What eventually kills these platforms is "death by thousand cuts". Enshitification, controversies, legal problems will alienate users bit by bit. Competing services will then make some people visit less and less until they stop coming at all.

These platforms are competing for peoples attention/time which is finite resource.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But in addition to what happened to Yahoo, Meta’s platforms also use the network effect to keep users. Once the tide turns and the network effect is stronger elsewhere the userbase may quickly evaporate, like what happened to MySpace.

[–] Anticorp 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's already happening. Posts from my friends are seldom, and progressively less meaningful. Most are just shares of some dumbass sponsored content. Conversation is dead. But this is a big one, Facebook has AI users now that can keep up the appearance of a thriving site indefinitely, duping advertisers out of billions.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm dubious about that last one.

Advertisers have ways of measuring which ads are effective. I'm most familiar with how it works on Youtube, click on a link in a bio or use offer code AGGRAVATED to get 10% off your first purchase, and they can identify which creator they're sponsoring generated that sale. Part of the point of targeted advertising is avoid spending money to advertise to incompatible audiences.

"Hey look, Facebook has 4 billion users!" "Great. Here, we represent McDonald's, users who click this link will get coupons for combo meals. Run it in the United States." soon "The McDonald's ad was clicked on 94 billion times, yet the coupons from this campaign were redeemed in restaurants a total of 164 times nationwide. Can you explain to me how you achieved complete and total failure to sell cheap cheeseburgers to Americans?" "Yes I can, see, practically none of our active user accounts are owned or operated by organisms."

=====

I genuinely don't understand the business model they're going for here. Which means one of three things: 1. Meta knows something I don't know and this is going to work spectacularly, 2. It's one of those engineering decisions made by MBAs moments and it's going to come crashing down, or 3. it's an Enron moment and within 18 months the name of the crime they're committing is going to suddenly become a household phrase.

[–] Anticorp 3 points 1 day ago

Honestly, with the power these companies have now, it could realistically be all 3 of your options, and they would still profit immensely and face no accountability.

[–] Lost_My_Mind 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unless you're myspace. Myspace was great, until facebook just suddenly existed, and took over. Felt like it went from never hearing of facebook in 2006, to 2007 myspace is basically dead.

[–] Anticorp 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

MySpace was sold to News Corp for $580 million dollars. Then they purged everyone's accounts, all their blogs, posts, pictures, everything. Talk about not knowing what they bought. Serious WTF. Users could submit a form and get some but not all of their profile back. One year later MySpace was worth an estimated $35 million. It was the worst tech acquisition until Twitter. This all coincided with Facebook opening up to the public and becoming more popular. So it's not exactly that MySpace just collapsed, Rupert Murdoch killed it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

It was the worst tech acquisition until Twitter.

To be fair to the fucking muskrat, he paid 44 billion dollars to have the loudest voice in the world. By chance, he also got a lot of power in US politics. Sure, he's killing twitter in the process, but he can probably recoup the money through other means.