First, I think what happened with Facebook/Cambridge Analytica is appalling. With that said, I think this article is silly and emblematic of poor technology coverage in the media.
I think it would be awesome if users really did delete their facebook accounts if they thought these actions crossed some line. But the article cites ~50,000 #deletefacebook mentions. Come on, 50k hashtag shares is evidence of "Users Abandon..."? it then proceeds to document case studies of people leaving. The article title would imply that users truly did see this action as a last straw and are leaving in droves, and it seems that is the narrative that the writer wanted to write about.
Is that truly happening though? I'd love to see the data, but I don't think they will delete their accounts. Why would the writer elect to write an article fitting a narrative for which there is little data? Surely, the more interesting article would be "Are users deleting their accounts? Why not?" That I would read and find interesting.
Who do you think would give us that data? Facebook? Doubtful.
I think it's reasonable to assume that if 50k people tweeted about it, a far larger number probably took action (active tweeters are just a small subset of the population) or are at least thinking about reducing usage or deleting.
Deleting facebook has been a topic of conversation in my circle for months since I did it ~4 months ago or so. It's definitely on people's radar as far as other media seems to indicate (we've had anti-facebook threads daily for months on HN), and my friends (mostly tech people and very active facebook users) have almost all reduced their usage significantly.
> I think it's reasonable to assume that if 50k people tweeted about it, a far larger number probably took action
I don't really think it's reasonable to make any extrapolation, as there are also opposite arguments.
A brief search on the hashtag shows that most of it's typical "social stuff" - sarcastic remarks, jokes, pictures etc.
Also, I also wouldn't take what social users says as action. There's always been the meme of "I'M GOING TO LEAVE FACEBOOK...!!!", yet Facebook kept growing. Rather, I'd assume it's very typical rage venting.
Some recent hard data is the analysis of the #deleteUber campaign and market share in NYC of rideshare services. The data showed a dip that was swallowed (erased) by broad, gradual shifts within a few months. It was a recent front page HN story, but don't remember the title. I think it will take no more than a few million in a nationwide ad campaign running on TV to more than erase any #deleteFB campaign. That is, these campaigns cost the targets $$, but don't really fundamentally alter their trajectory (regulation could be a different story entirely).
The other thing in FB's favor here is how incredibly difficult it is for an average user to actually delete, vs. suspend, their FB account. I helped a non-techie friend with it recently and it took about 45 minutes. It wouldn't accept the user's password for deletion even though it worked to login. After 2-3 password changes, it finally worked.
(As most here know the actual account deletion page is hidden behind a barely visible link in ... a locked filing cabinet in the basement, guarded by a venomous snake...)
Exactly. How many articles have I, and others on this site, written with the same words. Even if we had written and published it, many of us would have simply deactivated it or decided to stop visiting.
>I think it's reasonable to assume that if 50k people tweeted about it, a far larger number probably took action (active tweeters are just a small subset of the population) or are at least thinking about reducing usage or deleting.
These "Delete Facebook" campaigns are nothing new. They used to spread around Facebook like chain letters all the time (maybe less between then and now, I don't really know since I haven't used it much), always about privacy something, and all the people posting them were always right back to their normal Facebook usage the next week as if nothing happened. Maybe this time it'll stick a little more among the small group of people who are invested in this kind of thing, but I'm not holding my breath.
We'll be able to tell how many people did it by how Facebook reacts. If they do basically nothing and carry on as normal, then we know that FB knows that hardly anyone has deleted their accounts.
If it looks like FB is shitting bricks, then we know they're hella scared, which means enough people deleted it to scare them.
People who run apps dependent on facebook can immediately see any significant change. Basically any website that receives the bulk of their traffic from FB.
ROFL - yeah right... Because after the I international shitstorm about the '13 reasons why'(correct name of the show?) a million teenagers jumped of a clive... Whenever someone tries to argue/sell anything with hashtag/google-search statistics I have the perfect counter argument... This is no-proof of anything and you are a moron if you don't get why...
The headline I'm seeing for the article as of 20180322T1509Z is "For Many Facebook Users, a ‘Last Straw’ That Led Them to Quit" (different to the one posted here - I don't know if it was changed at nytimes).
Not everyone needs to delete Facebook - only a sufficient number of "core" users whom others look up to need to stop using it. That alone can cripple a network or sub-network. Remember that the number of users that C.A. pulled from wasn't that huge of a number so network effects can work both ways (consider Snapchat and several recent celebrity disendorsements, for example).
The easiest way for most to start "deleting" is by deactivating. Do an experiment: deactivate for a week and see what's the worst that can happen. It can always be undone.
I hope the following perspective helps with your question. Think of newspapers as a mix of Journalism and blog-type "Content" and this writer as a Content writer. Content ideas are pitched by a writer to the editor, or assigned by the editor to a writer. After it's written, a third person (SEO expert) adds the headline. This article looks like Content filling out an idea rather than Journalism uncovering a story.
When news organizations publish investigative stories, they often follow-up with further coverage highlighting what the industry calls "impact." Then, during prize season (think Pulitzers, but there are many others), editors can point to these follow-up stories and say, "see, we weren't just farting into the wind. We were changing the world."
It's representing the views of people who have quit facebook over Cambridge Analytica and explaining why they did it.
Writing your take on the article is probably in the works and probably takes a lot more time than 2-3 days. Reporting on something is what newspapers mainly do. Analysis and opinion usually comes later and from other sources.
Really though. This is what gets people to leave? Doubtful until I see proof. It's not like this "scandal" is out of character of other criticisms that have been very publicly declared against Facebook for years.
I think it would be awesome if users really did delete their facebook accounts if they thought these actions crossed some line. But the article cites ~50,000 #deletefacebook mentions. Come on, 50k hashtag shares is evidence of "Users Abandon..."? it then proceeds to document case studies of people leaving. The article title would imply that users truly did see this action as a last straw and are leaving in droves, and it seems that is the narrative that the writer wanted to write about.
Is that truly happening though? I'd love to see the data, but I don't think they will delete their accounts. Why would the writer elect to write an article fitting a narrative for which there is little data? Surely, the more interesting article would be "Are users deleting their accounts? Why not?" That I would read and find interesting.