but it has a large dodging/parrying element akin to Sekiro. The limited consumables but being refreshed on resting at a flag(bonfire), and flask also seem directly inspired by FROMSoftware games. The ability to use your other party members when other ones die feels fresh and makes it feel like there are no "never used" party members. The aiming option in fights feels like it draws from P5. They turned the limit break mechanic into kind of a party super meter, which I'm sure has been done before but feels fresh.
The dialogue is actually humerous(which is unusual for a game), the story is mysterious and intriguing, the music is great. Interesting take that this is average or derivative and just appealing to a certain type of gamer--can't say I agree.
Again, I didn't say it was average and in fact went out of my way to say that I felt like it wasn't average at all but that it was perhaps less groundbreaking than the excitement for it lets on because it appears to share traits with a particular genre that has been neglected for open world games. I also didn't say "derivative" but I would note that, for every feature you're listing as innovative, you're providing an example of where the mechanic can already be found. And, from my perspective that's *perfectly fine*, but it also contextualizes the game as more of a loving homage than genuinely groundbreaking.
> "We leave tomorrow." click A "Huh" click A "We must drink tonight" click A "You're a bad influence" click A "Huh" click A
Good, makes me want to play the game more. As someone that likes to pay attention to story and dialogue, I like to be able to control the flow of dialogue.
In a lot of cases, games like this give plenty of options for dialog speed and automatic continuation. As long as those things are in place, it seems like it should make everyone happy at relatively little development effort. I'm split on this. If there are voice overs, it's insufferable to make me press a button to continue every single line. If it's text only, it feels more natural.
There's few things I dislike more in 3d games than selecting dialogue flow. Especially if there are important hint inside. Cinematic scenes should be a quick break from the flow of the game, but those feels more like reviewing forms. Either gives me a proper cinematic, or a journal/note/description thing for me to read.
I don't mind if there's meaningful choice that can affect later gameplay, but clicking through lines of dialogue feels like an unnecessary step. (Again, I'm completely open to the response that this is just how it is in this genre, but from a more general audience perspective it feels strange.)
VA = "voice actor"? Because, if so, that's the funniest part: having to click A after someone responds, in spoken words as well as onscreen, "Hmmmm". It's almost charming, but it seemed deeply, deeply unnecessary to me. (Also just a quirk so far.)
> or a journal/note/description thing for me to read
It's incredibly hard to please everyone. I don't like reading in games, the UX is awful. If I wanted to read I wouldn't have started a game in the first place, I read books not games.
The Attorney General went out of her way to assure Cabinet members that the US Marshals would not be arresting them. So, well, that's great.
Congress needs to transition the US Marshals to the judiciary or expressly codify that the AG has no authority to direct their actions. Won't happen, but it's what Congress needs to do.
The people in executive pushing unitary executive power theory. And there is a chance Supreme Court will support them at that. With such theory your AG proposal not having authority doesn’t stand (in worst case it would be presidents authority).
If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court. I suspect that at least Justices Kavanough, Barrett, and Roberts (along with the liberals) would have a problem with that.
(Some of the liberals might be on board if the president was Harris rather than Trump, but no way are they going to agree with it while Trump is president.)
> If we have a unitary executive, then the president is over the Supreme Court.
No, the Supreme Court is not part of the executive even under unitary executive theory.
OTOH, the US Marshals Service is part of the executive, and, under unitary executive theory, Congress attempting to dictate who within the executive branch can direct them must fail, as the President has absolute and unconditionally delegable authority within the executive.
Which is why fully moving the Marshals to a department within the judiciary would be desirable, though I think there's a significant ethical issue for the judiciary to contend with re: having to actually enforce its orders. At a sort of silly level, there's probably concern that "justice is blind" cannot mix with "justice needs to see where it's aiming if it's going to enforce anything." Judge Dredd and whatnot.
But, man, if the executive is fully on board with ignoring law, what is even the point of trying?
It's astonishing to read this and see not only Zuckerberg but also the article itself present this as something that happened to Facebook/Meta rather than something driven by Facebook/Meta to satisfy Wall Street. Social media did not naturally evolve into what it is today: engagement bait, consumption of content creator and advertiser content, etc. resulted from purposeful business strategic decisions to pivot from a place to learn your first cousin remarried to a place where advertisers and monetization rule. Towards the end of my time on Facebook, I never, ever saw content from family, including from my own sister documenting her terminal disease. But I sure did see lots of car dealerships from states I don't live in, news stories about people with two heads, and nubile young women surely-SURELY-attractive to a middle aged man like me.
Mark Zuckerburg's superpower is being like Jack Sparrow at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean: he steps off one boat just as it's sinking onto another, and he has the humility to not really give a damn which ship he's on. (I say "humility" even as someone frustrated by his net impact on society.)
I think on the How I Built This Instagram episode the Instagram founder said that Zuck was basically reading the data from Facebook's interactions and saw that the demographics and sharing tendencies of Facebook users meant that it was in a death spiral: people were moving interactions to private channels, reducing the available "friend" content. IMO, the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing and the result was FB pivoting away from "social network" (OG Facebook) to "social media" (2010-2015 FB) and eventually just "media" (Instagram, Reels).
Looking back at what I posted on FB in 2008-2012 is like observing an alien from another planet: it was a completely different platform.
> people were moving interactions to private channels, reducing the available "friend" content. IMO, the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing and the result was FB pivoting away from "social network" (OG Facebook) to "social media" (2010-2015 FB) and eventually just "media" (Instagram, Reels).
Adding to that, the people who kept posting as if nothing changed typically were extremely low-value posters. Political ranters, zero-commentary meme reposts, etc…
Like a large room full of people talking until an event starts, and that moment when half the crowd has realized that someone has gone on stage while the other half has gotten sucked into an argument/discussion and forgotten why we were all here in the first place.
Hilariously, this is kind of how I felt reading the comments here. I thought every commet would start of by saying this is such a pathetic superficial ploy for the trial in question that it's idiotic to respond to it in earnest outside of a courtroom. But then obviously the comment would go on to explain why that's the case.
Whatever sort of business Facebook, Insta, TikTok and Twitter are called now, it's pretty clear they co-evolved into it near identically by watching the others' product. If fb isn't social media, then neither are the rest. If fb is a purple cow then so are the others. The point is they were called "social media" at the time FB purchased Insta.
If Zuck is going to show a graph illustrating how force fed cows in a cage were unable to walk by themselves as time progressed, then someone should put up a graph tracking the number of Whatsapp groups that were created as time went by. If that number was going up, what is left to talk about for fuck's sake.
>> people who kept posting as if nothing changed typically were extremely low-value posters
absolutely not, ... these were (and are) always there. instead it was Facebook management decisions choosing to amplify exactly this. Let's not blame a minority of (misguided) content creators for the shortcomings of Zuck and his sycophant senior managers.
As anti-Zuck as I am, I argue this is simply human nature. I've seen the same effect all across internet interactions, from Gamefaqs to 4 chan to Tumblr to Tiktok. controversial content will simply draw in more discussion (i.e. flamewars) than any other kind of contnet. sad content, happy content, funny content; it all falls to rage bait.
The only blame on Facebook's end is a failure to moderate and mitigate it. But at that point you ask if that would have simply pointed the controversy to the moderators (something also commonly seen).
They actively amplified any content that got high engagement, not ragebait specifically. That's why you see this trend across nearly all social media, not just Facebook. There's a strong financial incentive to get people to engage with your service, and amplifying the content that is already getting the most engagement is a simple way to do that.
You could blame this on advertising, but I think even if Facebook were a paid service (ignoring for a minute that that would have killed any chance it had of being successful in the first place) there'd still be an incentive to prioritize content that people's revealed preferences indicate they want to see more of.
Countering this natural human tendency requires a significant, thoughtful, concerted effort on the part of everyone involved.
> Encourage online tribalism that exacerbates the societal division....creating exploitative products that drive conflict over conversation, division over unity, and misinformation over truth
Highest engagement and ragebait are apparently the same thing.
I see no disagreement here. Due to human nature, ragebait is a subset of content that gets high engagement, so it gets amplified the same as any other high-engagement content.
I think you under estimate how much of the angry political stuff is driven by paid for content by people with an agenda - and companies like Meta have just taken the money.
Sure in the end it sweeps up indviduals but money and professional narrative shapers are often behind these things.
There are a cadre of highly competance professionals in the advertising/PR area that were massively enabled by the tools that Meta et al provided ( for money ) - suddenly you could run campaigns that were highly effective, relatively cheap, and almost invisible.
This has been ruthlessly exploited by people and organisations with more money that morals.
Goverments have in part been asleep at the wheel, but also too keen to use such tools for their own ends.
In Imgurs case it's all left leaning. Lots of scaremongering about what project 2025 and how close we are to dictatorship and lots of alarmist ragebait.
I saw a post just over a week ago from a user who predicted that Trump would declare martial law on April 20th because that was the day such and such report would advise him to do so.
It made the front page with hundreds of upvotes and comments agreeing. it's an extreme example but the site is full of this kind of stuff, most often bringing your attention to some obscure ruling or decision, some new political depth plumbed that will mean x,y, and z will now happen.
The aspect of real people posting worthwhile stuff stopped regardless of Zuck's decision to amplify engagement bait. IMO, it was because many of them had their life stage progress beyond college and had better things to do than post to social media.
I think you got cause and effect mixed up. One would normally move on in life and tune down college life rather than shut it down entirely.
I've made a fb account very early on and a new one periodically. Each time I add few friends who have few friends. I post some content daily for two weeks, content these friends would always respond to. The feed had nothing they posted and my posts never got any engagement.
I didn't simply move on, they actively disqualified themselves.
Users are much better of making a whatsapp group. You don't have to leave the college group (you could ofc) but you can mute and archive it or add a few contacts from it (before leaving)
> Mark Zuckerburg's superpower is being like Jack Sparrow at the beginning of Pirates of the Caribbean: he steps off one boat just as it's sinking onto another, and he has the humility to not really give a damn which ship he's on. (I say "humility" even as someone frustrated by his net impact on society.)
That's like saying a tapeworm is humble because it doesn't care which colon it's sitting in.
The tapeworm lacks the faculties to care about the colon. It just needs nourishment. Same with Zuck. You can't blame the worm, because it's got no concept of reality beyond the things needed to serve its survival. Zuck, as a human, can only do that by very likely having a serious personality disorder.
A reference to Larry Ellison as a lawnmower, perhaps? [0]
> Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle. — Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s)
Generally this is relevant advice for thinking about important people. We know little about them, almost all of it is projection that reflects more of my perspective than any reality of the object’s psychology.
Humans love to think we know why someone behaves the way they do. We love to diagnose disorders in strangers based on a very very tiny bit of information.
It is best to treat the decisions as black boxes, or else we are just projecting. I think it’s called the fundamental attribution bias?
No, the takeaway from that talk isn't that we shouldn't judge Ellison's intentions. Quite the opposite, actually. Bryan Cantrill states that Ellison's motives are simple. It's only about money and no other human emotions are involved.
There are so many quotes indicating this:
"What you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle."
"This company is very straightforward in its defense. It's about one man, his alter ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity! That's it!"
"If you were to about ask Oracle, 'Oracle what are you about? Larry, what are you about? Why Oracle? Tell me about Oracle.' 'Make money.' ' Okay, yeah yeah I get it.' 'Make money. Make money. Make money. That's what we do. Make money.'"
I have to disagree with your interpretation. “Inflict”, for example, is a very loaded word that speaks to intent or at least the mindset.
I think we all feel like we know who movie stars and celebrities really are. When, in reality, not only do we not know their motivation - often we don’t even know our own.
I mean you can personally disagree with the talk, but what's being said is pretty clear here. The quotes in my previous comment alone make what's unambiguously a judgement about Ellison, and there's so much more from the original talk. Bryan Cantrill even likens Ellison to Nazis in a number of his other talks btw, so it can't get any clearer than that.
Me personally, I think it's fair to judge people by their actions. When a person is amassing billions in wealth at the expense of everyone else, there's nothing more meaningless than wasting time imagining about how that person might possibly be kind and well-meaning deep down.
When you own 98% of Lanai, have a net worth equivalent to the annual gross product of a mid-sized American metropolitan area, and still feel the need to lay off thousands of people to increase your net worth at age 80, that's not a very, very tiny bit of information.
That's a person being presented with the knowledge that his choices will have a very clear set of consequences for society and proceeding with them anyways. Know the "if you press the button, you'll become a millionaire, but someone you don't know will die" thought experiment?
Larry has, multiple times, been told that if he presses the button, he'll get millions of dollars at the extreme expense of people he doesn't know, and done it. I think it's fair to say that at least one person has died from it; mass layoffs result in one additional suicide per 4200 male employees and one per 7100 female employees [0]
It would be, but individual businesses (particularly those with the resources of Oracle) don't like paying the taxes necessary to offer that sort of social safety net past a certain point.
Interesting how helpless voters (and those who could vote but don't) are portrayed, especially in the age of instant access to information in everyone's pocket.
> The tapeworm lacks the faculties to care about the colon. It just needs nourishment. Same with Zuck. You can't blame the worm, because it's got no concept of reality beyond the things needed to serve its survival. Zuck, as a human, can only do that by very likely having a serious personality disorder.
Isn't that behavior massively rewarded in the current system of VC-driven capitalism as a general rule? Such founders/companies leach off the society, leave it worse and are given huge valuations and riches. Infact the incentives mean we will see more of such people rise to the top in a ever-worsening feedback cycle until the society puts some checks on them. Which is a extra difficult in this deliberately fragmented environment. Same old loop we can't break out of.
That was intentional. I recall testing this out every time there was a new "oops, we're sorry, we reset your privacy settings to default -- AGAIN".
The privacy settings were carefully designed to have vague wording that how they worked on the surface wasn't how they really worked. Each and every one of them which had a different functionality than what the wording suggested on its surface resulted in you sharing to a much wider audience than you thought you were.
I recall carefully testing it out with a burner account which my main was not friends with, and it consistently taking 2-3 tries to get the privacy settings back to where I wanted them to be.
I would take those days over what Facebook is today - which is to say, useless. The only thing I use it for is groups, which have the good sense to only be about the thing you want to learn about when you look at the group. Still though - it is sad that FB Groups killed off small web forums.
I remember Facebook group - somewhere in the early 2010s, the group feature disappeared. Years later, group appeared again and I had to re-apply to get back into the group. Perhaps group was killed to boost public sharing.
Definitely true, but back in the day that was sort of the fun of it -- similar to putting up an AOL Instant Messenger away message, it was just... a blast of a funny thought to the people that you knew.
Over time, that network got stale and it included "people you sort of used to know", and then it included your grandma and uncle and rest of the world. There are few things that are at the intersection of the Venn diagram of "things I want to share with all of those people", especially as I get older.
> the causal factor here is that people became wary of public oversharing
Instead of chatting shit in a "public" area (rip wall to wall) limited to just my uni friends, there were suddenly home friends, relatives etc reading. And obviously it only got worse with algorithms pushing dross and hiding the zeitgeist from you.
You might manage the same if you’re rich enough to hire top-tier advisors. Let’s not kid ourselves—OG Facebook wasn’t a tech marvel or even particularly original. It just landed in the right place at the right time and snowballed from there.
This makes no sense in Zuckerberg's case: he was never hired by the board and they've never had a chance to fire him. Investors can sell the stock if they don't like what he does, but that is not a "professional advisor" relationship.
It's mostly a cult of personality relationship, and you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
Independently on what you think of Zuckerberg as a human being, on the basis of acquisitions alone, he can be judged as an insanely effective CEO. The way Meta managed the shift from Facebook to Instagram is impressive from a strategic point of view.
Heck, Meta literally controls the world most popular chat application. I never liked social media, spent most of the past fifteen years avoiding them as much I could while maintaining just enough presence to stay reachable and a Meta application still remain my most used one.
Let's not forget that Google, for all their billions, utterly failed to significantly attack Meta market.
Meta has been effective at being the owner of Instagram, even though that's because they've smartly mostly been staying hands off on it besides integrating it with Facebook wherever makes most sense. And also even though the platform is also getting long in the tooth, becoming a place dominated by brands rather than the hip kids' club it was in the past. Now it just seems like the default social media profile for people to connect with one another, like how FB was before it.
I wonder what if Facebook's attempts to buy Snapchat had gone through. Would they have been an effective steward of that platform as well, or would it have gone the way of Twitter-acquired Vine? Would Snapchat even have been a good acquisition target? Okay, maybe it's not productive to discuss counterfactuals, but it does make one consider if we're self-selecting for big hits here and ignoring all of the duds that never amounted to anything- and the potential duds that didn't go through because the founders didn't want to just take the money.
WhatsApp I'll grant you, hard to think of any alternate chat app that could've gotten as ubiquitous as it did. Though, again, was that also mostly WhatsApp's own success, amplified by Facebook's ubiquity? Not to mention, Google being as incompetent at chat as it is at social, Apple unwilling to entertain servicing other operating systems, and Blackberry, AOL, MSN Messenger, etc. having disappeared long ago.
Interestingly, Meta hasn't seem interested in trying to compete with "channelized" IRC chatroom-style apps in the vein of Slack or Discord. Maybe there's some enterprise Messenger for Businesses that does that, idk.
I already agreed with the correction - he has voting control.
What is still incorrect is imagining that billions of dollars gets you advisors who know how to run a company - and those people aren't just high level executives already running companies.
> you're deep in it with your belief that Zuckerberg is an unusually capable operator.
The burden is on you to show a successful CEO for over a decade is actually an idiot.
I don’t want Meta to do anything. All I want to do is mock the idea that Zuckerberg has been some sort of exemplary CEO the last few years in the face of the Metaverse project being such a resounding dud- what’s the punchline, billions spent to add feet to the avatars? Not to mention how he’s allowed his actual site to go fallow, between the Feed being inundated with AI slop and Reels being an imitation of Instagram Shorts being an imitation of TikTok and Snapchat shorts and Vine.
The boat is constantly rocking though, and it's actually incredible how he's kept the boat afloat and increasingly profitable. You can despise their impact on society, but he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO.
Political investigations, anti-trust, terrible media and brand image. GDPR. DMA. Etc. A literal genocide associated with their product.
The shift from desktop to mobile, and the continued evolution of the distribution channel - eg. the "Anti-tracking" requirement on apple devices.
The shift from text posts to images, to stories, to short-form video. From broadcast to DMs and groups.
The shift from "social" media to celebrity and influencer followings, to a feed entirely algorithmic.
The shift in advertisement formats, the shift across what gets advertised (eg. apps didn't exist at all when Facebook started, now they track ad-click-to-install rates through ML models).
I suppose I just don’t find any of those things very admirable? The fact that their product is associated with so much bad shit and still alive is a terrible thing for society. I just cannot reasonably call someone that led all that a ‘good CEO’, because they represent nothing that I’d like a CEO to be, regardless of what Wall Street things.
I’d also argue that it just means that Facebook was very successful at following all the trends and purchasing what they couldn’t replicate.
Your definition of "good" is weird, man. He's good at making money, that doesn't make him a good CEO. A good CEO should be able to make money and have some goddamn principles.
It's like staying that Putin is a good leader, because he's managed to stay in power for so long. Like what the fuck?
Each one of these platform empires from IBM to Microsoft to Google to Amazon to Uber has been very successful at foreseeing and executing on trends, until they're not. Meta was so for a long time, but not necessarily in recent years. That will, inevitably, be the fate of TikTok and whatever future empires arise from the current environment.
I am not saying Zuckerberg hasn't achieved much in the past. It's just funny to crow about his "super power" when Facebook reached critical mass over a decade and a half ago and has been able to coast along as a money printer based on network effects. And also as a Xerox copy printer- I always like to bring up the time they cloned HQ Trivia.
It's good for a platform empire to spent some of its lavish riches on R&D, even if it's just to diversify its moat and further entrench itself. But less so when that ends up as a quixotic boondoggle no one asked for (Metaverse) or as a blatant unoriginal copy (Reels, Confetti). At some point it's not really brilliance to be "foreseeing and executing on those trends" when you have the resources to chase after every trend. Then you've just turned your megacorporation into a VC fund, throwing anything and everything at the wall until something sticks. As we can see, there are a ton of initiatives, projects, departments that don't stick, and some quite spectacularly (Metaverse, again).
Eventually you just end up with the unoriginal silliness of LinkedIn Stories or every single platform including FB having its own Clubhouse, even when Clubhouse itself was a fad that faded as quickly as it appeared during the height of the pandemic.
I get your point about what he has accomplished. But at the same time, right after saying he's an incredible example of a very successful CEO, you acknowledge "a literal genocide associated with their product." I really wish we could shift how we define success for these CEOs.
I always see comments like this, but I rarely have this problem myself, though I see it on others' accounts. Even my Facebook feed shows me lots of legitimately useful posts. Sure, updates from friends and family are a much lower fraction than they were, but I'm actually OK with what I see.
I recently bought a new account on Something Awful [1], having not been on there in about seventeen years.
It's almost surreal, because it still feels like 2005 internet, but people will talk about current topics and the community is generally more engaging.
The moderation isn't some soulless ML model designed to optimize marketing revenue, it's a few dedicated people who want to make the community more fun and I've actually really enjoyed re-discovering the community there.
I guess I had simply forgotten about linear web forums as a concept. Places like Reddit (Hacker News, etc.) have a recursive reply model, which is nice in its own right, but there's something sort of captivating about everything being one long giant thread. It's more chaotic, it's less refined, but it's also kind of unpretentious.
[1] I already had one from when I'm a teenager but the name of that account will die with me as I posted too much on FYAD.
My Something Awful account recently turned 20 years old and I signed in on its birthday for the first time in over a decade. I felt the same thing as you. I looked for some new feature or something to show the passage of time, but found nothing. I had to manually click through pages. Forum signatures still exist.
I also posted in FYAD enough to have my own "personality". Some of the posters from my time are still at it, with accounts pushing thirty years old. I wonder if we ever interacted.
I’ve long felt that recursive/threaded replies were the death of intelligent online discourse. It’s just endless debate club: everyone proselytizing stodgy talking points from their individual soapboxes without any genuine back-and-forth happening. If someone loses an argument, they usually just disappear instead of facing the music. No accountability, no reflection, no real sense of community.
On the other hand, threading makes it possible for one group of people to spin off into a subtopic like discussing the relative merits of threaded vs linear boards, in the same general post about what Zuck said, without annoyingly hijacking the main topic. On HN I often find it useful to collapase the child responses and just read the top level, until something like this pulls me into a rabbit hole.
Threading isn’t an intrinsic sin, I think — sorting by upvotes is. The Discourse forum software allows sub-threads while still preserving a linear conversation style. You could also empower mods to spin off discussions into their own, separate threads. Points is what turns it into an inherent pissing match.
The annoying hijacking of a thread was a visible faux pas and helped keep the order of the message board with downward social pressure as opposed to an unbreakable rule (like forcing threaded boards).
I did the same about a year ago. Large enough that the community is extremely diverse with a wide range of life experiences but small enough that you'll start to recognize certain people. Also the completely linear threads means people will actually see what you post and not just ignore any conversation that isn't part of the top 10 most uploaded replies.
Yeah, and the simple $10 one-time-fee actually is surprisingly effective at filtering out spam bots and people who post crap content. People don't just make an account in thirty seconds and create a bunch of spam until they're banned, or at least they don't do that much because it would get relatively expensive fairly quickly.
It started when they introduced the non chronological timeline. Everything from then on was about driving users to use the app more as opposed to being a tool to connect friends.
Thanks to facebook I have met many friends throughout the world, including my now wife, and have managed to keep in touch with them as I travel the world and land in my friends home countries.
It is so sad that the tool I'm describing doesn't really exist anymore.
Fwiw, https://facebook.com/?sk=h_chr still/again works. Recently rediscovered it, and essentially got my old fb experience back. Add a normal adblock, and manually block reels, and you'll only see what friends and followed pages (90% musicians for me) post.
Before they introduced the non-chrono timeline the main complaint about Facebook was "I don't care about seeing what my cousin ate for lunch", and from that perspective it almost makes sense.
Yeah but that was in the earlier days, and I think that stopped happening well before they went non-chrono. Which is also maybe they went non-chrono, they realized the social part was losing steam.
Zuck is learning theres a difference between shallow short term engagement and deeper long term engagement. Who could have seen this coming, except literally everyone?
It's like a tragedy of the commons, except there's only one party destroying all resources for themself
In Zuck's defense, it's not just him, it's the entire American school of business.
They never learn. GM, GE, RCA, you name it. They always want to make more money now now NOW. They don't understand they're taking on a metaphorical loan. They don't understand the interest they have to pay.
It's the ultimate greedy algorithm. Just make the decision that makes the most money right now, every time, over and over and over again. Don't look at anything else.
They know, it's just that most of the people will be gone before the negative effects become apparent. Most senior people are only going to be around for 7.2 years so if they optimize for short/medium term benefits and cash out, the long term consequences won't affect them.
What makes you think “they don’t understand the interest they have to pay”?
They are optimizing for short-medium term profits. The people there in the early days pull the ejection code when the “interest” is due. The company coasts until some private equity runs the numbers and realizes the parts are worth more than the whole.
This is capitalism. You are using “interest” (a finance term) seemingly in a moral / ethical critique. If so, use a moral / ethical term instead.
Corporate valuation isn't about short-term thinking. It's actually all very long-term. Plenty of companies are not paying out all their profits to shareholders, and their valuation is entirely based on expectation that it'll happen in the distant future and the discounted perpetuity value will equal the initial investment, probably after the current investors are dead.
There are still plenty of vulture investors who find a way to trick the market in the short-to-medium term. I'm not convinced Facebook is a case of that, even though I hate what they do.
They need not learn, they do as they’re primed, to go for profit, squeeze and profit, profit and profit some more. Then profit even from the dead husk on the way out. That’s the hyper capitalist lifecycle of a business product.
All I want is nice, non-toxic, non-addictive place to share photos and birthdays and life events with my family and close friends.
I understand that's not going to net hundreds of billions in revenue, but surely a site like that could keep the lights on and the engineers paid at scale.
All those photos and videos cost bandwidth, and that ain't free.
But the number of people willing to pay for their accounts on this stuff is vanishingly small.
So either you run this as a side project and accept that it's losing money, or you start running ads. And the moment you start running ads is the moment your most profitable choice becomes slowly turning your site more and more addictive, so that people spend more and more time on it and see more and more ads.
(Or you can keep the place small and constrained to people who have a high chance of being able to kick some money in for the bills, I'm only paying about half my Mastodon instance's fees because of making this choice.)
Or you can create a huge societal shift where we decide that having non-profit social sites is a good thing, and that they should be funded by the state, even if many of the views on them contradict the views of the giant bags of money pretending to be humans who are currently in control of the country. Ideally this societal shift would make it much harder for these giant bags of money to exist, as well.
Oh also getting people to stick around on a site that's not built to be addictive is surprisingly hard.
Wikipedia runs on donations. Most of FB is a massively bloated interface to maximize engagement, shove as much “content” as they can anywhere and everywhere, track everything you do, and add more “features” to find the next mechanism to get people more addicted.
For over a decade, I used Facebook lite messenger app which was built for countries with spotty, slow internet. It was less than a tenth of the size of the US messenger (of course it was unavailable in the app store and had to be installed via apk), was fast and easy to use (no stories, feeds, money sharing, animations), and was much better at doing the one thing it was supposed to be for, messaging people. It finally stopped working a couple of years ago and the regular app is a bloated mess where chats are an afterthought.
And why? Ads. You need more engagement so you can show people more ads. You need more content, so you have more things to attach ads to. You to autoplay videos to get people to watch more and see more ads. You have to run trackers so you can better target your ads. It’s the ads, not the functions, that make the modern internet too expensive to be funded by individuals.
2000s Facebook was able to run just fine on 2000s internet and storage. It would take a trivial amount of modern data and a fraction of modern storage to run now.
As positive social networking disappears, the market demand for one you can pay for with no ads increases. Pricing would be difficult but every year the average consumer learns more and more about how much "free" costs.
I agree a non-profit approach might be the only option to avoid the same long term problems we've seen time and again.
You're technically correct - you can't force people to give consent for targeted advertising (since it would no longer be consent). But you're absolutely allowed to show people ads if they don't want to pay for ad-free.
Generally, trying to directly convert a free service to a subscription service can be much harder than starting out as a subscription service. Just look at all the resentful conspiracies about Facebook planning to charge money that would go viral back in the day.
Users don't like a contract radically changing from under them, and shifting from free to paid is breaking a contract in an immediately understandable way.
No one was forced to buy the plan nor was the free Facebook going to go away. You just would have had the option to pay to not have targeted ads. And that was vetoed by the EU, the very thing many here claim they'd like to do.
That case was about forcing users to choose between personalized ads or a paid subscription. I can understand why the EU would reject that.
A case like that is outside of the scope of my argument. My proposal is a site that offers subscriptions with no free ad supported option at all, which the EU wouldn't have an issue with.
> forcing users to choose between personalized ads or a paid subscription. I can understand why the EU would reject that.
Why do you understand why that should be rejected? I don't personally understand it at all. How can it be possible for users to get free Facebook and not give up any personal data to it? There would be no money coming in to keep the site running...
If social media were paid, it would effectively be another barrier between people with different means connecting with each other.
From the perspective of the EU and their regulatory environment (vis a vis GDPR) and given Facebook's reach and size, it fits with how they approach big tech and privacy.
| another barrier between people
It's been said enough before that cheap is always better than free. If the costs can be kept low enough, the benefits of removing ads and data-mining from the equation can be worth it. And there's always the option of regional pricing where that makes sense.
I'm still using Facebook for this, which works for the very few of my friends who are on it. It's actually nice if you aggressively report and unfollow everything you don't want to see.
Does anybody here know of an alternative that works like 2010 Facebook?
At this point, why would you trust anything? I certainly don't. Any platform that exists could get bought up by another company that just uses all the content to train AI.
There are structures that are more immune to this such as non-profits or cooperatives, but otherwise that distrust is warranted given the way it's all gone.
Use the "Feeds" tab (you have to go searching for it) but it allows you to just see stuff from your frields, pages you follow, groups, etc, purely in reverse chronological order, like God intended.
Sure. Taking that perspective even begins to explain some things, like a lot of the pointless me-too developments (short form videos?) Facebook has been implementing for years: if they dilute the product by incorporating others' ideas, even if those ideas go nowhere FB can claim everybody is in the same boat.
But it doesn't make it any less ridiculous. This is like the meme of the guy shooting the other dude in the chair.
The argument I would make as the government is the reason Facebook isn’t a social network is because it is a monopoly and didnt need to innovate and compete
It's wild how the narrative gets framed like Zuckerberg just observed this shift from the sidelines, when in reality, Meta steered the ship straight into this model
> [...] as something that happened to Facebook/Meta rather than something driven by Facebook/Meta to satisfy Wall Street. Social media did not naturally evolve into what it is today:
As soon as you have any platform which says "hey you there with an email address, you can put content on here that can be seen by anyone in the world." you will slowly end up with a scene that looks like all these sites we have now. Advertiser's and influencers will be there, at your behest or otherwise. There's only two options to avoid this.
1. Aggressively tune your algorithm against pure engagement and toward proximity.
2. Explicitly dissallow broad reach of content.
And when I say aggressively I really mean it. If people can "follow" others unilaterally, even only showing "followed content" will still lead to most people seeing mostly high engagement posts, rather than their friends.
At what point (degree of intervention) does something go from "natural" to "driven"? It's a hard question, but one things for sure, a Facebook that didn't allow high engagement content would already be dead.
>Social media did not naturally evolve into what it is today...resulted from purposeful business strategic decisions
I disagree about the actual mechanism at play. It is a cart before the horse
situation. Yes, it was driven by business, but that business was being driven by Web 2.0, which was being driven by the natural evolution of communication technology.
I feel like you have that exactly backwards? To me it was a shift in roles in the old field of dreams storyline. I.e. "if you build it, they will come".
In Web 1.0, you posted content and an audience came. In Web 2.0, you tried to open an empty field and commenters came and played with each other.
If anything, what happened next was a sort of halfway reversion, as the platforms tried to stratify and monetize two types of user. A subset who were the Web 2.0 contributors and another tier of more passive consumers. I think a lot of the "likes" stuff was also less about self-moderating channels and more about making passive users feel like they're engaging without actually having to contribute anything substantive.
There was plenty of discussion online prior to XmlHttpRequests, see vBulletin, Fark, Digg, etc. The only thing new about “Web 2.0” was a page refresh not being needed after an http request.
No, metrics and growth always existed and could be measured there wasn’t some technological breakthrough to enable that with Web 2.0. They, Facebook, decided to use it as their guiding principle. They decided to force the feed on their users. They knew their users had no real alternative and the value they had built with getting everyone on the network itself.
If anything, their move was anti-web 2.0. As they moved forum and blogs and news, pretty much all open and accessible content into their walled garden. Even the famous quote “know what’s cooler than being a millionaire? Being a billionaire.” Or however it goes, is a ruthless capitalist telling Zuck he needs to wake up and realized how valuable this thing he’s built really could be.
Carry on if you want but I think you’re very much the one that gets it backwards? Do you remember how it all transpired or are you too young to really understand what it was and what Web 2.0 really was about?
uhh what? Social media has been a thing since the very inception of the internet. What did feel like a massive transition is the massive prevalence of corporatized social media.
I feel like if you asked the a random warez group in 2010 if they would purposely make a "business" friendly version of themselves on a social media site owned by Microsoft they would have laughed in my faces.
No, something can monetize well but only for a small audience. This is what building for a niche does. What works for a niche may not match the macro trends that are at play.
You’re saying that Facebook was somehow helpless to avoid changing from a “friends feed” to an ad-maximizing outrage-inducing misinformation machine because of web2.0 communication technology?
Someone invented XmlHttpRequest and Facebook was like, “well that’s the ballgame, I guess we have to suck now?”
Much like a shot of heroin, yes, this is the take. Facebook got a taste of Web 2.0 and couldn't use it recreationally. It became their entire life. They immediately integrated it into every part of business until it was the only thing that mattered.
Letting unchecked greed guide decision-making is not a new phenomenon that came out of Web 2.0 though. To use your metaphor, the heroin was human attention. Web 2.0 was, at best, the syringe.
What I’m taking issue with is you disagreeing with the GP assertion that Facebook made purposeful business decisions.
I agree that a Facebook had a powerful incentive to act this way.
But they didn’t have to. The fact that they chose to reflects on their moral character.
Internal leaks let us know that Facebook has pretty advanced sentiment analysis internally. They knew that they were (are) making people miserable. They know that outrage causes engagement.
Other internal leaks let us know that Facebook was aware of how much disinformation was (is) being used on their platform to influence elections. To attack democracy.
They didn’t just look the other way, which would be reason enough to condemn them. They helped. When they saw how much money the propagandists were willing to pay, they built improved tools to better help them propagandize.
After the UK was shattered by the Brexit lies, when Facebook were called in front of parliament and congress to explain themselves over the Cambridge Analytica and related misinformation campaigns, they stalled, they lied, they played semantic word games to avoid admitting what is clearly stated in the leaked memos.
These were all choices. People should be held accountable for making awful choices.
Even if those choices result in them making a lot of money.
It sounds kind of crazy to even have to say that, doesn’t it? But that is where we are, partly because of arguments like yours from otherwise well-meaning people.
Don’t absolve them. Hold them accountable.
Zuckerberg wants to own the whole world and thinks you’re an idiot for trusting him. An egocentic sociopath who can’t imagine trusting anyone else because he knows what he will do when you give him your trust.
Even following the $, there was a case for keeping Facebook social. Users are valuable, and networking retains them, otherwise Facebook has nothing over competitors like TikTok.
I'll bet Zuck considered that. Maybe he figured upfront money was more important, especially for acquiring competitors like Instagram and sorta WhatsApp. He might be right, hard to tell.
If you know how to recognize evil people, this doesn't come as a surprise, and there are so many because society has been changed to protect them.
You recognize evil people by their blindness to the consequences of their destructive actions and the resistance to repeat such similar actions.
That kind of blindness is almost always accompanied by false justification, false reasoning, omission, or clever dissembling, or gaslighting to introduce indirection between accountability (reality) and their actions.
There is a short progression from complacency (the banality of evil) to the radical evil. This used to be an important part of history class in public education.
I'm distinctly happier since I ditched Facebook and Twitter. It's not a radical change, because the world kinda sucks in general. And I'm a little sad that a few of my older family members are effectively invisible since they only communicate on Facebook, but, honestly, I didn't talk to my mother's first cousins pre-Facebook anyway so, net, I haven't actually lost very much.
I was never on Instagram or TikTok, but neither seems to be "social" media as much as a communal fire hose anyway.
I was on Bluesky for a minute, but it was 99.9% people trying to one-up each other with witty or ironic one-liners for clout, with most of the rest being ex-Twitter people trying to keep Twitter combat alive in an arena (blessedly) free of the people who have made Twitter unbearable. I got tired of witnessing a neverending improv open mic while being randomly assaulted by people I agreed with.
So now I'm just living my life, aware of the challenges of the world, but not bathing in them.
Just speaking for myself. Facebook was fun when it was the underdog to MySpace. But I closed me account just a few years later and haven't looked back. Was never engaged on twitter, but have an account just so I can verify "yes, they actually posted that"
Aside from Reddit, my only social media is Instagram. On my Instagram, I only follow people I personally know or national-park/state-park/non-profit conservation accounts. I only like posts of people I personally know and nothing else, and I never comment on anything. I only post pretty pictures of nature with no people visible in a recognizable way. My feed is almost exclusively nature and animals (lots of seals and sea lions) with a lot of scuba diving mixed in. I also get a lot of xennial humor posts too, which I send to my wife and a buddy.
It's a very limited level of engagement, and I'm very happy with it. I don't need anything more.
Can I just tell you? I rejoined Reddit a couple of years ago, and (I cannot believe I'm about to type this) it is, generally speaking, a positive experience filled with people who are generally not terribly toxic, and the toxic people are pretty easy to avoid. There are some hotbeds of awful, mainly fandoms, and many of the tech subs are just tech-grumpy, but overall it's been an amazingly nice experience.
Regarding Reddit, I completely agree. I recognize that it is technically "social media", but I consider it to be a different animal from the majority of social media (Facebook, Twitter, Insta, etc...). Glad you're largely enjoying it! If you're still relatively knew to Reddit, there are some Reddit Classics with which you should be familiar -- namely, the infamous Poop Knife. https://www.reddit.com/r/poopknife/comments/1d5f1sq/original...
I'm old enough in Internet years to have ample experience with many of the Reddit-originating cultural touchpoints like poop knife. God help me, my Internet culture goes back beyond, uh, citrus parties. I joined Reddit (again) to get help with NixOS, and I've found this weird comfortable place in communities about my cameras, some strange linguistics interests, and whatnot. I can't think of anyone I "know" on Reddit--thus you're right that it's questionable whether it's "social" media--but somehow it's kept a very strong sense of culture without devolving into ... you know ... <waves hands>
Edit: wait, that could be interpreted as referring to HN, which it isn't. More everything else digital in the world.
Agree. It's social, but also semi-anonymous. It's a nice balance. It's not anonymous like 4chan, because on Reddit you still have a username and post/comment history, so you have a reputation. But it's largely anonymous because most people don't actually know people and it's not filled with "influencers". Though... it does have a bot problem. Glad to know you know of poop knife! My internet culture goes back to whitehouse.com and towel.blinkenlights.nl. :) Nice term for, uh... citrus parties.
After looking in vain for a browser-based Logseq (i.e., the way logseq used to be before APP EVERYTHING!!! began the downward spiral -- the next version won't even use markdown files), I've gone full Leeroy Jenkins on Silverbullet. It's not refined. It's not stable. But it's good enough, it lives in a browser, and it creates markdown. It's also incredibly customizable with Lua, but that's not necessarily a net positive for someone who wants an environment that works simply.
The problem with that is that people aren't asking for AI generated images in the style of Raven from Topeka with an Etsy shop. They're asking for Ghibli. So the people whose livelihoods are most directly impacted are (assuming they're not centuries dead) the famous, talented, and trend-making artists, not the lower tier making bad Precious Moments knockoffs. Society's problem is understanding that not wanting to pay for bad Precious Moments knockoffs is rational, while not wanting to pay, say, a Studio Ghibli for quality, professional creativity is insane.
Except they didn’t do any work for the exposure. If a marketing agency had come up and executed the Ghiblify everything model as a PR stunt we would call it the most genius creative campaign of the decade
They did though. The studio engaged in tremendous amounts of work and created good will, in addition to their specific creative works. Their visual style is tied up in that good will. Use of the visual style for profit without consent is, at least ethically, misappropriation of another's value. And "You should be pleased I used your creative work because now more people will know about you and you will make a lot of money from this!" is one of the oldest defenses to misappropriation of creativity.
I'm not even mad. We do a terrible job in our society of valuing artists and creative people generally and in explaining the value of intangible things, especially something like good will. People have been misappropriating fonts and clipart and screenshots in presentations and posters and whatnot, duplicating clever branding ideas and the creative efforts of others, and so on for _decades_ if not longer, all without ill intent. It's something we need to fix and never will. But when that becomes a channel for another to directly profit, it begins to venture out of harmlessness.
You're entirely missing the point. The average western person has never heard of or seen any Ghibli movies. GPT use is heavily skewed by nerdy types. The average football watching big-bang-theory-is-a-smart-show type person doesn't know what any of this is.
If Ghibli feels like they are getting screwed, they could've taken this opportunity to promote themselves, is the parent's point. If I were in their marketing dept I would have been screaming "guys, non-weeaboo people are seeing our name in the news, let's fucking capitalize!" When has Ghibli ever trended? Set up some screenings or stream Spirited Away on their site for a couple weeks or somethin. If they want to win hearts and minds, that's what you have to do. As of now, it's already out of the MSM news cycle and forgotten.
As if the Ghibli trend wasnt just a short trend people will have forgotten about in 4 weeks... Also I couldnt care less about big studios, they print money anyway.
Given the time commitment and network of basic biological, anatomical, and health knowledge required, that doesn't strike me as an insane price, assuming an artist who is able to create the requested art.
A friend who is heavily inked has gone on at length to me about understanding skin elasticity--particularly how it changes over a lifetime--as well as the way joints and muscles change and distort visual lines, etc. It sure seems like a skilled trade to me.
And, I don't know, depth of penetration of a needle in flesh and sanitation don't strike me as minor things to get right.
People love to make things seem harder than they are. I tattoo people, I am aware about skin types, usually thats not a big issue unless its heavily scarred. The quality of your tattoo machine matters most, as my 70€ eBay makeshift one wasnt nearly as good as a proper one. Amount of ink matters, needle depth, skin type, sweat. But thats stuff you have figured put after your 20th tattoo. Its like knowing datatypes in programming. You just know stuff after some practice.
> People love to make things seem harder than they are.
In my experience people tend to underestimate or downplay how difficult something will be or how complex it is. This happens in people who know only a little about something, but also in people who are highly experienced because it becomes normal and easy for them and they can quickly evaluate a situation and know which considerations don't apply.
> But thats stuff you have figured put after your 20th tattoo.
So... after spending hundreds, if not thousands, of hours learning a skill?
I got a tattoo back in the day and specifically went to one the guys in my platoon said was good due to him being featured in magazines or whatever. It's kind of an important thing to get right on the first, not 20th, attempt IMHO.
reply