Pundit Unlikes Facebook
February 23, 2018
I think the author of “The #1 Reason Facebook Won’t Ever Change” has adopted a somewhat negative view of Facebook. A Greek philosopher whom one of my slightly addled teachers said was Heraclitus who lived in Ephesus (nice place!) offered this observation:
“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.”
The point of the “Facebook Won’t Ever Change” is that Heraclitus was dead wrong. I am not sure that my wacko teacher, the deadbeats sitting around the Harrod’s Creek cast iron stove, or I believe the assertion “won’t ever change.”
Setting aside dead Greek guys who lived in a city now a must see for those on Mediterranean cruises, what’s the “logic” behind this “won’t ever change” assertion?
Well, companies have a genetic profile. Yep, how’s that working out at GE, which is a bit of a limp noodle since Neutron Jack was in charge? (Could the same degradation at Facebook take place? If the DNA is unchanged, then GE will be roaring back, right?)
The idea is that Facebook collects data, sells ads, and performs other “services” to which the Facebook community is not privy. Therefore, the quest for money means that Facebook will keep on earning money or at least trying to earn money. (Just like GE, right?)
There are quite a few graphs which illustrate that companies in the Facebook-type sector want to be like Facebook. But the point is change.
Facebook, however, “won’t ever change.” And here’s the quote to prove it, at least to the author:
Facebook is about making money by keeping us addicted to Facebook. It always has been — and that’s why all of our angst and headlines are not going to change a damn thing.
A few observations.
First, I am delighted that Marc Zuckerberg is not altruistic, a statement offered in the “won’t ever change” essay. Okay, good to know. Heraclitus’ alleged statement suggests that today’s Zuckerberg is not tomorrow’s Zuckerberg. But Facebook is immutable; Zuckerberg is. He is, however, unable to “change” Facebook. I suppose that’s why founders and senior managers are either forced out or burned out.
Second, government regulation could impose “guidelines” that Facebook might want to observe if it wishes to conduct business in countries wanting to “change” Facebook. The DNA can stay the same, but China or the European Union could move the mighty social ship.
Third, users—like the teens expressing their views about school shooting—could make another social media channel the go to system. User pressure might squeeze the social vessel into a new form or split it at its seams.
Fourth, there is the life cycle thing. Facebook was a date hunting system. Now it is, like Google, difficult to sum up. The DNA, as I understand ageing, does not work the way it did when the organism was a new born. In short, Facebook will age and, at some point, find itself wedged in a warehouse for the aged. (Where is Excite now, gentle reader?)
I understand the need to offer “thought leader” type statements. The problem is that big ideas should not be based on a view of change that does not match the reality of long dead Greek guys or common sense. That’s the number one reason I find the write up similar to the statements of my ever-so-informed teacher who championed the “step into the river” factoid.
Stephen E Arnold, February 23, 2018
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
