> Facebook are saying they're now going away from video, after making a load of publishers pivot expensively to that just to stay with them

Because they can, because there's no alternatives, because people forget way too soon, because they're a big capitalist entity that puts their own profits above all else whilst almost everyone assumes they're a public service.

> And they also found that although people hate clickbait, they also overwhelmingly click on it anyway. Idiots!

Well it's not quite that simple. If you ask: "Do you prefer headlines that help you decide if you want to read the full article before clicking" it's not surprising when 80% of people answer "Yes, of course" because pretty much only xenophons and illiterates wouldn't, right?

That doesn't mean a bunch of those same people aren't interested in clicking on "You'll never believe which two stars got in a fight on the red carpet last night!!". Maybe that's because the question is leading and they didn't give an accurate answer, or maybe because they do see enough information (stars,fight,red carpet) for them to want to view the article and don't care about the words which make others cringe.

Regarding cost and critical mass, I'd be genuinely curious to know how much Facebook costs per user to run.

If a service was without ads and all the other data selling stuff, and had a small margin built in, because let's be honest it's still a business, how much would it actually be per user (or active user).

Me too. They're obviously not going to give anyone details, but dividing total costs by active users for 2016 (2017 data is out next Wednesday) gives $8.18 - just under £6.

Of course, that's how much it costs Facebook. Smaller organisations are going to pay more for servers, and generally have a whole bunch of different factors.

Yeah. Whatever. I think it's been amply and conclusively demonstrated that Facebook, Twitter et al are useless and harmful, and need to be dealt with accordingly. Yesterday.

Why useless?

I dunno. They are designed to be?

> et al

Who else still exists/matters?

> are useless and harmful

If they were actually useless, it'd be easy.

> need to be dealt with

How do you "deal with" something that gets constant free advertising everywhere from the BBC to bog roll?

In the time between your two posts, Facebook's userbase grew by over ten thousand. How do you respond to that?

You can't just chop Zuckerberg's head off and have everyone return to normal.

They have become national threats. Concerned governments (assuming there are any) should respond accordingly. Zuckerberg and his ilk should be placed under house arrest without internet access, and their wealth confiscated -- pretty sure there are applicable statutes already on the books.

I gain a reasonable amount of use from both Twitter and Facebook.

Good for you, but that doesn't really mitigate their harm.

Just to be clear: I'm not against social media as a concept per se. The 'profit' [market cap] motive in the endeavor has turned out to be pretty problematic. The folks that built and run it now well know it (and have admitted as much), but will do nothing to reign it in because greed. It's something that needs tighter regulatory oversight, and perhaps would be better left to non-profit orgs.

I didn't say it did. You said they were useless, they're clearly not.

What I'm saying is that whatever use you may find in them is completely eclipsed by the catastrophic harm they have inflicted on whole governments, and broad swaths of society.  :-@

Ok. Great. When Justin rides in on his unicorn to clear up this mess, please do let him know he has the support of [at least some of] Teh.

Hey, if you want more trump, more brexit, knock yerself out.

I already feel like I've been knocked out several times and I don't like it, but your zeal seems more than a little katsungesque, albeit with inverted delusions.

And we are vaguely in agreement, (except perhaps over the feasibility (and government desire) to kill Facebook and have capitalism to fuck off).

Facebook was never benign but has taken a role that should be occupied by standards, protocols, and multiple solutions.

It probably could have been done 20 years ago, but we're now in a world where we're struggling with Net Neutrality, we have gazillions of unregulated unpatchable bug ridden wifi toasters, and very few people even try to think for themselves any more.

A miracle would be nice, but it's better not to rely on one.

"your zeal seems more than a little katsungesque"

Ouch!

Perhaps I have been reading too many alarmist articles penned recently by industry insiders you may have missed. But maybe they're all just jealous, disgruntled and, well, bitter (not me: always cynical, never bitter). Where can I buy some bitcoin? ("Justin"? Really? Bet you wish "Justin" was your PM ATM (dance) )

Absolutely. Who wouldn't? Can't we organise some sort of commonwealth PM swap?

Even just for a day or so, and at the end if you've accidentally lost Theresa somewhere in the Canadian wilderness then no biggie, you just have to provide a replacement of equal or greater value.

I kind of feel sorry for May on account of this TGF she is going to have to wear as her prime ministerial legacy. Still, she was responsible for sending around those immigrant-threatening vans. What goes around...

I have absolutely no sympathy, those vans were merely the tip of the iceberg. She's far from had what she deserves so far!