I think it's more like a restaurant offering both candy and burgers.
When candy sales outpace burgers, they're naturally going to invest more in candy. Eventually, they start to compete more with Hershey's than McDonald's.
I guess the problem with this analogy is that it fails to capture the essential nature of Facebook: that its base product ("hamburgers") has a network effect, and the new product ("candy") doesn't.
If Facebook is a social network for seeing my friends, then there's nowhere else for me to go. They're on Facebook and it's unlikely they're all going to join some new network at the same time.
If Facebook is a high engagement content farm designed to shove random engagement-bait in my face, then it's just competing with Reddit, Digg, Twitter, 4chan, TikTok. Folks can get addicted to this in the short term; but they can also get bored and move on to another app. Based on conversations with all the IRL human beings I know, this is what they've all done. (The actual question I have is: who is still heavily using the site? Very old people?)
What I constantly see, are businesses that would be just fine continue doing the same, but die instead because they tried to evolve into something and alienated all their existing customers/users and couldn't attract new ones because what they evolved into made no sense. But no, businesses want to take over the world (or at least have a large slice from the pie) so they "evolve" no matter what.
This isn’t quite true. There are many businesses like Colgate that are steady state with a reasonable amount of growth that do fine in the stock market.
Numbers can naturally go up with the population, unless the product stays the same and newer generations decide they don't want it. Facebook suffered a double hit from both changing the product to scrollslop instead of a way to check on friends, and from becoming "uncool" with young people because it's what their boring parents used.
Infinite growth!!!
How silly we still are as a species. The more of us there are, the stupider we act, and we don't even do anything to prevent it, we just let the consequences of our own stupidity roll over us one day, when they can no longer be stopped.
> There has actually been a friends-only feed on FB for years. Timelines -> Friends filters everything down. The problem? Nobody I care about posts anymore.
Is that really the only problem? How many taps/clicks do you need to get there? Can you make it the default? And how obvious is it that it actually exists?
People in UX research told us constantly they wanted the feed to be about friends, and chronological.
Several times we ran A/B tests with many millions of people to try exactly this. Every time all the usage metrics tanked. Not just virality and doomscroll metrics, but how many likes, messages, comments, re-shares, and app-opens. We never even measured ad-related things on that team.
So people say they want this, like they say they want McDonalds to offer salads.
Nobody orders salads at McDonalds.
I really appreciate the reply, thanks for sharing that.
> Every time all the usage metrics tanked.
What if that's exactly what people want? Less usage of Facebook (horrifying, I know -- it can't be true, right?), with a focus on friends etc. when they do use it? I know you'll dislike the analogy, but isn't all that different from smoking. You think usage metrics tanking implies the outcome is bad... why exactly? Is it that unthinkable that less quantity and more quality is better for people, and what they actually want?
> So people say they want this, like they say they want McDonalds to offer salads. Nobody orders salads at McDonalds.
You seem to be missing that the people who have the means to eat out wherever they want don't eat at McDonald's every few hours. They go in moderation. They actively want to avoid McDonald's most of the time. Once in a while they get a craving, or get super hungry and don't see other options, etc. and they cave in and go there. Of course the get the tasty unhealthy option when they go, but it's foolish to think they prefer to eat McDonald's all the time. (Do you seriously believe that??)
I don't dislike the analogy. I eventually reached a point where I couldn't stomach the TikTok-ification of the product that Zuck forced us to keep marching towards, so I left.
Personally I agree with your point, less social media is better. I personally never go to Facebook anymore and set up app limits on my phone for my health. I won't let my kids use it at all.
But I worked at a company and drew a considerable salary, so I did what I was expected to do to make the product make money.
This seems like such a bizarre thing to put your finger on in the middle of an otherwise seemingly sincere post. Of all the hatred people have had toward Facebook the past > decade, I don't think "it's too much like TikTok" was the cause that has kept them up at night. If anything there are a ton of people who would much rather TikTok could be replaced by Facebook, so that at least the national security implications would be less dire in their eyes.
But yeah:
> But I worked at a company and drew a considerable salary
nice to admit what everybody knew. With the kind of compensation Facebook gave, I doubt many would've behaved differently.
Just take the win. It seems like such a bizarre thing to nitpick like this with a prior employee that has voluntarily opened up to you and agreed with many of your points.
I really wanted to, but that bit wasn't some minor detail. It felt pretty darn central to the whole thing, as it undermined what seemed like the central point.
Imagine this from a tobacco-company ex-salesman: "I don't let my kids smoke, I don't think it's healthy. I eventually left Camel because I couldn't stomach the Marlboro-ification of our product." So what we're being told is... after so many years of people complaining tobacco is harmful, they're saying they knew that all along and would've been totally cool with it while the money was coming in, but the straw that actually broke their (pardon the pun) Camel's back was that... their product suddenly started resembling their competitor's?? Or perhaps they're saying they don't believe it was harmful until the product stopped differentiating itself from their competitor's (but then the salary aspect would've been moot before that point)? And, either way... so we are reading all this after the rest of the world has been (pardon the second pun) fuming for much longer over much more concerning reasons?
It seems pretty darn important to understand what the regret is -- and I don't even mean this for judgment purposes (although it would inevitably impact that); I mean this for the larger purpose of understanding the thought process itself, for dealing with it in the future. i.e. if the reality we're facing is that product differentiation is what keeps people in such positions, rather than a disregard or misunderstanding of the societal or public-health impact, that's... news to me. And so (to me, anyway) this seems like an absolutely crucial detail to unpack, not an unimportant detail to gloss over.
But, yes, I very much appreciate that they shared this, and I'm sure it wasn't easy to in any case.
>Several times we ran A/B tests with many millions of people to try exactly this. Every time all the usage metrics tanked. Not just virality and doomscroll metrics, but how many likes, messages, comments, re-shares, and app-opens. We never even measured ad-related things on that team.
Well, yeah, but this has an implicit "engagement === good" assumption. Exactly the same thing that incentivizes unhealthy McDonald's food: they make more money when they sell food that still leaves you hungry. So, yeah, people probably did want this, and when they got it they started using Facebook in a healthy manner (no point opening it at every available moment to just scroll through 'new' trash), which tanked your metrics. If you're actually worrying about your users you should also consider that them using your product more might not actually be what they want or need.
Ironically enough, I think the same mistake (or rather, it's more of a mistake because there's not quite such a naked financial incentive to make this worse for the affected users) has happened with the youtube analytics dashboard: multiple youtubers have said that it's actively addicting and really bad for their mental health, but any change that feeds that probably looks really good in their metrics because, hey, creators are using it more, that must mean it's good, right?
Trust me, I came in there full of motivation for "do what is good for the actual humans", and most of the rank of file were the same. FB's employees are not evil or exploitative, though I won't say its unfair to describe the leadership in such terms.
Many times in product design meetings I would interject with "but this hurts people!" etc.
We hated that our personal careers were directly tied to increasing the junk-food factor. It didn't feel good at all. But the choice, as crafted by HR and senior directors was clear: Junk food this thing, or lose your jobs.
the problem isn't introducing junk foods into menu, but focusing on the junk foods performance and killing other food categories as the result. I know that companies need revenue to survive and improve, but they're currently focusing too much on revenue and profit that they kill everything else.
it's like introducing unskippable ads and page-wide pop up ads makes user use adblock and killing other simpler banner ads.
I'm sure there's more that could be shared about how "wants" were determined, which would counter my off-the-cusp thought here, but anyways:
Yes... my ideal would be for facebook feed to be a once-a-week addiction (maybe a bit more) where I go, see what's new, and clearly hit an end point where I know I'm seeing things I've seen before. But I'm also part of the "problem" in that I post myself maybe twice/year now.
I'd suspect the current doomscroll-y feed like we have now/you were working on reduces my likelihood of "interacting" with friends' posts. "Do I make the effort of commenting, or lazily keep scrolling to the next-often-good 3rd party content?"
A year or two ago, I copied some greasemonkey type script off reddit, and that nuked all the non-friend content off my feed, but that stopped working a couple months later and I haven't been strongly enough motivated to find an updated approach. I have little enough friend activity that I'd easily notice when I hit old content.
The current doomscrolling feed of algo content sure does manage to hook me, so that's a nice indicator of the current team being successful :P
There's an old saying: you can never get enough of what doesn't fill your need.
For example, when you need sleep, you can't eat enough to make you not tired, but you may well pound a lot of caffeine and sugar.
If true, this would accomodate the simultaneous truths that:
(a) users accurately report their preference chronological friend connection when they come to a social feed
(b) users spend more time engaging with a social feed when the need they come to fill has irregularly payoffs
That you can get more engagement by not giving them what they want/need (or giving them what they need irregularly) wouldn't mean that they are lying to you, it would simply mean that engagement and social payoff curves aren't the same, and the incentives to drive one might not optimize the other.
I still see other content, even there, but it's still somehow manageable. I run out of updates very quickly though whereas I'd like to just start seeing older posts from friends that I've seen already.
Facebook commonly runs A/B testing on their UI. It is almost weekly for me and one of my friends to ask each other “hey do you have the <x> tab at the bottom” for Meta apps. Marketplace, Dating, “All Chats” in messenger which was just the same as the slide out menu I bet people didn’t use much. I also think they change per-user depending on what they use.
edit: I decided to check real quick and I do have the friends tab. Here’s a crop of it, note I edited out the last “Menu” tab for privacy.
Not only was that Friends tab not there for me by default, but it also does not do the aforementioned when I customize the top(? not bottom) tab bar to I include it. What it does is to show me a list: of pending friends, and friend requests. No space to show any posts to begin with. To see my friends' posts, I have to click the hamburger, then Feeds, then Friends, then (sometimes) manually pull down to refresh, because it usually just lies to me that I've already caught up. This is designed to be actively user-hostile, as if they were forced to implement this against their will.
You might be interested in FreeFollow.org [full disclosure, I'm one of the engineers working on it].
It combines the economic model of web hosting (users pay to host spaces, reading is free, and writing in someone else's space is also free), the simple UI of social media (you have a profile and write posts), and the E2EE security model of 1Password (we actually implemented their published security model). It's also a non-profit so there's no pressure from owners to exploit users.
It's aimed primarily at parents of young kids who are annoyed at constantly sharing via text groups, but non-parents are also surprisingly into it.
Independent social media run in a cost-effective way and actually helping their community is the future. I really hope non-American devs learn this because most American devs are too busy trying to get rich.
Thanks for letting us know. Unfortunately we haven't been able to reproduce that with the current version of Firefox, but if you'd like to email us at hello@freefollow.org we'll add you to the list manually.
> There has actually been a friends-only feed on FB for years. Timelines -> Friends filters everything down.
I remember when this was called "Lists", and I carefully gathered acquaintances into lists. When I wanted to check in with particular list, I clicked on the list.
Then the lists sidebar disappeared (but you could still get the functionality if you knew the URL / argument structure).
Then the functionality disappeared.
I'm sure some product/UX staff did career making things on a metric somewhere.
> The problem? Nobody I care about posts anymore. The "flywheel" is broken.
Why post when there's no guarantee who/anyone will see it amongst a firehose of bait-y and often angry stuff?
This is part of the anti-flywheel which draws towards doomscroll.
> group chats
Group chats have the baseline virtue of knowing who your audience is.
They're missing other virtues, but that's probably another conversation.
I think they recently made a big deal about this even? The fact that they would “promote” something that likely reduces time spent scrolling and viewing of ads means that no one is going to use it as an alternative to doom scrolling. They know they got you hooked on the good stuff and are just pretending to not be the bad guys
Discord too. Most of my friends are on Discord, we have group chats and private servers. Many communities use Discord as their primary online hub too.
It is concerning. Discord has been slowly enshittifying for the last couple of years: ads (ex: "quests"), app bugs, etc... There is no export option and even public servers are not accessible to search engines and archives.
Never confuse loyalty to a person with loyalty to an employer.
I have found loyalty to managers - when reciprocated - is the most valuable currency I have. It's led to both rewarding experiences & safety from the exact type of organizational change that makes loyalty to an employer useless.
Loyalty is for people & ideas, never organizations.
The second step, Orient, does not include making hypotheses. It's about forming a picture or concept in your mind of the situation in which you have to act.
There is nothing in OODA about hypothesizing or testing; you are quickly forming a final conclusion and acting - it's almost the opposite of science, in that regard. It was created for fighter pilots; a failed hypothesis would often result in death and be your last thought.
Science and aerial combat are very different: Science has time to be methodical and it experiments to uncover an absolute truth; in aerial combat you must make final, 'good enough' decisions as quickly as possible, because taking time results in failure.
I’d argue the hypothesis is the third step Decide. The Orient step is framing of the situation and the most important part of the OODA loop versus the actual hypothesis step.
I think the major difference between the OODA Loop and Science seems to be that OODA Loop is in a way backwards looking. You take in the knowledge of the past and your enemy’s knowledge and make a hypothesis you execute on based on that assumed knowledge to not die. Science you predict a future state where the knowledge is unclear or unknown.
John Boyd is often known exclusively for the so-called ‘OODA’ loop model he developed. This model refers to a decision-making process and to the idea that military victory goes to the side that can complete the cycle from observation to action the fastest.
This book aims to redress this state of affairs and re-examines John Boyd’s original contribution to strategic theory. By highlighting diverse sources that shaped Boyd’s thinking, and by offering a comprehensive overview of Boyd’s work, this volume demonstrates that the common interpretation of the meaning of Boyd’s OODA loop concept is incomplete. It also shows that Boyd’s work is much more comprehensive, richer and deeper than is generally thought.
The whole thing with social media is network effects though. The added friction of a VPN, though small, is just so much larger than "click download, open app"
When candy sales outpace burgers, they're naturally going to invest more in candy. Eventually, they start to compete more with Hershey's than McDonald's.
Businesses evolve or die, no?