Links to outside pages are a problem to be solved
January 9, 2015 10:21 AM   Subscribe

 
Is there anybody in the world who actually *likes* embedded auto-play videos? That shit leads to me bailing on sites like nothing else.
posted by tavella at 10:32 AM on January 9, 2015 [82 favorites]


Auto play videos can die in a goddamned fire made of fires that are themselves also on fire.

I guess FB video could maybe replace the two step effort of uploading to YT and then posting a link on FB, but it's nearly impossible to reliably share FB content outside of FB, so...

Sorry FB. Swing and miss.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 10:36 AM on January 9, 2015 [40 favorites]


Reading that Awl post last night got me clicking back through Content Wars, John Herrman's irregular series on the whirring blades at the bottom of the content blender. Come for the glumly plausible vision of our media future; stay for the terrifying robot gifs!
posted by Iridic at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


I know it's been said before, but Facebook is really trying to turn itself into AOL, isn't it?
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:38 AM on January 9, 2015 [16 favorites]


The open, distributed, level-playing-field Internet is a failure that must be fixed in order that someone can stand by a gate and collect money from content creators, or sell those content creators to other content creators.

Capitalism and the Internet are really not a very good fit, are they?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:42 AM on January 9, 2015 [34 favorites]


Come for the glumly plausible vision of our media future

When I got to, "these posts will reach and delight many people; they will assume new forms, most of which will have fresh potential as vessels for advertising," I experienced a moment of vertigo wherein I was not sure if he was talking about the posts or the people, but I was leaning strongly toward the latter.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [25 favorites]


Facebook is the very definition of "nobody goes there any more; it's too crowded".
posted by Curious Artificer at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2015 [15 favorites]


Capitalism and the internet are a great fit. Capitalism, the internet, and accessible, quality content are, right now, a pretty poor fit.

I think many of you are underestimating how many people visit "the internet" predominantly, and maybe even exclusively, through Facebook.
posted by MetalFingerz at 10:46 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


It's Facebook's platform. They control it. The fact you can freeload on it and become wildly popular is not some kind right, Facebook doesn't owe you; although they also benefitted from your popularity, it's still their show to run and profit off of. They are best served by sharing some of the profit with you, and if they don't, it may hurt them in the long run, but I don't really understand the expectation that they should give control to the creators. If you want to control the platform you publish on, you have to own -- or at least obligate by transferral of money -- the platform.

Also, Facebook is not demanding exclusive publishing rights, so people are certainly free to publish on both YouTube and Facebook, and wherever.
posted by Bovine Love at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


I've figured this sort of thing was Facebook's goal ever since they added Pages (intended to replace links to official websites) and the short-lived Questions (a sort of StackExchange/Quora clone). Every time you step out of Facebook's walled garden, Facebook sees it as a problem.
posted by narain at 10:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]


I think many of you are underestimating how many people visit "the internet" predominantly, and maybe even exclusively, through Facebook.

People try this weird way of accessing the Internet. You won't believe what happens next!

Fixed.

Or maybe the exact opposite of "fixed".
posted by Gelatin at 10:50 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


Facebook is the very definition of "nobody goes there any more; it's too crowded".

While I agree with this from a standpoint of coolness, since they're making money from the crowd...
posted by Going To Maine at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2015


Iridic, thank you for sending me down this hole.

From Should You Tweet:

Who Tweets?
Brands, and people who believe themselves to be brands.

xD
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2015 [28 favorites]


It's Facebook's platform. They control it.

There are ways around that control, though.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:00 AM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Also, Facebook is not demanding exclusive publishing rights, so people are certainly free to publish on both YouTube and Facebook, and wherever.
posted by Bovine Love at 1:49 PM on January 9


While people are certainly free to post to Facebook and YouTube, that doesn't mean Facebook won't tweak its algorithms to bury Facebook posts that are shared videos hosted outside Facebook. I work in TV and this very subject has been a recent concern. Currently, we create video clips in-house, host them on our web site and insert pre-roll advertising, then link to the video on Facebook to drive traffic to our site. There's no way for us to insert ads into Facebook-hosted videos, though.
posted by emelenjr at 11:02 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I was suggesting, emelenjr, that they can upload to both, not cross link. Clearly cross-linking is not in Facebook's interest as ultimately it is revenue sharing. That, of course, includes cross linking to your site.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:05 AM on January 9, 2015


From the second link: "Next, embedded YouTube videos were allowed entrance, proved popular, and made the old style of video-watching seem strange and inefficient..."

Oh man. The "old style" of video watching doesn't seem "strange" or "inefficient" to me at all. I want to have videos silo'd on a separate site, or at least entirely avoidable in some fashion. Is it literally inconceivable to these site designers that some of us browse at work and can't really be having videos blowing up in our offices (or worse yet cubes) all the damn time?

It's Facebook's platform. They control it. The fact you can freeload on it and become wildly popular is not some kind right, Facebook doesn't owe you; although they also benefitted from your popularity, it's still their show to run and profit off of.

I have come to regard this sort of statement as basically equivalent the proud logician who rushes into every thread to shout "correlation does not imply causality!!!" - it's a boilerplate statement of principle that is true in the trivial sense but shows a disinterest on the part of the speaker to engage the many more subtle issues specific to a given situation.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 11:07 AM on January 9, 2015 [19 favorites]


Capitalism and the Internet human civilization are really not a very good fit, are they?

I stopped using Facebook a couple of years ago. Like most of you, autoplaying video does not want make me want to return.

I do post to FB though. But only my Tweets, when I want the FB crowd (who mostly don't use Twitter) to see them.

Twitter is great. It's like MetaFilter for the whole Internet. A world-wide community blog used by lots. Text with links.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:07 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I think many of you are underestimating how many people visit "the internet" predominantly, and maybe even exclusively, through Facebook

There are a lot of obvious differences between the services, but here, the comparison is valid, I think. AOL had a LOT of users who predominantly, often exclusively, visted the "Internet" through it. Things can change quickly.

I'm surprising FB hasn't done a Drive/Dropbox/video storage offering (maybe they do). Once you get people to store their videos/photos/porn there, they won't leave.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:11 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Once again, facebook is making me nervous. Or rather, making me more nervous than it already was. I'm seeing resources and eyeballs on non-facebook sites dwindling, and their really doesn't seem to be much reward for creating content ON facebook.

I don't even know what to make of my newsfeed there anymore. It's cluttered with posts from people I don't know or care about. I've tried different ways of curating it, but it always ends up being remixed by facebook again.

No, no one is making me use facebook, but the rest of the haunts seem to be crickets these days. I go back and forth between completely abandoning it, using infrequently, and just accepting that's where the audience is.

Except, the more anyone panders to the Facebook audience, the more power you're giving to Facebook to keep audiences captive.

It would not surprise me at all that they start devaluing external links; if they haven't already.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:16 AM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


What you do then, emelenjr, is get product placement. Eventually news anchors will just wear sponsored jumpsuits like NASCAR drivers.
posted by Small Dollar at 11:17 AM on January 9, 2015 [4 favorites]


it's a boilerplate statement of principle that is true in the trivial sense but shows a disinterest on the part of the speaker to engage the many more subtle issues specific to a given situation.

No, I was trying to be polite and beat around the bush.

Ok, here is the simpler version: Lots of people, publishers, have gotten a huge amount of publicity (and possibly money in cases they know how to turn one into the other) by using Facebook as their platform. That's great for them. Fine. But Facebook doesn't owe them. This constant belly aching about how Facebook is closing their system and eliminating x y or z and its all so very unfair is ridiculous. If you want to discuss how Facebook dominance is hurting publishers because it is the only avenue to effectively work in, that is a discussion that has some merit and can be examined with numbers, examples, and other things. That kind of discussion is interesting with Twitter too, because people feel that have to play in Twitter but the highly hostile environment can be bad for employees and life in general. But the Awl article is just whining that Facebook is looking out for their own interests. Well DUH. Your challenge is to figure out how to align your interests with theirs, so you benefit, or to figure out what is require to do without them, or possibly how to scam the system a little and do it your way but still on Facebook; that is an arms race though, and Facebook is well armed.

Of course Facebook is going to try to keep you in their ecosystem, that is plain old good sense. It's like complaining rain is wet. If we want to have something other then a whining session about the unfairness of it all, how about discussion of alternatives to getting exposure? Or if Facebook has become essentially a monopoly of publicity, and should be treated different then a private entity? Or something constructive, other then the obvious Facebook looks out for itself.
posted by Bovine Love at 11:20 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Back when I worked on the Google video ads engineering team, we were pretty amused when we turned on ads for YouTube videos embedded in Facebook. Our ads, showing on Facebook--ha! Of course Facebook would be pretty concerned by such a thing.

That's not a terrifying robot gif, *this* is a terrifying robot gif (video).
posted by jjwiseman at 11:23 AM on January 9, 2015 [13 favorites]


stupidsexyFlanders: Capitalism and the Internet are really not a very good fit, are they?

The problem is that operation of the Internet (the fiber, routers, servers, etc) all cost money, and are mostly managed by for-profit companies. I don't know if it's realistic to hope for a multinational non-profit to operate such infrastructure.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:25 AM on January 9, 2015


That's not a terrifying robot gif...
I stand corrected! And disquieted!

posted by Iridic at 11:27 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


Who Tweets?
Brands, and people who believe themselves to be brands.


"That's not true" he shouts before he realizes he does secretly believe himself to be a brand without realizing it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:30 AM on January 9, 2015 [9 favorites]


It's Facebook's platform. They control it. The fact you can freeload on it and become wildly popular is not some kind right, Facebook doesn't owe you; although they also benefitted from your popularity, it's still their show to run and profit off of.

Kneel before Zuck!
posted by octobersurprise at 11:31 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


At the moment, it's fairly easy to find videos on YouTube.

If videos are contributed directly to Facebook, how will people even know about them to share them? Are they assuming that people are already following the contributors who have videos to share? Are they trusting in a widget to show most popular videos to people, and that people will be motivated to share those? Or do they have some new search interface waiting?
posted by gimonca at 11:32 AM on January 9, 2015


But the Awl article is just whining that Facebook is looking out for their own interests. Well DUH.

Not sure what you're saying here - if an entity is acting in its own self interest then it can't be criticized?
posted by echo target at 11:34 AM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Of course Facebook is going to try to keep you in their ecosystem, that is plain old good sense. It's like complaining rain is wet.

While it's true that the Awl piece can be read as just reminding everyone that the weather continues stormy, it's important to remember that Facebook makes the weather, in the same way that Amazon makes the weather, or that Google makes the weather. Facebook can choose to succeed at business by folding everyone into their ecosystem, or they can choose to succeed at business by trying something different. Either way, you can't really complain when people talk about how basements are getting flooded. (This comparison is getting strained. Also, I think it ignores that the Awl is taking a few jabs at the grandiosity of Facebook's language as related to the content that they are bragging about hosting.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:39 AM on January 9, 2015


[T]he Awl article is just whining that Facebook is looking out for their own interests.

I think you underestimate The Awl, and I think you underestimate the deference The Awl gives to its readers' intelligence. The Awl's media critic is writing for an audience that already understands and appreciates the fact that Facebook drives the vast majority of traffic (and thus revenue) to web publishers. The article is pointing out that the shift if facebook's language and emphasis portends a shift in the nature of that relationship. The article is about what facebook's move will mean for publishers, not whether Facebook has a right to do it. Of course it can do it. And also of course publishers can't stop them. These things are understood. The nature of the power relationship is understood.

I don't really see what a diffuse collection of online publishers can do, really about this shift. They can choose to essentially subordinate themselves within the Facebook ecosystem, or they can choose to remain independent and outside of it; it may well be that either is a slow death spiral. Why advertise on a site nobody goes to see? Their only real hope is that Facebook becomes so hermetic and AoL-like that a huge chunk of their audience abandons it. AoL chugged along for twenty years after it stopped being cool and is still a profitable going concern. It seems to me a slim hope.
posted by Diablevert at 11:40 AM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]


Their only real hope is that Facebook becomes so hermetic and AoL-like that a huge chunk of their audience abandons it.

Or, they ignore it. I mean, FB can't enforce content restrictions very readily - if they make it harder for my photos and videos, whereever they are hosted, to be seen by my mom, then I will find another solution.

I get that FB would very much like to seek rents using their userbase, and to some extent they will be able to. But that ability has some severe limits.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:51 AM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


... Google makes the weather.
Google is an interesting case; it has become near impossible to succeed, even in a very minor way, on the web without them. One could easily argue that they have become a monopoly of sorts, and should be treated differently and -- at least in Europe -- that is starting to be the case.

Is Facebook in the same place? I think that would be a lot harder to show -- there are definitely other social media platforms -- but it would be interesting to pursue. And if it were true, even to some extent, there would be an argument that Facebook needs to be more open.

Also, I think it ignores that the Awl is taking a few jabs at the grandiosity of Facebook's language as related to the content that they are bragging about hosting

Well, I'm not in Swift's demographic, but clearly a lot of people find her compelling, and found that jab to be more in the elitist frame then poking fun.

I found the Awl article to be lecturing me on things which should be self evident (treating me as naive and unable to see through Facebooks fairly blatant posting). It is possible I have underestimated their respect for their reader, I'll try to re-read it with a fresh perspective later.

I posted the horrifying soft-tissue robot video to Facebook :)
posted by Bovine Love at 11:52 AM on January 9, 2015


What the shift to Facebook video means is that Facebook is more interested in hosting the things media companies make than just spreading them, that it views links to outside pages as a problem to be solved, and that it sees Facebook-hosted video as an example of the solution.

I'm highly annoyed that the mobile Facebook app opens and renders the content of external links within the app.

For websites it's a serious problem because over the past 18 months or so Facebook has become the single largest referrer after organic search (which means Google search).

I think it sucks and I haven't read much industry news about this.
posted by Nevin at 11:55 AM on January 9, 2015 [11 favorites]


“It’s dead to us. Facebook is…an awkward family dinner party we can’t really leave.”
A Tennager's View on Social Media
posted by furtive at 12:11 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


That's not a terrifying robot gif, *this* is a terrifying robot gif (video).

Holy crap, no doubt. Spoiler: it only starts out horrifying and ends psychofuckingnuts terrifying. Its a fantastic magic-trick type performance. Trigger warning: slicey robots, pork quarters.


posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:19 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


“It’s dead to us. Facebook is…an awkward family dinner party we can’t really leave.”
– A Tennager's View on Social Media


That's really interesting. My company recently had a class of college students do some research for us, and the response was almost identical. Facebook is dead; you're on it because you 'have to' because that's what grandma uses.

Instagram and Snapchat are the universal go-to.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:44 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Instagram and Snapchat are the universal go-to.

My niece prefers kik, but yeah Facebook is dead to her.
posted by davros42 at 12:46 PM on January 9, 2015


Ogre Lawless: "Holy crap, no doubt. Spoiler: it only starts out horrifying and ends psychofuckingnuts terrifying. Its a fantastic magic-trick type performance. Trigger warning: slicey robots, pork quarters."

Behold the Scott - Automated Lamb Boning System.
posted by boo_radley at 12:49 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm highly annoyed that the mobile Facebook app opens and renders the content of external links within the app.

You can turn this off. Not that you should have to....
posted by the christopher hundreds at 12:51 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


boo_radley: Is that the 12-story block combining classical neo-Georgian features with the efficiency of modern techniques?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:54 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Instagram and Snapchat are the universal go-to.

So Facebook is batting 0.500 here.....
posted by Bovine Love at 12:57 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


teresting. My company recently had a class of college students do some research for us, and the response was almost identical. Facebook is dead; you're on it because you 'have to' because that's what grandma uses.

It's interesting --- you read the piece, he talks a lot about how he spends much more time on other networks and likes the experience better, but also lists about five crucial utilities that keep him locked in to Facebook --- basically it is the de facto way to interact with acquaintances/relatives, while the other services are mostly for people you already know well.
posted by Diablevert at 12:58 PM on January 9, 2015


Metafilter: a goddamned fire made of fires that are themselves also on fire.
posted by Quasirandom at 1:02 PM on January 9, 2015 [12 favorites]


A Teenager's View on Social Media

When do these people find time to do anything else?
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 1:42 PM on January 9, 2015


Brands are symbols that are slapped on things. So if people think they are brands then we should probably slap them on things. It's what they want.
posted by srboisvert at 2:16 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Brands are symbols that are slapped on things. So if people think they are brands then we should probably slap them on things. It's what they want.

Brands are heated pieces of metal used to mark cattle. So if people think they are brands then we should probably heat them until they glow red and jam them into the sides of cows. It's what they want.
posted by Sangermaine at 2:26 PM on January 9, 2015 [7 favorites]


I see the overarching force to be the two generations of people still working, and the curriculums still operational, oriented around the "eyes=ads" business model. This is a huge player, and basically everyone getting involved in the money side of the Internet only has print and TV histories to refer to when thinking of revenue ideas.
posted by rhizome at 2:29 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


The fact you can freeload on it and become wildly popular is not some kind right, Facebook doesn't owe you

Facebook became popular because people "freeload" on it. If they don't want that, that's fine. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
posted by the jam at 2:41 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Breaking News
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:00 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm much older than Facebook's target demographic, and I have a small, finely curated list of "friends". I use it to catch up on what they're doing and keep in touch - in a casual way. I've found it very helpful for getting back in contact with old school friends, and the like. I accept the ads, because nothing's free - I just ignore them. But yes, my news feed has been getting rather quiet lately.

Back to the topic, auto-playing videos are terrible. They use up my bandwidth on my mobile, and the money from that goes to my ISP, not Facebook. If I want to watch videos, I'll go to youtube from my PC or Playstation at home where I have more bandwidth. I know you can disable auto-play, but my phone is a bit screwed, and I have to reset it every few weeks, meaning I have to go back into Facebook's settings and disable auto-play again, and I'm just over it.
posted by Diag at 3:21 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Facebook to me is like the Cheesecake Factory. It's crowded, makes a lot of money, serves heaping piles of whatever, and it might be the last place I would go in a million years. Thanks.
posted by repoman at 3:35 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I wish this thread had embedded auto-playing video. :(
posted by mazola at 3:38 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


fwiw, to put things in personal perspective, i just spent a half-hour or so cruising Facebook and did not see a single autoplay video. for now, i guess.

honestly, i can't see that "feature" sticking around. i won't visit news sites with autoplay videos (or more frequently, just use FF with noscript running).

a lot of people (most?) use Facebook at work (or during class). who wants it aside from advertisers? features for advertisers only are a sure way to kill your business.

i once worked for cable-modem content service of the '90s @Home; we once published a page that autoplayed a dinosaur roar (.wav of course). on repeat. users went insane with rage.

noscript bears mentioning again.

Cheesecake Factory

I'll substitute Applebee's. Or Outback Steakhouse.
posted by mrgrimm at 3:39 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


just spent a half-hour or so cruising Facebook and did not see a single autoplay video.
I can see five with just a few swipes of the scroll wheel from the top of my news feed. One really smart thing Facebook has done with this is to play the video without sound unless you click on it. True autoplay video is almost universally annoying, but I guarantee the annoyance value is dramatically lower when the audio isn't played. I wonder whether a video autoplaying counts as a 'view'?

Facebook is, indeed, starting to look more and more like AOL. Which, n the medium term, may be a good thing - AOL used to act as a filter to a certain extent, by trapping a lot of people there who either didn't know there was an Internet beyond AOL or didn't know how to get there. Those are often the people that are ruining the Internet for the rest of us, so I'm not sure it would be all bad to trap them once again and we can have our Internet back.
posted by dg at 3:58 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


Bovine Love: "Of course Facebook is going to try to keep you in their ecosystem, that is plain old good sense."

Welcome to the internet. You're new here, yeah?

*sigh* September forever (ha! And AOL to boot!)
posted by symbioid at 4:05 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


From the FB link: "With the launch of auto-play and the surge in mobile use, it’s also important to focus on posting videos that grab people from the first frame of video. "

The other day, I was lamenting how I'm really tired of people posting images that are basically "Cards for Humanity" with some dumb quote or whatever point somebody thinks they deserve to have made.

It's like DUDE YOU HAVE TEXT YOU HAVE A SHARE BUTTON. USE IT.

But because, I dunno, people don't want to squint or old people are online or I dunno, people are fucking dumb, all they do is share these stupid ass pictures. It's bad enough to just "reshare" things (and look, I'm guilty as hell of this, too, I can't deny I share things now and then)... But these text-images (I mean, they're not even fucking macros, nobody even took the time to like - fake a source of a quote and attach it to an image of fucking kermit or ghandi or whatever... ) They're shouting, they're a billboard for some usually inane stupid thought that someone thought was clever. It's like they want to be twitter, but use facebook, but get attention by using text. as image.

And when I saw that "grab people from the first frame" this is the next step. It's just gonna be a video. With text. As an image. And maybe a 10 second clip of music to waste everyone's fucking time and bandwidth. There won't be "moving pictures" there won't even be pictures, it won't strobe, it won't move, it won't blink, it won't dance, it won't even be in color. The revolution will not be televised, it will be static. It will be dead.
posted by symbioid at 4:12 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


Using text would mean that they themselves were saying it. By posting some picture it's just what some other person said.
posted by rhizome at 4:22 PM on January 9, 2015


we once published a page that autoplayed a dinosaur roar (.wav of course)

If wanted your website to make noise, I would lick my finger and rub it on the screen.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 4:24 PM on January 9, 2015 [8 favorites]


That doesn't work on modern, plastic screens, unfortunately :-( I may or may not have just tested this.
posted by dg at 4:30 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


They post the pictures of text to avoid some of the text analysis systems Facebook uses.
posted by Bovine Love at 4:54 PM on January 9, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm highly annoyed that the mobile Facebook app opens and renders the content of external links within the app.

This annoys me also. But I happen to have worked on a fairly popular app (not Facebook), and having links bounce out to Safari was a CONSTANT source of both confusion and complaints for our users. Confusion because non-technical users didn't understand how to get back to our app once they were done looking at the link (and yes, thank you most of them did want to get back to the app). And complaints because opening Safari would sometimes cause our app to be pushed out of memory, and then they'd have to wait for it to re-launch and re-load the state when they went back. Once we implemented an in-app browser, support requests and complaints on these topics dropped drastically, and I don't recall getting a single complaint from someone who wished we'd open Safari by default. So, I have come to believe that those of us who prefer the app to open links in Safari might be in the minority.
posted by primethyme at 5:01 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


They post the pictures of text to avoid some of the text analysis systems Facebook uses.

Perhaps, but it's actually a thing that FB will boost the views of images more than of text statuses. Whether people who do this are following advice, doing what everyone else does, doing their own A/B testing (I'm part of a set of locally-oriented pages that has people who've actually done this), or just intuiting that this is better, it's hard to say. But it is a thing.
posted by dhartung at 5:17 PM on January 9, 2015 [3 favorites]


Or it is just Darwinian, only the pictures survived for you to see them. The text versions disappeared beneath the waves of Facebook's tide.
posted by Bovine Love at 5:52 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


We just had a tiny tiny facebook campaign that ended up being hugely successful for the goal we wanted to reach, and it was a lightbulb moment for us. If your brand/product isn't aimed at teenagers, then facebook allows you to target with insane precision. We're outside the US, so it's limited compared to the data that the US advertisers have which is really kinda frightening. I did the campaign over Christmas with some advice from a friend who works at Facebook, and it was really surreal. I've peripherally worked around advertising on mass media and digital ads, but it's always felt like Big Corporate toolbox relevant to the budget, and to suddenly as an individual for a tiny tiny group have the same kind of tools to do that was like being handed keys to a Ferrari for the same price as taking the bus.

We're about to test two videos for a campaign, and I am sincerely and without irony excited about Facebook video advertising. Because it was hands-down the best money we've spent so far.
posted by viggorlijah at 7:49 PM on January 9, 2015 [5 favorites]


The fact you can freeload on it and become wildly popular is not some kind right, Facebook doesn't owe you

Facebook does owe musicians royalties unless it has already negotiated with performing rights organizations like google/youtube did.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:45 PM on January 9, 2015


dg: "That doesn't work on modern, plastic screens, unfortunately :-( I may or may not have just tested this."

Oh, for an image tag.
posted by symbioid at 10:19 PM on January 9, 2015


When are Facebook going to install the bikes, so we can earn our way?
posted by phoebus at 10:48 PM on January 9, 2015 [1 favorite]


[insert clever name here]: "I don't even know what to make of my newsfeed there anymore. It's cluttered with posts from people I don't know or care about. I've tried different ways of curating it, but it always ends up being remixed by facebook again."

I'm not trying to be facetious, but what does this mean? A long time ago I went through and selected "hide from timeline" or whatever for a few folks I didn't want to see updates from, and...that was it. Those people's stuff no longer shows up. Also, why are there posts from people you don't know? If you don't know these people, why did you add them as friends? And even if it was because of clicking the wrong button somewhere, surely it would be only one or two people, right? You're saying that you curated (unfriended) them but facebook is putting updates on your page anyway?
posted by Bugbread at 4:37 PM on January 10, 2015 [3 favorites]


Autoplay of video is wretched and can be managed. I'm not a fan of facebook's algorithm(s) mucking with what I want to read, but I follow news and interest groups so that facebook is like a magazine, with extra articles about friends and family.

I would use fb on my phone if I could just use a web browser, but it requires the app, which is then annoying as hell.
posted by theora55 at 1:15 AM on January 13, 2015


I would use fb on my phone if I could just use a web browser, but it requires the app

I'm able to use it just fine on my phone's browser (Chrome, on a Nexus 4).
posted by Iridic at 8:39 AM on January 13, 2015


« Older Here's to more aural deliciousness in 2015!   |   Drugged out Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments