Facebook lost around 2.8M U.S. users under 25 last year - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2018/2/12/16998750/facebooks-teen-users-decline-instagram-snap-emarketer <comment><USER3> Facebook suffered from 2 waves of _" Eternal September"_[0]:

wave 1: the addition of _everybody_ outside your immediate friends and close family. You get the goofy uncle, the distant high school acquaintances, and all the work acquaintances from every previous job that submitted a "friend request" that you didn't reject out of politeness. The newsfeed gets polluted by nonsense such as forwarded memes, politics, and other junk.

wave 2: the corporate advertisers filling up the newsfeed that crowds out the desirable posts from your real friends & family.

The 2004 to 2008 period was probably the "magical" time for Facebook from a user standpoint. The initial wave of Harvard students had a beautiful user experience with TheFacebook. As for the new members joining Facebook today in 2018?!? Not so much.

Of course, ads are needed to pay for the datacenters so any social network like Facebook inevitably decays into a worthless waste of time.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

<comment><USER4> Not to mention the erosion of the idea that it is default-safe to share your social experiences with your group of "friends." Adoption by colleagues and family shifts the tone considerably towards LinkedIn, where one's professional image is paramount - and all that does is make the platform more stressful to use.

Facebook does provide tools to segment one's friends into groups to whom content can be privately posted, but from a UX perspective they're deemphasized. I see a lot more social conversations moving to group chats (some on Facebook Messenger, some on GroupMe/WhatsApp and the like), because membership is determinate, you make the choice of target audience _before_ being prompted to make a post, and the context into which you post is not a newsfeed (which we've been trained to think is global to an entire circle of friends) but just that specific chat history. (I'm sure there's some psychology/UX research in that people don't intuit that a "posting destination" can be distinct from the list of content you're _viewing_.)

Chats are just a "safer space" to be oneself. And if Facebook wants to capture one's true self and preferences, it will need to evolve beyond the idea that a single newsfeed is the place people want to do that.

<comment><USER5> I know this is one tiny use case, but it's one that's bothered me for some time. I can't change my profile picture without it becoming a huge news story for family and "friends" to comment on. I change a little picture of me, remove the event from my timeline, and I still get hokey comments or messages reminding me how bored and lonely everyone I know must be.

I severely miss when it was just a place to chat up a cute girl you seen in college, or find out who's going to see NIN, etc.

<comment><USER6> I can't comment on a friend's public post without it being broadcast to my timeline! this is the one dark feature that has most affected any good feelings I might have had towards facebook and my usage thereof

<comment><USER7> This has seriously reduced my willingness to comment on posts. Terrible feature.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely. I don't care if they stumble across it but I never want to broadcast a comment, at least not to people who wouldn't already have seen the post. The worst is when public groups use Facebook as the only way to contact them - I once posted a question about leaving a coat at an event and then got a message from a friend suggesting that I hadn't invited him to the event (it wasn't the kind of thing he thought it was, though). Why. Same for the profile picture change. I accidently put my profile picture to the wrong one of two and haven't changed it since I noticed a few days later that it was wrong and was embarrassed to broadcast this fact to everyone not once but twice.

<comment><USER9> Wouldn't it make more sense to simply assume that anything one posts to the Internet could potentially be broadcast to everyone they know and published on the front page of the New York Times? I don't understand why people think the content they post to a website will be kept private, especially if _not_ keeping it private maximizes shareholder value.

<comment><USER8> But the thing is, I don't think it maximizes shareholder value. I would engage more with Facebook if my actions were quieter than if not. I don't really care that anyone _can_ see it but broadcasting it is just crazy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm 34 and Facebook lost me as well. I can't remove my account as I need to use as a developer, but I unfollowed everyone and my newsfeed is empty. It's a bliss. Funny thing is, it's all Facebook's fault. Back in the days, the service was simply brilliant to see what's going on at your friends, at home and abroad. But when Facebook introduced the algorithmic newsfeed, the usefulness ended. I could no longer see all the photos and posts my friends' published. Now I had to rely on some weird algo - some friends were on my news feed, some others that I wanted to see, were not. I saw many more posts from pages that were irrelevant to me, much more reaction posts of my friends on stories that I don't care about, and finally - lots and lots of sponsored stories. Last year I got fed up with this mess, unfollowed everyone and now, if I want to see what's up at my friends, I go to my profile > friends > new posts and go to individual friends' profiles that I'm interested in. It's not a nice experience, but it's better than the algo news feed. Another benefit is that I use Facebook less and less. Interestingly, Twitter feed nowadays became much more interesting for me to read - although I had to unfollow plenty of mass-twitterers as well.

<comment><USER11> Similar experience, I think my problem with the algorithm is similar to slowing down to look at the car wreck on the side of the road.

I have a few a"friends" that post horrible stuff. Conspiracy theories, rants, and other posts that are just symptoms of poor mental health.

At first I stopped to read these in HORROR and disgust, because they stood out so much from the rest of my feed. Facebook takes that as a signal that this is the content I enjoy, and begins to feature it more and more heavily.

Looking back, if I had understood what was happening, I could have used Facebook correctly and worked WITH the algorithm. You have to think about the long term consequences of your viewing activity, and think of using your attention like farming to grow a good feed.

Facebook eventually needs to introduce a self-curation tool, so that people can promote the things/people they want, and remove the elements they dislike without Unfriending Grandma. For me it's probably to late. At 34 the college friends that I would like to keep up with haven't interacted with me in 5+ years, and the social awkwardness of rekindling those relationships isn't worth it.

On an unrelated note, I think many social networks will continue to die this way. As people move from PEAK FRIENDS in colleges to having lives where immediate family takes priority, I think the social presence will fade. The networks will take the blame, like MYSPACE, and FRIENDSHIP just are not good tools anymore, when really it was the person who went from having 100+ active relationships to 20.

<comment><USER12> Facebook's algorithm almost seems like a quintessential example of why you need to choose good metrics in optimization problems. Maximizing user engagement sounds great - it means people are using your website and enjoying it more, right? Turns out people weren't enjoying it more, they were using it more because Facebook was shoving controversial content (e.g. dubious-quality news, debates, crazy people) down people's throats and they couldn't keep their eyes away.

You know how Facebook tries to get me engaged? It puts photos of my ex- girlfriend and her friends on the top of my feed. Sure you're going to get me to look, but I'm not going to leave the website feeling as good as when I logged on. You bring up a good point about how you have to think about the long term consequences of your viewing, but then I feel that you don't get a genuine experience when you use the platform, and if Facebook wants this, they seem to really over-estimate users' mindfulness wrt what they're actually doing.

If Facebook never figures things out, I hope whatever network comes next doesn't get greedy like they did. In particular, they need to focus on driving engagement with _positive_ interactions and content.

<comment><USER13> But they get paid per eyeball, not by the enjoyment level of the people using the system. They don't care WHY you can't keep your eyes away, as long as you can't keep your eyes away.

From their end, their metric was perfect.

<comment><USER12> Perfect in the short-term, sure, but if people are leaving the platform then their long-term eyeballs might be suffering for the sake of short-term eyeballs

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I signed up for Facebook recently after deleting my account 9 years ago. I was banned within 30 minutes after updating my work history and a profile photo. Submitted an appeal with my drivers license and passport. Unbanned in a couple hours. Kept building my profile over the next couple days and was banned 3 more times. Submitted appeals each time with all the requested information. Nothing malicious, political, or sexual posted, just the average guy setting up a Facebook account. Been banned for over a month now, finally just gave up. They never emailed me other than the initial welcome to Facebook email. Just had to try my login every couple hours to see if I was still banned.

<comment><USER15> Sounds like facebook has a pretty effective scam for getting people to give them driver's licenses, passports and untold other treasure troves of personal information.

<comment><USER16> Twitter has been using a similar scam for a couple of years now. After several years of Twitter, my account was locked and they demanded my cell number to "verify" my account. No thanks - said goodbye to Twitter and never looked back.

<comment><USER17> It was funny because a fresh account worked for me until I confirmed my e-mail address, then I was suspended until I gave them my phone number.

If they are so desperate to not have me as a potential user, then they can have it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Facebook should watch out with Instagram. It feels considerably more draining now than it used to. There are messages, stories, suggested posts everywhere. On the search feed I often end up in auto-scrolling videos.

These increase engagement and metrics. But, they produce an unwanted feeling of compulsion where instagram didn't before. I've uninstalled the app for a bit.

I never felt like that about Instagram before, but I remember first feeling like that about Facebook years ago. If I'm right, what I'm feeling about instagram is a prelude to others feeling the same. Instagram usage will first go up, then down.

I don't yet have that feeling about snapchat, though the new design is annoying. (Mixing in stories and messages)

Oddly enough, it has nothing to do with ads. I used to see them, back when instagram felt fun. Now I don't.

<comment><USER18> I have the same experience with Instagram. It used to show me interesting stuff, now it shows me interesting stuff from a few days ago. And a few days from right now, it will show me the interesting stuff that was posted right now. No amount of checking Instagram seems to make the delay go away. Every time I log in, the top of my feed is from 2 days ago. And I scroll for miles and still seeing days-old content that I didn't see days ago.

<comment><USER19> Scroll until you see the first thing you saw the last time you checked the app. Do that every time you open the app and you'll never see things from before the last time you checked.

It's absurd that it's necessary, but it works 100% of the time for me since they moved to non-chronological sorting.

<comment><USER20> So THAT is how they artificially increase their DAU and use time - make the user experience only tolerable if you essentially have to use the app daily and be constantly updated.

<comment><USER19> Sure, but there's a certain amount of sense in that the fix for "I want to see everything posted by the people I follow" is "go look at everything posted by the people you follow".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Whenever I see a post like this on HN, I see the inevitable "the product sucks" posts in the comments.

As an engineer and social media user, I completely agree, but it doesn't seem to be bearing out in the marketplace. Facebook continues to grow[0] (if more slowly).

So what is the HN audience to Facebook? Our we taste makers? A demographic ahead of the product curve, predictive of Facebook's imminent decline?

Or are we simply irrelevant to the mass market? Are we the people going to the art house movie theaters while the masses flood into multiplexes for the latest Marvel sensory overload spectacle?

[0][https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/facebook-q4-2017-earnings/](https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/31/facebook-q4-2017-earnings/)

<comment><USER18> The number of folks here and on reddit and even back to Slashdot who had and continue to have negative reactions to incredibly popular things shows that it's really hard for techies to predict what will become a success. I don't think we're irrelevant or out of touch, I just think we really are in a market all our own.

Look at the overwhelmingly negative response to the iPod, which then went on to destroy CD players and every other brand of MP3 player, right up to the point where people just used their iPhone for MP3s, when the techie audience bemoaned the death of the iPod because their music library was too big to fit on a cell phone, at which point the mainstream switched to streaming services so no one noticed. Luckily there are still niche products catering to our needs.

Look at the complaints about the iPhone with no multitasking and no physical keyboard and no user-replaceable battery and no stylus, and the massive success it had which ultimately killed Palm, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. Luckily there are still niche products catering to our needs.

Look at the complaints about the iPad, which killed the techie-favored netbooks. Luckily there are still niche products catering to our needs.

My rule of thumb is, if HN/Reddit/etc hates it because it doesn't have enough features, it's going to be a massive success in the mainstream market.

<comment><USER22> And all the HN hate for the MacBook Pro touch bar and keyboard, while it sells incredibly well.

<comment><USER23> lol, Apple products in general. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Started using FB in 2004 when there were barely a few hundred thousand users. It was great as a college freshman going to a new place not knowing anyone and needing to make friends fast and keep up. In my 30s now and have almost completely stopped using facebook. I check in once every few months, usually when I need to sign in because someone messages me there instead of email. It's actually stunning to me that Facebook is lumped in with other tech giants like Google and Amazon. If the services that google and amazon provide disappeared tomorrow it would have a sudden and devastating impact on many parts of my life and business. If facebook completely disappeared, I honestly wouldn't even realize it for at least a couple months (until the next time I check in) and even then I wouldn't care one bit. In all honestly I think it would be an improvement to society.

<comment><USER25> Facebook is used differently outside the US.

When I worked at a telco in Afghanistan in 2014, Facebook was basically its own utility - SMBs and individuals used Facebook (and their precious cellular data) almost exclusively to message each other and conduct business. So much so that the most popular consumer/retail plans for Afghans were "Facebook usage plans" giving you X amount of data per month to be spent exclusively on Facebook. Amazon/google have little to no power over there, facebook has a ton. Ditto whatsapp.

I think you'll find this is true for almost any country where social ties are stronger than the US, and biz is newer, or built around mobile/face-to-face transactions - fbook is much more important than it is here as a photo feed and news consumption hangout.

That said I agree for the US case and deleted my facebook ~2 years ago :)

<comment><USER26> I've seen the effect you describe also in the Philippines and other developing countries I've visited. Some Filipinos don't seem to realise that FB is just a walled garden on the internet, not the internet itself.

Also, I think your second point contributes to this: mobile is huge in the Philippines, they send more texts than any other country. And on top of that, social ties are a lot stronger than those in America, especially familial ties, with many siblings, cousins, etc.

<comment><USER27> This is because of Facebook's Internet.org.

Facebook has zero-rating on mobile in the Philippines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> How many users are just hanging on?

I use FB very occasionally for some events, but mostly never login. I get nagging notifications about how much I'm missing, but it doesn't feel like much.

I suspect there is a growing population of people with similar usage patterns. Are we really monthly active users?

<comment><USER29> I have three use cases that keep me there:

1) I'm in a couple specific regional groups that AFAIK have no non-Facebook counterpart (though they easily could). I think Facebook does groups poorly, but they serve the "non-technical community space" use case much better than any other popular offering that I know of.

2) It's the easiest way for me to blast low-key questions/updates/etc. to most of my friends and family. (I don't have everyone's e-mail address and even if I did, e-mail is often too "active" a medium. Like sending a letter vs. posting on a billboard.) Twitter serves a similar purpose but (a) most of my network does not have an active Twitter account, and (b) Twitter and Facebook serve subtly – but importantly – different social purposes.

3) Since the demise of XMPP and subsequent fragmentation of the IM ecosystem into sundry walled gardens, some (a small minority) of my friends are most readily accessible via Messenger. Strangely enough, SMS seems to have regained footing in this space in my network.

<comment><USER30> >1) I'm in a couple specific regional groups that AFAIK have no non-Facebook counterpart (though they easily could). I think Facebook does groups poorly, but they serve the "non-technical community space" use case much better than any other popular offering that I know of.

These used to be called "forums" and were very popular until Facebook invented groups and murdered them all.

<comment><USER29> Forums traditionally have been difficult for non-technical users to set up (requiring at a minimum configuing and paying for a shared web host). Certainly I don't recall any popular "managed forum" service pre-Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Regardless of user age, I have no idea what FB is 'for' anymore.

The whole egosphere thing of celebrating your latest life success with posts is only ok for a small social circle. The idea of a captive user being fed 'feeds' has killed off that intimacy amongst friends in an already elderly and visually sterile environment.

I have a FB account and around 1400 'friends'. I rarely post on the account except to post articles about FB's shortcomings and in private groups about old cars I own, which is a sort of useless unsearchable lightweight forum use, a bit like the old AOL groups.

Why post comments about yourself to people you have only ever met online? The only reason I can think of is for the self congratulatory ego boost...and under 25's clearly don't get a hit off doing this on their grandpa's online channel...

<comment><USER32> I use it for two things, albeit on different accounts. For myself, I keep in touch with a small circle of friends (20/~400) for personal stuff - <USER2> news, similar sense of humor etc., and participate in a number of groups, in much the same way I would on HN. Groups are where it's at, really. Oh, and I follow some news pages on specific subjects. FB is generally a terrible way to get news but an OK way to filter it to pick up high-quality content that might otherwise get lost int he shuffle.

My other accounts are purely for research, social network analysis and so on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I HAD to sign up for an account - don't ask why. After about 1 hour of usage trying to do what I had to get done, it REQUIRED a phone number for security purposes. Seconds after I entered the phone number (for security purposes) I was blasted by about 400 recommended connections including some ex-girlfriends that I'm sure my wife would LOVE me to be friends with. Go facebook. I'm guessing those people got notified that I was there too, but at least I was able to delete the account.

<comment><USER34> The other side probably got notified too. I remember seeing a peculiar name on FB's "you might know..." list, I wondered where I saw that name before. I looked in my mail inbox, and it's a guy who sold me something on eBay a few years ago. I never gave Facebook access to my mail account, but what I'm pretty sure happened is that guy did just that. FB saw that we exchanged some emails, and said (probably to both parties): "Hey, be FB-friends with this person!".

I wonder what the security implications are. I think a security researcher added a lot of phone numbers into his phone and let Facebook read it, and Facebook responded with names and faces of those numbers.

<comment><USER35> This happened to me too. There was a guy on Reddit looking for help setting up Plex on a dedicated server. I run a small chat room and helped him out in there.

But we did exchange a few emails. I use fastmail and he uses gmail. A few days later he pops in the people you might know thing. At the time I did not have a cell phone so I am assuming he gave the app access to his contacts or something.

I think it is safe to say Facebook has a pretty detailed profile about you even if you never made an account.

<comment><USER36> Facebook can't even guess my name on emails I receive weekly about what my "friends" are up to. They think my name is Martin Salum. ps: never used facebook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm 25, so right on the edge of the demographic mentioned here. I have been using Facebook for 10+ years now, and I was pretty closed to quitting entirely about 2 months ago.

And then suddenly ... my Facebook has been fixed. I had recently started "unfollowing" people who annoyed me and also un-liking all brands. Facebook has also done some recently algorithm changes.

A year ago my Facebook was a randomly-ordered stream of nonsense that was 80% branded content and 20% of my most antagonistic "friends".

Now it's a seemingly chronological view of what my Facebook friends are doing. If I leave Facebook and come back an hour later, it's basically the same feed with ~5 new posts on top. This makes it something I can actually check and not a black hole.

I hope they continue in this direction. They've got fantastic ad targeting and if they keep users around they can probably keep their ARPU really high.

</comment><comment><USER38> The typical Facebook user is now a middle-aged/older person with a lot of disposable income. that is why the company is doing so well and why this loss of young users is not a big deal. Also, Instagram is filling that niche, so Facebook, which owns Instagram, wins either way.

</comment><comment><USER39> FB seems to be on its deathbed. It's obvious that it's completely lost on young users (18-25), and even young adults (25-35) are just about done with it.

Serious question: is now the time to disrupt? What would the "next" MySpace/FB look like? Ignoring techie "features" like decentralization, what do you think _users_ actually care about?

<comment><USER40> Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat are already far in the process of obsoleting Facebook and scooping up leaving and young users.

2 of those 3 are now owned by Facebook

<comment><USER20> And how long until Instagram suffers the same fate?

<comment><USER41> They have already been decreasing of the charm of Instagram by adding more and more features… Basically, turning it into Facebook. In the large circle of artists that I work in, a slogan that is being oft repeated lately is "make Instagram chronological again". I do use Facebook, but I don't post much content as when I do, it's almost useless because they don't show my content to anyone. Instagram is increasingly the same way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Facebook is one of the companies that banned the word Kurdistan on the request of Turkish government. that means for Kurds in Iraq and Iran which unlike Turkey, the word kurdistan is not only not banned but also legally is an official federal region and official province name, we could not choose Kurdistan as our hometown in the profile. I personally spent more than 10 years reporting this "bug" but it was never solved. later I found out it was an internal guidance from facebook to ban the word Kurdistan. I am glad to see such evil organization is going down the tube.

</comment><comment><USER43> Facebook still hasn't lost me and my group of 25-something friends, but we have pretty much all turned off notifications, dabble in disabling our profile every now and then, and only rationalize not deleting it for saying hi to grandma, creating and RSVPing to events, and the ubiquity of Facebook Messenger.

The only ones posting (or at least the only posts that facebook shows me) are a mixture of advertising, extremely politically driven posts and links, someone's birthday, and a random smattering of generic posts from friends with whom you don't keep contact.

Our primary social media is group chats, texting, and snapchat, and reddit.

</comment><comment><USER44> Reading these comments, I have a different perspective. My FB experience is pretty much sharing my kid/pet/food/vacation pictures and looking at everyone else's kid/pet/food/vacation pictures. This will continue until no one in my social network has any of these to share or they start sharing them somewhere else. In other words, my circle of friends will go wherever the "social action" is.

</comment><comment><USER45> Facebook is a case study in revenue driven product design, especially in comparison to user and purpose driven product design. It seems to me that Facebook made the mistake of thinking that they were all one and the same.

<comment><USER46> You can't seriously believe that someone like Zuckerberg isn't smart enough to see the difference. My theory is he doesn't care what happens to the company as he's already made his fortune.

<comment><USER45> The tone of your comment aside...

Is it so hard for _you_ to believe that a group of corporate leaders can think that doing something (a strategy) can serve their user, their purpose, and their bottom line all at the same time, equally? It's probably one of the most prevalent self delusions in the corporate world...

In fact, I'd argue that the smarter the group of leaders think they are, the more likely they are to fall into said delusion... Since they'll think more of their strategies...

In response to your second point... Considering a large portion of Zuckerberg's wealth is in Facebook stock, and that Facebook also owns one of its chief competitors... I doubt it.

<comment><USER46> My point wasn't about whether the were doing it (I'm sure they were) but about whether they were confused about it.

<comment><USER45> Huh? Whether they were doing what?

<comment><USER46> Optimising for revenue at the expense of everything else. They knew what they were doing, they just didn't care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Time and time again I see the complaint that people want a 'Most Recent' news feed instead of algorithm-chosen and that's why they don't use Facebook anymore.

This type of feed would be unusable for the vast majority of users.

Why? Because of Page Likes.

I struggled to find quantitative data on this, but I myself like over 600 pages, and I'm selective. Many people like over 1000.

With a Most Recent news feed, those hundreds of pages would be posting multiple times a day vying for your attention.

100% reach, organic and zero cost? It's a marketers dream come true.

Add to that, I really only want to see posts from maybe 20% of my 'friends', and I believe this to be representative of the average user.

"Curate your friends list and page likes!", I hear you say.

No. I'm not bothered unliking hundreds of pages and neither is the average user. Not to mention, I did chose to hear from these pages for a reason. For friends, it's mostly socially unacceptable to unfriend people even if you haven't talked to them for a few years.

Hence, the algorithm that does the curating for me, because there's really no other way around it.

ps. I'm taking some liberties here speaking for an average user. I welcome data that shows I'm incorrect. The best I could find was from 2013 so is irrelevant.

<comment><USER48> _With a Most Recent news feed, those hundreds of pages would be posting multiple times a day vying for your attention_

Then people would simply only "like" things that they really liked and really wanted to see. This is a non-issue.

<comment><USER47> They already like too many things. The action has already happened, your suggestion would only apply for new users. And as I mentioned, I don't believe people will curate their feed by going to the effort of removing hundreds of page likes and friends. They'll just stop using it because that's too much work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> It is surprising that most folks reading HN are in some kind of bubble. I see people here commenting how they have never used facebook since last X years and they are fearful about facebook and privacy.

Are you kidding me? FB has 2.2Billion Monthly active users.

<comment><USER50> Really, it surprises you? A website tailored to typically well-educated people with a strong interest in science and technology who all speak or can communicate in English and put some kind of value in online discussion.

That's already 0.00001% of the population, of course we're a bubble.

The question is: is HN ahead of the curve with distaste toward FB, or an anomaly? There's another thread on this post discussing just that.

<comment><USER49> Not necessarily ahead of curve, most normal people don't care about the feed algorithm. They are happy to see what their friends and family are doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Article claims Facebook is losing market share to Instagram (with individuals under 25). With that in mind, doesn't seem accurate to state they're losing users.

<comment><USER52> The same will happen (and is happening!) to Instagram. They've recently changed Instagram to non-chronological "curated" feeds, and added a bunch of ads into the mix. What used to be a very pleasant social network has become way less enjoyable in recent months.

They also just (after years of resisting) opened up the posting API to some partners.

<comment><USER51> > "and is happening!) to Instagram"

That's not what the article suggests. If you have some stats to suggest the volume of Instagram users is already on the decline, by all means post it.

<comment><USER52> The same suckification cycle is happening (increasingly intrusive ads, algorithm tweaks, "here's a pic from someone you don't follow", etc.). The user decline happens later on in that cycle.

<comment><USER51> In other words, they're at the "will happen" stage rather than the "is happening" stage (bearing in mind we're talking about their user base).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> An ex-Facebook employee told me that to stay productive, developers unfollow everyone and only use Facebook for events - it's too addictive otherwise.

My advice was: sell your shares, because developers are canaries for customers.

</comment><comment><USER54> Well this isn't as bad as it seems. I'm 24; almost my entire friend circle has gone from using Facebook to using Instagram for posting photos and WhatsApp for messaging. Still within Facebook ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER55> Not surprising. Social networks grow when they are cool, and Facebook is about the farthest thing from cool right now.

It got taken over by old people and companies looking to convert you to brands/religion/politics, all of which might be a liability to social/professional status.

</comment><comment><USER56> The question for me is - will Zuckerberg wake up and realize that Facebook is not a Google in terms of diversification and influence? CEO should have strategy about his main asset, he shouldn't rest on his laurels.

</comment><comment><USER57> Generally, it has become a cesspool of ads and useless posts by narcissists. The site has allowed its fundamental value to be diluted by so many short term money grabbing interests that there's no going back.

</comment><comment><USER58> If alot of those users are just hanging out on Instagram, has Facebook really 'lost' them??

</comment><comment><USER59> The US hasn't been the focus for several years. Africa/India/Asia were far more important than sustaining US numbers.

<comment><USER60> > The US hasn't been the focus for several years. Africa/India/Asia were far > more important than sustaining US numbers.

I figured they were only important to keep of the facade of forever increasing user growth. If North America and Western Europe aren't were the bulk Facebook's revenue is coming from (and where most of its focus in placed), I'd be very surprised.

<comment><USER59> They are the bulk of its revenue, but my point was that average daily/monthly were already peaked by most counters and growth markets were a higher priority. Why do you think they paid so much for WhatsApp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Facebook for my peers is now used for official announcements by users.

1\. just got married/engaged

2\. accepted to MBA/Law/Medical/other grad school

3\. job offer from prestigious company such as McKinsey/Bain/ Google/FB/Apple

4\. DSLR photos of exotic vacations

either that or passive aggresive political viewpoints.

Snapchat serves a completely different purpose and has the daily "realness" going for it

<comment><USER62> Snapchat is micro-vlogging/live-streaming, Facebook is personal LinkedIn

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I'm in my 30s and have also left Facebook. I requested my account to be deleted but I doubt they did.

</comment><comment><USER64> A friend of mine, cancelled the account 2 weeks ago. For months I was also thinking about closing it too, so I finally did it after him. Few days after having talked about it with an ex colleague, he also closed his account too.

The amount of useless information, the irrelevance of it, ads, privacy concerns, the fact that you just care about your most intimate friends, and not about that ones you connected in the beggining when you though 'oh look, my friend from primary school!', most people does no longer provide interesting content, just conversations about politics (not always sane debates), photos to generate envy/pose... and realizing that Facebook just does not give you anything good, just depression or low self steem... Also the fact that when you are bored you just check social media instead of doing something useful... All of this made me realize I had got to close it.

And I feel better, and I'm sure I would feel even better if I also close my Instagram account. Nowadays I just keep the Instagram app on my phone. I also got tired of toxic comments on Twitter and I check it much less often now.

I feel, one of the reasons we registered on Facebook was to be more social but that ended up being the opposite and now we want to feel 'contact' again, and you can only get that by physical interaction and real conversation, because a postcard or a call has never been the same than a real conversation and a hug.

This is just the beggining. I've been on Facebook for 10 years, and I'm sure a lot of millenials are starting to close their accounts, or at least they don't even use it.

</comment><comment><USER65> Facebook has usefulness to me in three ways:

1\. As a public opinion board. I post a question on my wall and people answer.

2\. Chatting with my friends.

3\. One Facebook group where me and my friends are in.

This is my setup to not get completely sucked into Facebook:

1\. I changed my real accounts name to a fictional name that is related to my name. I changed my lastname to a French version of it (my lastname is a noun) and then I swapped my first and lastname. So anyone who Google's me on my real name can't find me.

2\. I created a fake account with my real name and a modicum amount of friends (at random) in order to not get detected by Facebook that it is a fake account. I put the best pictures of me on this account. Now when people Google me, they see nice pictures.

3\. My main browser has my fake account on auto-login. But it has my actual account on the auto-login of Messenger. This means when I go to Messenger, I can actually chat. And when I get nonsense (e.g. login with Facebook or sucked into some feature of Facebook) I get my fake account. Since it has a modicum of friends that I don't care about and nothing on it, there is not much I can do.

4\. I set my main Facebook account on auto-login on my second browser. In this way I can still write wall posts and post/read about stuff in my Facebookgroup. Also, I installed a wall eridactor plugin.

I don't think I'll ever be able to completely get away from Facebook, but I am trying my best to keep its use to the things I want to do with it.

<comment><USER66> Facebook to me is that place where everyone is. I love reddit and have been there about a decade, but I'm the only person I know there. If I meet someone new, or join a local group, I can always catch up, or connect with them on Facebook.

I think Facebook in general acts like a greedy business with data gathering and over advertising. It's toxic in that respect. It's a shame something as "open" as Diaspora didn't take off. I still think a new social platform might still arise from something like a chat app (like WhatsApp), but ultimately risk getting bought by FaceBook as they fear losing their stronghold in the market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> My biggest problem in using Facebook is that I simply have nothing worth sharing. I never take pictures, and I talk to all my friends on a regular basis, so posting things would be redundant. I've discounted Facebook as a way to meet people. I purposely avoid using a desktop to access Facebook on the once every few months occasion where I need to copy-paste anything from my group chat with highschool friends. I just don't see any reason to strengthen my account on the platform

</comment><comment><USER68> How many of these users simply aged out of the demographic? I wouldn't be surprised if it's just a combination of people aging out and not too many new users signing up.

<comment><USER69> That was my first thought, too.

How many of the "users under 25" simply turned 26?

It's like an old article I saw somewhere about teen pregnancy dropping heavily once they reach 20 years old...

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I deleted FB a few years ago, I'm surprised how bad it's gotten. I'm not surprised that more people are either just not logging in anymore or just occasionally.

<comment><USER71> I deleted my FB a few years ago too. I ended up getting back on and only connecting with close family that live out of state. I don't follow any brands or watch any corporate content either. I still find value in it because I can see the cool pictures my sister posts and quickly send out family updates. I'd never connect with casual friends from college or co-workers though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I log into Facebook about 6 times a year. Each time it is a waste of my time

</comment><comment><USER73> Yep. My anecdotal example. My elder one, created an account as soon as they turned 13. The younger one, couldn't care less. Meanwhile sometime few years ago, I also deleted my FB account. My God, there are only a few tech products, I hate as much.

Lot of solutions on offer. But IMHO, only one thing will fix it. Forcing it to open its protocol. A mail++ (for social) which will just allow all the products to compete in the open. They can compete on UI, the feed sort algorithm etc, among other things. Nobody will hate on Facebook as much. Its market cap will go down, but Zuck can sleep better.[1]

[1] "I don't think he sleeps well at night," from [https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark- zuckerberg-...](https://www.wired.com/story/inside-facebook-mark- zuckerberg-2-years-of-hell/)

</comment><comment><USER74> I'm 32. I'm at the point where I'll update my facebook about once a month just so it doesn't look like a total ghost town if someone adds me, but otherwise I just stay away from it.

I find that the structure of it encourages people to post things that just appeal to the lowest common denominator. My feed is full of trite positivity memes and cute girls taking selfies and saying stuff like "Coffee with friends!" It's.. fine? I just don't feel any connection to other people when I'm on there, and I don't really feel free to actually state real ideas or opinions, so it barely even feels particularly "social" to me. It's just a lot of people acting as their own PR department mixed with a lot of people patting each other on the back.

</comment><comment><USER75> Facebook stopped being about friends and has become groups. Sharing is not between friends but between interest-groups.

the worst is when your friends share garbage, and you view it, you start to see more garbage suggested to you. you can't "un-see" anything. the algorithm knows.

</comment><comment><USER76> Didn't they plan for this with the acquisitions of Instagram, Whatsapp, and most recently tbh?

They know the particular property of facebook.com can't last forever, so they go where the users are going. Last I checked Instagram is the hottest app out there for anyone 35 or under. As of last year at least Facebook, messenger and Instagram were each still in the top 5-10 most used apps.

I feel like people somehow don't see facebook as the digital conglomerate that they are and focus on what is happening on facebook.com as though it's a harbinger of the rest of the company.

Also, IMO they have the best Machine Learning (specifically vision) team on the planet and are consistently making amazing tools open source. That alone is worth a lot.

</comment><comment><USER77> I'm in my 30s and I use FB a lot to keep up with my friends. However, I have notice that my younger cousins in their 20s never post. So... where do young folks go these days? Instagram? Twitter? Snapchat? I guess I need to talk to my cousins more and find out.

<comment><USER78> Instagram and Snapchat, for the teens and 20s I know.

<comment><USER79> My market research (teenage kids) indicates that Instagram is their platform of choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Here's another good HN post from today about Facebook that didn't seem to get enough traction: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16358148](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16358148)

</comment><comment><USER80> The masses generally follow whatever is trendy. People initially followed facebook, and when Whatsapp and Instagram came, they followed them. FB is going through it's natural life cycle, and we will see it desperately trying to survive as it's stats get negative and shares dwindle.

This is problem with any service where users care about userbase. For netflix, userbase is not a concern for users. Hence such services are more likely to survive long term, as long as they keep themselves relevant.

FB, Whatsapp and Instagram however, are destined to die very soon(I'd bet a lifecycle of 2 decades). Users are eventually going to move on.

</comment><comment><USER81> "12- to 17-year-old demographic declined by 9.9 percent in 2017"

I'll offer those numbers are related to their parents already being there. Those kids will probably sign up or come back when they get a bit older.

<comment><USER82> Why would they sign up…ever? What's the value proposition? Will their parents have left in a few years?

When I joined Facebook (~2006/7) there was a very clear value to me: my and my college classmates could send messages, collaborate, and organize events.

Now it seems like a wasteland, I really have no idea how I could put Facebook to work for me, and since not everybody I need to collaborate with it is on Facebook (some are very opposed to it) it's useless as a platform for organizing events compared to other event-planning platforms. Why would anybody ever need Facebook?

<comment><USER32> Groups. there are tons of groups, open, private, and secret, and it's easy and handy to build/organize a small community on there than through X or Y private forum website that people have to log in separately to. People frequently try to build groups up to a critical mass and then move them off FB for privacy and/or profit, but most people are in multiple groups and there's no discernible advantage in moving to a different platform for semi-casual socialization. That's why lots of other social networks for subgroups launch to great fanfare and are then deserted 6 months to a year later. They just don't have enough critical mass to overcome Facebook's network effect on a permanent basis so people keep going back to FB because that's where everyone else is for many practical purposes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Facebook is about sharing memories, and "static" content. One can use Facebook to read the same "group" that has been around forever, or to looks at memories from the day/week/month/year.

As a result, it's a good fit for people who are only occasionally online.

Everybody else wants to live share what's happening right now. Whatsapp is great for this, as it allows instant group chats with ephemeral ad-hoc groups.

Instagram is great to share what just happened, without a UI polluted with older and unrelated content.

</comment><comment><USER84> Is this for _deleted_ users or a marked drop in user activity. Because it takes concerted effort to actually delete a profile and have it remain deleted, it would be a much stronger signal of the platform's decline.

Six years ago when my classmates and I applied to college we were changing our profiles to make them not appear on potential searches by admissions offices. This including faking names, pictures, etc. To me that was the moment Facebook became something I didn't want to be a part of, fake etc.

</comment><comment><USER85> This explains the text message me and a friend received today.

[https://i.imgur.com/ErvNLOc.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ErvNLOc.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER86> I have a theory: Facebook's biggest problem is that it gives people what they want, but what people want is _not_ what makes them happy. Algorithmic recommendations are tailored to capture people for as long as possible, but the short-sightedness of "engagement" erodes the long-term benefit for the user. I think this applies to YouTube as well, or other algorithmically generated "feeds".

<comment><USER87> > Facebook [...] gives people what they want, but what people want is not what > makes them happy

I have a feeling that Facebook is following the same decline of generalistic TV, which, similarly to Facebook \- contains mostly ads and crappy/shocking/debatable content \- its userbase is becoming more and more elderly \- teens start to snob it and move on to the next cool thing \- people get bored of it and decide not to bother with it anymore

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> This just demonstrates FBs switch to a different demographic. The user base has actually increased according to TFA, but it doesn't say which age group. I am betting the over 55 crowd, judging by the number of political and religious posts on my feed.

Yes, I still have an account but I have removed all personal information, pictures, and deleted all my posts. I also go months between using it. I can't bring myself to totally remove my account though.

</comment><comment><USER89> Facebook is indispensable for me because of groups. A group for my running club, a group for my cycling club, other local groups. All activities are coordinate using FB & Messenger.

However I also have a zero friend policy on Facebook. Having zero friends, plus the "only friends of friends can send me a friend request" setting, means nobody can send a friend request. I suggest you try it, it's glorious.

</comment><comment><USER90> eMarketer has been taking this kind of angle for years to get some audience: [https://www.recode.net/2017/8/21/16181348/teenagers- millenni...](https://www.recode.net/2017/8/21/16181348/teenagers-millennials- users-facebook-instagram-snapchat-emarketer)

The thing is that FB is actively tranferring the teens to Instagram and the overall audience is growing so...

</comment><comment><USER26> _That explains why Snapchat and Instagram, which offer features for sharing photos and videos that disappear, are growing in popularity among this demographic_

Instagram is owned by Facebook. That's why I don't think Facebook is worried about migration off the parent app, they can just spin off endless trendy social apps and market them to target demographics under new names.

</comment><comment><USER91> Never signed up on Facebook. I always treated that offering as a convoluted waste of time. Personal preferences aside, I always wondered what happens to Facebook posts 1 month after publishing. They usually look like something (at Facebook?) scavenges pictures, photos and makes them 404. It moves so fast and breaks so many things, literally.

<comment><USER92> My photos from 13 years ago are all still there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Basically all social networks with real names are an extension of one's professional brand. This is not good for facebook in its efforts to attract kids because 1) what parent wants to sign their kid up for a permanent professional brand and 2) what kid is thinking about their professional brand anyway?

</comment><comment><USER94> Facebook will have lost the game when no one here will care enough to comment whether Facebook has lost the game.

</comment><comment><USER95> Funny timing, I am deleting my account now. Decided on messaging, cropped friends, posted notice, and am messaging and unfriending individuals after short convo. It's been kinda fun. Own-domain email setup, and page with my name in meta tags for search engines. I'm 33 and "immature" fwiw

</comment><comment><USER96> A commenter here told me that it's now possible to delete Facebook while keeping messenger, so that's what I did. Don't miss it at all.

Agree with other posters that it's annoying how anything you like or comment on is broadcasted to your entire feed. Makes you not want to comment or like amything.

</comment><comment><USER97> For all of those people saying that FB is dead, perhaps their core product is in decline among younger users, but that does not seem to be true for Instagram or Whatsapp. Those acquisitions seem to extend FB's fingers to the demographics that their core product is losing.

<comment><USER98> I guess the next question is; how long until both Instagram and Whatsapp alienate their users and they switch to the "next big thing"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> I think at this point, between Facebook Messenger and Instagram, I don't really use Facebook for anything else other than events.

If Facebook spun out its own events app, I would probably stop using Facebook core altogether.

<comment><USER100> They have that. Facebook Local is events + places. [https://www.facebook.com/local/](https://www.facebook.com/local/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER101> Over 36 here.

I keep post my position in this kind of news. I never used it. I will never use it. It will close before I will use it.

I could consider to use it if hired or paid to test it.

</comment><comment><USER102> Ha! They lost me when I was 18. I dunno about your moms, but my mom taught be not to share all of personal information with everybody in the world.

</comment><comment><USER103> My kids who are 19 and 15 barely care about Facebook. My oldest uses Messenger, but that's about it.

Twitter OTOH seems to appeal to both of them, still.

</comment><comment><USER104> Facebook is becoming like how things would look if you did the wrong thing in SimCity: a dark gently smoking urban wasteland.

</comment><comment><USER105> I wonder how many users are still on Facebook just because it's the only way to authenticate in Tinder.

</comment><comment><USER106> These analytics are really dumb considered Facebook Inc. still holds these users in Instagram...

</comment><comment><USER107> I never post on fb because it insists on posting my every move to the world+grandma

If only it were a little less social

</comment><comment><USER108> Facebook has turned into a platform to spam you with ads no wonder their losing marketshare

</comment><comment><USER109> hmmm I don't really look at facebook more than once every few months for like 2min. I have fb messenger to talk to my friends and I don't really care about what goes on on the real site

</comment><comment> GCU-Empiricist Anybody know a worthwhile open source social network alternative?

<comment><USER110> A viable alternative requires your friends and family to be on it.

So there is no viable alternative for most people - decentralized or otherwise.

<comment><USER111> invite them to join then? mastodon has some great apps. if you have the skills you could even set up an instance or two for your friends/family to meet up on.

it won't work for 100% of the people you know, but it isn't that difficult to get a few friends to try a new app/service.

even if you can't/don't know how to set up an instance, there are hundreds of public servers that you can join. honestly, the only excuse is that you don't want to put yourself out on a limb.

[https://joinmastodon.org](https://joinmastodon.org)

<comment><USER110> > invite them to join then?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to spend my personal time convincing hundreds of my contacts to move over to a random service called Mastodon. I've got better things to do with my life. I'm going to use Facebook as a tool and move on - as I'm sure the less vocal majority are doing.

There is a philosophical viewpoint and a practical one. I choose the practical one.

<comment><USER111> > hundreds

lmao ok like this is an all or nothing situation. my response should have been prefixed with _if you care about promoting alternative networks you could..._ (which is what OP was asking for), mastodon is the largest one right now.

i think SSB has a brighter future, but it isn't production ready quite yet.

"practical" as in, what you think is best. it _is_ practical for me to invite people to promote decentralized social networks because my community is competing with the facebooks of the world for attention. your "impractical approach" is my "guerilla marketing strategy".

<comment><USER110> I completely get your perspective but you also made my point for me.

I'm not looking to promote any social network or philosophy. I'm simply looking for a modern tool with which I can contact my friends and family that live in different states and countries in an efficient way. That's it. And I'd bet this is also the case for a majority of people.

I get that if you want to start a niche community or small groups for special interests, there are tons of other ways to organize. For example, Discord for gaming.

But at the end of the day, even those who use Discord a lot and are heavily involved in gaming communities will still have a Facebook so they can connect with the random person they just met at a party, or send photos to their grandma.

<comment><USER111> > you can't win until you've won

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> It's a good start, but there's a long way to go.

</comment><comment><USER113> I hope this is the beginning of the end, of an era.

</comment><comment><USER114> sucks, cuz it was a good idea in the beginning.. also got me some girlfriends over the years..

</comment><comment><USER115> Facebook clings to dark patterns that surely appear to be "working" in the sense of generating engagement and ad spend.

The problem is, younger users have a much better intuitive sense of those dark patterns because they must develop street smarts about how they can be misused (cyber bullying, revenge porn, deepfakes, etc.)

I don't see how any responsible parent could put a video of his/her kid on Facebook when it's just a simple download away from being turned into someone's perverted deepfake, bullying fodder during junior high, etc.

In fact I'd argue that it's irresponsible stewardship of a child's future online autonomy for a parent to post any pictures or data that could be easily misused/abused by his/her own Facebook network. This means pretty much all pics and videos.

If this sounds silly, consider that Facebook makes deleting pictures one has uploaded _a significant chore that requires 10x the number of clicks it ought to_.

When I think about deleting some of the old pics I've uploaded to FB that I'd rather take down, the thought of dealing with all the dark pattern speed bumps trying to make it difficult underscores the outright hostility Facebook feels toward its users.

Recently Facebook had a bug where any Instagram account that had been linked to a Facebook account magically got the Facebook user's profile photo. Even this is a crass disregard for user privacy. Instagram is used much, much differently than Facebook and it's completely unreasonable to expect a user to wish to use the same profile photo.

Young people are just a bit more savvy than the rest of us because their peers/foes/etc are more likely to have had the time and inclination to do minor mischief that Exploits Facebook's defaults. Younger users prefer Instagram or Snap largely because the privacy settings are less opaque and fewer dark patterns are used.

This is probably why Facebook bought Instagram, and why Facebook has allowed the younger users to leave... The revenue generated by milking the older users must outweigh the value of having the younger users. After all, Facebook could easily create a linked Facebook account for all Instagram users and role out a new privacy pattern geared at the preferences of younger users if doing so would result in profit.

But as it stands, younger users are happy to engage with Instagram and Whatsapp and Facebook is not throwing away any of the behavioral profiling data, so eventually when the platforms change/evolve Facebook has lost nothing.

Analogously, Facebook isn't wasting time feeling hurt about users not loving its namesake platform. The company is far broader and more encompassing than the namesake app. If you are using a Facebook owned product and generating data in it, you are helping move ad inventory and doing your part to help Facebook make money.</comment>


120+ people wrote a book at the same time - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUjZ_7rlAmKRDVB6GXId73h_eUdXGKdjtSff0svbaz0/preview <comment><USER2> I'm surprised this hasn't gained more HN traction love -- check this shit out -- avseminal, timely example of crowdsourcing on a large scale (hello, 120 writers) executed in short order.</comment>


PHP Hacker for Democracy - <AUTHOR>

VC-backed free speech platform needs front-end hacker
The goal of BoredAt is to surface the top thoughts and ideas of communities, attempting to democratize information and shed light on the question 'what are the people around you really thinking?'
Our contextual, uncensored social media company for universities is expanding its student-led pilot project to users at top companies and we're poised for rapid growth
Founded in February 2006, BoredAt took off w/ same trajectory as Facebook and 50% penetration on college campuses
Backed by Redpoint Ventures and Draper Richards
Located in downtown San Mateo
You should join BoredAt if you: Are motivated by solving hard problems
Like the idea of working in a small and agile startup environment
Appreciate the idea of being one of the first employees in a company with unlimited potential You like to implement features quickly without bureaucratic overhead You start a lot of sentences with "What if.." You don't wait for others to tell you what to do
You are awesome
We offer competitive salaries, stock options, healthcare benefits, and an open culture
The Spec:
Looking for talented front-end UI expert. This individual should be able to program all steps required for front-end UI feature and product development which includes:
1. Convert design mockups to cross-browser compatible XHTML/CSS.
2. Build necessary JavaScript required for front-end UI functionality.
3. Develop front-end PHP code for new and existing features.
Mastery in: - XHTML - CSS - JavaScript (OO) - PHP - Heavy DOM manipulation - AJAX via JSON
Knowledge of: - PHP MVC frameworks - Object Oriented application development - Prototype/Scriptaculous JavaScript Packages - Cross-browser compatibility issues and ability to develop solutions - MySQL
Strong plus: - Experience building Flash applications
Availability: Full-time Location: downtown San Mateo, next to Caltrain
Send your resume to email@example.com No recruitment agencies, please <comment><USER2> "poised for rapid growth"

we don't take kindly to your kind round here

<comment><AUTHOR> super, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> " _Founded in February 2006, BoredAt took off w/ same trajectory as Facebook and 50% penetration on college campuses_ "

Thank you for the comic relief.

<comment><AUTHOR> your welcome

<comment><USER4> you're _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You just posted this four days ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=100030>

And it was duly voted up.

I think you could stand to wait a few months prior to posting again.

<comment><AUTHOR> ok, thanks for the advice</comment></comment>


Airbnb's Super Bowl ad says 'we accept' everyone - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/5/14517708/airbnb-super-bowl-ad-donation-aid <comment><USER2> Didn't see the commercial, but it sounds like they're trying to capitalize on the travel ban. Seems disingenuous given how they have a history of problems with racism.</comment>


Show HN: Offline text extractor from screenshots in macOS - <AUTHOR> I've always had an issue with the screenshot flow on my computers. They save to the desktop by default and I can't seem to find screenshots easily when I needed it. They create too much clutter too. So I set out to solve this problem. My major concern was with privacy so I made sure to make it work entirely offline. Here's the final product, let me know what you think. - https://visionshot.app/ <comment><USER2> Major personal use cases:

\- SS during conf demo calls

\- SS competitor products (UI designers, game and product designers to convey flow / features)

\- SS images that don't allow download on sites (memes, fb, insta)

\- SS chats to convey conversation (TG, Whatsapp, etc.)

Feedback w/o trying app:

\- Would be great if it could classify app / tag app names if it recognizes the client as I may not remember the content initially but would remember whether it was chrome or whats app

\- Would be great to classify and extract conversations

\- Would be great to group same app SS within same time period (last hr) into the same folder

\- Support video screen cap though I do this less

\- Save the URL of SS if in browser

\- JPEG compression

Its funny because this is an activity most people in the information work space do almost certainly weekly and there has been no innovation on this. You have plenty of room to 10x the user experience here and make a must-have app. Good luck and pls share v2 on HN!

<comment><USER3> There are a number of Chrome extensions to facilitate instagram downloading.

<comment><USER2> Trusting these types of extensions are a gamble nowadays imho. Every month Chrome or infosec researchers are constantly unearthing bad actors that have built but more likely acquired large user base extensions to either inject ads, false ad attribution, or recording user behavioral data for bot fraud heuristics.

I don't disagree thought ... as most aren't privacy conscious

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very nice!

I found more and more of my workflows getting screenshot driven. It's fast, reliable and accurate. Often-times, I don't care that much about the added overhead of pngs vs text.

E.g. I found the only viable way to export my fb timeline (including pictures and comments), when I left, was to screenshot the entire thing. ~500 images.

Looking forward to having those indexed!

Also really like the software delivery here. No way I would have uploaded that content to a SaaS.

<comment><USER5> Just out of curiosity, why did you want to archive your FB timeline?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Visionshot looks neat! It looks like there's a few different apps trying to solve a similar set of problems.

Screenotate by Omar Rizwan is the one I used for a while: [https://screenotate.com/](https://screenotate.com/)

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I've been wanting to find a way to throw money at Omar/screenotate, though havent yet because I already purchased Prizmo (mac only) which has an okay-but-not-perfect screenshot ocr as sortof a side feature: [https://creaceed.com/prizmo](https://creaceed.com/prizmo)

Someone recently made dpScreenOCR ( [https://danpla.github.io/dpscreenocr/](https://danpla.github.io/dpscreenocr/) ) on linux , haven't tried yet

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Onyx will let you change the directory where screenshots are saved on Mac (among a lot of other things) [https://www.titanium- software.fr/en/onyx.html](https://www.titanium-software.fr/en/onyx.html)

My screenshots go into ~/screenshots and my desktop has icons disabled via the same aforementioned tool.

<comment><USER9> You can change the location to which screenshots are saved as a standard macos feature. Just cmd+shift+5, click Options, click Other Location...

<comment><USER10> Yea, also right under Options on touchbar screenshot feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I already have screenshots going into a Dropbox -> Screenshots directory (with "Fan" display from my macOS Dock), which I like.

However I do want non-cloud OCR / text search on existing + new screenshots.

Basically I don't want you to change anything about my screenshot setup except make it searchable.

Does VisionShot do this for me?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, go to import and change the directory you want it to import from and choose the "Import Only" option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> For moving screenshots to another location than the desktop, this setting works on macOS 10.14.6

defaults write com.apple.screencapture location ~/Downloads/

<comment><USER13> As of a few years ago, you can change this in the cmd + shift + 5 screenshot tool, and it'll persist to the other screenshot shortcuts [https://i.imgur.com/tsAmsFe.png](https://i.imgur.com/tsAmsFe.png)

<comment><USER14> Useful. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> OK so there are a few use cases here. (1) Finding something in a sea of timestamps. (2) Storing not to Desktop (which always gets cluttered). (3) Searchability when you want something.

It seems like you have a hyper-focused solution to 1-2-3 which only allows you to solve screenshots. What about other use cases? Could you not make this more general? (1) Auto-rename files matching a certain pattern when they are created in certain directories using a filter (eg. current OCR/image analysis approach). (2) Allow also moving, based on a similar _inotify_ (or similar) API. (3) Make the OCR output an existing search platform (eg. Mac search) pluggable module.

All of these would be possible to achieve cross-platform.

<comment><USER16> While I'm sympathetic to your generalised (1)–(3), "why not solve this more general problem before solving the specific one?" is usually a great way not solve anything because you're worried you haven't solved the perfect thing. It's almost always easier to make a working solution more general than it is to create a working but specific solution in the first place.

<comment><USER15> Yes. However, in the context of sharing something in this sort of community, one would assume breadth of application is a reasonable scope for discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This doesn't work for me... no screenshots are imported, and no new ones appear (running latest Catalina)

<comment><USER18> +1, tried a few things and just get '0 screenshots imported' all the time, looked in Console and couldn't see anything obvious.

Also please add some kind of support contact method as the only link to you in the app is a Twitter account with direct messages locked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't know if this was intentional or just a happy accident, but I'm really glad that the menu bar app doesn't disappear automatically on mouse click. It means I can type into the search input with the macOS Accessibility Keyboard without the app closing on me—which is what happens to me in most menu bar apps.

<comment><AUTHOR> A happy accident I guess. I'll be sure to keep it that way in updates and upcoming versions, cheers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm acquainted with the creator of a similar tool that I think is awesome and might provide some inspiration: [https://screenotate.com/](https://screenotate.com/)

</comment><comment><USER21> How does this work? I mean is there a text extraction model and some data format somewhere keeping track of everthing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but that's all done locally on your computer. All results are stored in a local config file and used for the search sorting.

<comment><USER21> Lush will check it out (e.g. buy)

<comment><AUTHOR> Your feedback will go a long way too, thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Awesome, reminds me of [https://www.screenomex.com/record- recall](https://www.screenomex.com/record-recall).

</comment><comment><USER23> I changed screenshot directory in cmd + shift + 5 screenshot tool, can I change it in VisionShot too ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can. Go to import and change to your screenshots directory. Then select "Import Only"... restart the app and your default screenshot directory will be the new directory it watches for new screenshots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> One minor suggestion: compress the image from your website for faster loading time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done, thank you for the tip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Really nice landing page. Going to borrow style for some projects. :)

</comment><comment><USER26> Can you dnd screenshots from your app?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> with mac you can screenshot right to the clipboard though</comment>


Meeting People Is Easy, but Hard - <AUTHOR> http://yonomitt.com/blog/2016/3/23/meeting-people-is-easy-but-hard <comment><USER4> I once received advice on smalltalk that's been interestingly useful.

The advice was to ask questions could be answered with a number. Like "How long have you lived in New York?" or "How many siblings do you have?"

On the surface those don't seem great at stimulating conversation, but people seem to automatically expand on the number they give since they feel it deserves explanation.

I've used it several times when I've been set adrift at a cocktail party without a conversational thread to pull on.

<comment><USER5> What really helps me stay engaged in conversations with strangers is directing my genuine interest in their "story".

What drew you to get into computer science? How did you end up enjoying accounting? Why did you choose NYC over Tokyo?

When someone asks me what degree I took, the answer is two words: Computer Science. If they ask me why - now there's a real conversation.

Often, also, it may help to tug even further at that story thread - <USER2> _background_ brought it around? What did the parents do? What was the formative experience that created the story?

<comment><USER6> These are both great tactics that I hadn't thought of.

My greatest "tactic" for conferences specifically is right after a speaker is done speaking, go up and ask them followup questions. This might only work at smaller conferences (like MicroConf, etc) but it's super easy. The speaker will probably be swarmed by 4+ other people, but this is even better for you. You're now part of a conversation group that is socially acceptable for you to just hop into. Wait your turn and ask the speaker a burning question you had. This way you've already made conversation with this speaker, whom you can talk to at other social events. You're also opening yourself up to other people in the talking circle, showing you ask smart questions and they can have conversation with you. You can also listen to what other people are asking of the speaker and you can follow up with those people later if it seems that you might connect.

I learned this halfway through the last conference I went to and I'm totally going to do it every time now.

<comment><USER7> Thanks to your comment, all future dev conferences will have ~85 people vaulting from their chairs the instant after a speaker's Q&A has officially ended so they can swarm the guy and ask them a "Question that establishes them as a smart question asker" as the speaker tries to leave the room. :) Good advice, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> FORD:

\- Family

\- Occupation

\- Recreation

\- Dreams

I'm not a natural talker. Using FORD has opened many, many conversations and, eventually, doors. I believe I found out about FORD on HN about 6 years back.

<comment><USER9> And you usually want to avoid RAPE:

\- Religion

\- Abortion

\- Politics

\- Economics

Of course, rape itself is also probably not a conversational winner, generally speaking.

<comment><USER10> Why specifically abortion? I mean with regard to other items you listed, it's a lot more specific topic, and it's part religion and part politics anyway.

<comment><USER11> I imagine that people can feel that it is wrong, without it beeing linked to religion or politics.

Note: I do not share the idea that abortion is wrong

<comment><USER12> or they couldn't come up with a better A, and RPE just doesn't have a same ring to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm extremely shy AND introverted. I don't like talking to strangers or meeting new people.

But this one time, I had a job interview in DC and my wife and I were at a bar enjoying drinks/dinner. Out of no where this young woman sat next to me and started talking to me. I was extremely uncomfortable/awkward at first but she asked what I did and I replied that I'm a software engineer. She immediately responded with "I work for the Chamber of Commerce." This naturally triggered a conversation about software copyright laws and SOPA. It was the most enlightening conversation that I've ever had with a stranger. While we had different opinions, it was very civil and pleasant. My wife was jealous since I was talking to this woman for so long but it wasn't about her, it was about the conversation. I generally go out of my way to avoid these interactions but I was so shocked how it turned out, once I got over the anxiety of talking to a stranger.

</comment><comment><USER14> Meeting people for the first time at a convention is far more easier than in the real world. In a conference you have some common ground to talk about, you're both there for the same reason. You introduce yourself, ask them what they do and then find some topic to go on. In the real world though it's a different game altogether. You have to be a master of small talk if you want to meet people out of the blue.

</comment><comment><USER15> One thought on talking about the weather: this habit arose when everyone's livelihood was directly or indirectly tied to local rainfall--so it was more like discussing the latest macroeconomic news or stock tips or latest web trends (in tech) than some pointlessly superficial conversation.

<comment><USER16> in England, talking abou the weather is by far the easiest way to get into an animated conversation. Seriously. It's because it has one of the most unpredictable climates, by the hour. (although if you have to, bet on light rain)

<comment><USER17> At the moment the easiest way to get into an animated conversation - <USER3> possibly a fist fight - is to ask about Europe.

<comment><USER18> Staying clear of politics and relgion is always a good bet.

<comment><USER19> I don't really understand that, surely it should only be avoided with people who can't have a civil conversation. These are often interesting topics. I guess you need to get the measure of your co-conversant first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Although this is incidental to teh main topic, for some reason he makes a big scale of Extraversion and Introversion. However, these are not necessarily the most helpful constructs, being outdated Jungian ideas comprising of many more variables that would be much more helpful. In the meanwhile, have a look at the other scales like the Big 5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion) Please ignore Myers-Briggs because it is demonstrably useless and worse than that, too plausible.

<comment><USER20> From your link: _Virtually all comprehensive models of personality include these concepts [intraversion /extraversion] in various forms. Examples include the Big Five model, [...]_.

So they very much _are_ helpful constructs, and are part of what you suggest to use as a replacement. Just because they're not the newest and shiniest doesn't make them bad.

<comment><USER16> You make a good point, yes the ideas are useful. However, the way they are still used as labelled buinary opposites make may people think they are undividable ideas. The replacements use them, but go further, rather than rely on them as originally created. They sometimes sophisticate the originals, which is good. The basic idea is interesting, but it is the simple binary condition of the original that is problematic, not capturing all of the differences. Unfortunately, the hardest thing in psychology is variable construction and testing, so it's taking a while to move beyond these too- broad constructs.

I agree old ideas are not necessarily terrbile at all. Euclid, for example, had some rather good theorems. However, psychology is rather different.

<comment><USER21> I think they never were intended as binary opposites, but as a spectrum with Introversion on one end and Extroversion on the other.

The fact that the public or the mainstream media polarize the two does not render the concepts useless.

<comment><USER16> Even at the ends of a spectrum, they remain imperfect and problematic constructs. When I said binary, I intended to continue to imply that they are as pointed out, said to be opposites on one semantic axis. This may have misled you as to my position, laid out in my previous parent^2 comment. At no point did I call them useless.

to timwaagh below, if I had done the research to create coherent enough new constructs I'd be publishing a paper on them, rather than writing a chat answer.

<comment><USER21> Oh sure, these constructs are broad brush strokes, I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As Charles Warner opined - everyone talks about the weather, but no one actually does anything about it.

<comment><USER23> Well done -- it's often misattributed to Mark Twain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> On a similar note, is there a hackers guide to be social / relationships / that stuff?

 _if $this, then try [1, 2, 3]_ -ish style?

<comment><USER25> Not exactly that, but this is by far the best, most thorough resource I've ever found. I don't need it much anymore, but I used to read it a ton: [http://www.succeedsocially.com/](http://www.succeedsocially.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _Don't hide in the bathroom, at the bar, or behind a plate of food._

Or behind a glass, for that matter.

To wit: alcohol obviously can help break the ice in many situations -- but it can also cause innate skills to atrophy, and have weirdly isolating effects in a whole bunch other ways.

So use alcohol as a tool (if it works for you) -- but switch it out, now and then. And make a point of doing all that approaching, "leaning in" (or however you like to term it) whilst stone cold sober at least as often as when you've had a glass or two.

</comment><comment><USER27> The author gives some examples of questions to ask which is great. However I find that stories (real or fake) of a complete experience written in third person (or better as a video) is exponentially more helpful in communicating all the subtleties of activities that need practice, be it social interaction, learning to code or playing a sport.

Bullet points and tips put too much pressure and control around learning something fluidly because the learner is constantly measuring himself/herself against these "constraints".

</comment><comment><USER28> Link text says "Extroversion and introversion" but links to wiki page for "Extraversion and introversion" (the correct spelling).

<comment><USER17> Either spelling is correct.

Extroversion is the original 17th c. spelling, used to mean a literal turning inside out. The word drifted through Late Romantic mysticism in the 19th c. and landed in psychology in the early 20th c.

Extraversion is a more recent variant.

(I'm not sure anyone really wanted to know that...)

<comment><USER29> > (I'm not sure anyone really wanted to know that...)

I did, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why is it so important to postpone "what do you do"? I think it is perfectly fine to ask the direct but sincere question, because it is ultimately the information you and your counterpart needs.

</comment><comment><USER31> As an Extroverted thinker it can also be awkward, I just love to have discussions. But even on a conference I only find 5% of the people are nerdy enough to match me.

<comment><USER31> When you do find someone who match, it's totally awesome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Totally unreleated: why is the editor war always Emacs vs. Vi, not Vim? Is anybody using the original Vi these days?

<comment><USER33> When I invoke vi on a machine, I really have no idea what the implementation is. I imagine it is Vim on most Linux machines. I've been using vi for so long on so many types of systems that I only really use a safe subset anyway. I don't use any Vim extensions, so it makes sense to refer to it as vi as that is how I think of it. I imagine many others think of it the same way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> my complete shock that anything in this article is unknown to all is inversely proportional to my programming abilities.

<comment><USER35> I... can't parse that sentence.

<comment><USER36> Stanford Parser ([http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/parser/index.jsp](http://nlp.stanford.edu:8080/parser/index.jsp)) actually parses it correctly!

      (ROOT
      (S
        (NP
          (NP (PRP$ my) (JJ complete) (NN shock))
          (SBAR (IN that)
            (S
              (NP
                (NP (NN anything))
                (PP (IN in)
                  (NP (DT this) (NN article))))
              (VP (VBZ is)
                (ADJP (JJ unknown)
                  (PP (TO to)
                    (NP (DT all))))))))
        (VP (VBZ is)
          (ADVP (RB inversely))
          (VP (VBG proportional)
            (PP (TO to)
              (NP (PRP$ my) (NN programming) (NNS abilities)))))
        (. .)))

I agree that it's quite convoluted, but surprisingly it's not incorrect

<comment><USER37> Funny how they can write a parser that converts natural language strings into a syntax tree, but they can't configure an nginx proxy on port 80 :-p</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/how-wall-streets-quants-lied-to-their-computers/ <comment><USER2> Well, that explains that. Now explain this: If these MBSes were so complex that Wall Street MIT-trained quants and Wharton-trained traders and their computers didn't see it coming...how exactly did _I_ see it coming? Me.

I mean...liar loans and ARMs starting at record-low rates and housing prices that looked like the NASDAQ right around AD 2000? I mean, the reason they didn't see it was...because they _did_ see it, but the hand that picked up the commissions had a mind of its own.

<comment><USER3> In the short run, these markets selected for people who didn't properly analyze the risk. If the average CDO makes you 7% a year until one day it loses 20%, it's not a prudent investment -- but if you somehow estimate that the maximum loss is 2% instead, you will be willing to buy many more of them, and your return on capital will look a whole lot better. If you're not the only one doing this, the flow of all that money into risky products will give you returns even higher than you expected -- and if you're like the average investor, you will adjust your reasoning in retrospect to make yourself as brilliant as possible.

So it's actually unsurprising that people outside of the finance business were disproportionately aware that the whole real estate bubble was crazy. Someone with your views working for a big bank would be the equivalent of a peacock who realizes who impractical those feathers are.

<comment><USER4> Not a web connection or mag subscription among the lot of them, eh?

[http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=a...](http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1661) <http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/21/cz_0221oxan_default.html> [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393160/index.htm)

<comment><USER5> It's pretty easy to ignore what you read on the web when it doesn't fit your preconceptions.

<comment><USER6> Yes, and to everyone who now claims he was really sure of the bubble back then: why didn't you make a fortune in short selling?

<comment><USER5> Shorting is generally a bad idea because even if you're right, if your timing is wrong, you can still lose everything. Say that you call "overvalued" and short the market. You're right, but the market gets _more_ overvalued before it corrects. You can get short-squeezed out of your positions because with the new, bubble-inflated prices, you don't meet margin requirements. Then the market corrects, you're vindicated, but you've lost everything already.

Same goes for buying on margin when the market undershoots. You can be right, but if the price continues to drop past rationality (as it often does), you can lose everything.

And I _did_ make a pretty good return, both in 2001 and 2007, simply by holding money in cash when people were greedy and investing when they were fearful. Not a fortune (I was a poor college student in 01/02, and only had 2 years of accumulated work savings in 07), but enough to fund my year-long startup adventure, and to fund a few more years of it if I had a decent idea.

<comment><USER6> Yes, timing is a problem. The market can stay irrational for longer than you can stay solvent.

Good luck with your ventures!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is really rather simple to understand: Part of the motivation for inventing complex new derivatives is to create things that look conservative to the model but are actually risky.

The personal incentives for traders are to get big returns, which implies making risky bets. But your risk management system won't let you make risky bets directly. So instead, you make risky bets indirectly through instruments specifically engineered to game the risk management system.

It's nothing new. Michael Lewis' excellent book "Liar's Poker" describes how Solomon Brothers invented ways to obtain triple-A credit ratings for incredibly risky forex trades so that they could be sold to S&L's with strict rules about the credit-worthiness of their investments. And that was at least twenty years ago.

<comment><USER8> _Part of the motivation for inventing complex new derivatives is to create things that look conservative to the model but are actually risky._

Nailed it. Things like FX, commodities and equities are closed systems. These markets make their money by volume and it's not particularly interesting.

Take something like a CDS where you don't really know what the risks are and it becomes easier to set prices fairly arbitrarily. Maybe some cpty has a stellar rating. Does that mean they'll always be stellar? Who knows?!

But this is still missing the real killer. Leverage. Everyone forgot the lesson of LTCM.

It was a bitter irony that the only bank to tell LTCM "fah q!" was the first to go. It's not so ironic now that Lehman, Merrill and possibly Morgan are gone now too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm going to draw the obvious conclusion that most of the models were built on the premises of mediocristan, when in fact the world they were modeling lived in extremistan.

The thing is that quants who come up with models showing large amounts of risk to otherwise profitable investments aren't as popular as ones who say everything is just fine. So there is a clear incentive for models to be optimistic.

<comment><USER10> I thought this was a great analogy to express your conclusion:

"It was like a weather forecaster in Houston last weekend talking about the onset of Hurricane Ike by giving the average wind speed for the previous month."

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The impression I got was not that they lied to their own computers, but rather those who programmed the alarms did so inadequately and could not handle the complexity of the transactions.

His doctor analogy is good, but not exactly perfect. Something more along the lines of hiring a med student for your physical instead of a grey-haired professional.

<comment><USER10> Not so.

"So some trading desks took the most arcane security, made of slices of mortgages, and entered it into the computer if it were a simple bond with a set interest rate and duration."

I find the lying to your doctor analogy very good to describe this kind of behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _The models should penalize investments that are complex, hard to understand and infrequently traded, she said._

...by how much?

</comment><comment><USER13> It seems to me that the root cause to the computer models failing was that the government stepped in to "help."

Once government requirements were put in place, I can only imagine the level of red tape required to make changes to what was a dynamic system before.

None of this was mentioned in the article. Does anyone have any facts on this?

<comment><USER14> Nothing I have read indicates that was the case. I believe Raganwald above is mostly correct. The major roll that government played, is that by setting the precedent of "too big too fail" starting twenty years ago, and by setting interest rates too low, it enabled Wall St to play with far more risk than was wise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> 100 year flood. Brilliant, quants. Quick investment tip: Never, ever, invest in a prospectus that has the word "Gaussian" in it.

</comment><comment><USER16> Traders and bankers knew, philosophically, that the risk in these products was much higher than the models would admit. "25 sigma", to use Goldman's excuse, means nothing when the distribution is not normal. For a 20-year-old to die (death being a 0/1 event) within a year is "30 sigma", and yet it is not uncommon for a college student to die.

My lay explanation of the risk-management failure is as follows. Let's say that you're of average means, with a net worth of $25,500. You've decided that "fuck you" money is $10 million, and you want to get there by (wait for it) betting on coin flips, pursuing the Martingale betting strategy. You'll stop flipping when either (1) you lose everything, or (2) you get to the fuck-you mark of $10m.

Martingale works as follows: start with a small bet (say, $100). If you win, bet again at the small size. If you lose, bet again, doubling your size. You'll win almost all of the time, losing only on an improbable string of losses. When you win, you'll be up exactly $100.

Obviously, this is an extremely stupid strategy. On the first go, you lose everything on a string of 8 failures (1/256). You win $100, 255/256 of the time. Expectancy is still zero, and although a blow-out loss is unlikely on a single round, you're going to progress to $10m so slowly that you'll almost certainly fail out beforehand. You have, roughly, a 0.255% chance of getting the "win" outcome of $10m. This doesn't improve if you change the size of the bet.

If you're able to borrow $1 billion, in addition to your meager $25.5k, this strategy makes perfect sense. Let's assume that the coin-flips are instantaneous, and interest is agreed-upon to be a flat 1%/$10m, meaning that you need to win $20 million to have your "fuck you" money. Now your blow-out probability is extremely low. The probability of getting to +20m before -1000m is _about_ 98%. So, you have a very high chance of reaching your goal, and a low chance of losing your few-months'-salary bankroll (plus a lot of someone else's money). Of course, the billionaire is getting screwed.

This is a toy example, but it's not far off from what actually happens. Much of the money made in finance has been obtained by borrowing others' money to bet against "black swan" events, so infrequent that no one can accurately model their likelihood and impact. This is what "rock star traders" try to do their banks, and what banks try to do to their customers, and we've now seen the resulting clusterfuck.</comment>