> Today yes, but with FB's technical capabilities, I can't see why they couldn't knock off a respectable (if not superior in most respects ... clone of YouTube in way under a year.
Facebook's challenge, IMHO, isn't technical, it's cultural. Namely: it's transparently selfish and seems to mostly act for it's short term advantage. It doesn't know how to share a pie. It doesn't seem to have a consistent strategy for people to build around.
> most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.
> and the trust they've lost in the last year.
Facebook let social games get out of hand, then it kneecapped all the social game makers.
Facebook kneecapped people who learned to depend on FB Pages to reach their audiences, to force them to buy ads.
Facebook just kneecapped video producers, probably worse than Youtube did. They kneecapped the news media as well.
If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.
> If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.
But unless any platform has an exclusivity clause, it's pretty risk free and largely effort free (a multi-platform deployment tool will emerge I'd think) for producers to publish to all platforms. Actually, if(!) platforms would cooperate, this would be nice because they could then differentiate on features.
> Youtube seems to offer a better user experience than facebook for users who don't have an account or aren't signed into an account.
I think it's something a bit more general: Facebook is all about getting people to do, right now, what's good for Facebook, and it's willing to break things and get in your face to accomplish that.
Youtube, and Google generally, seem to be much more OK with just providing a consistent, approachable service; and letting the users use it naturally. In the long term, that seems like the better strategy because it doesn't burn trust like it grows on trees.
Would you like to respond to my points, or are you going to use the same tactic you did last time and completely ignore what others write in order to push your own agenda?
Why is it that your account is only 67 days old and >75% of your comments are about China? Do you even comment on normal Hacker News topics that aren't related to politics?
> Why is it that your account only 67 days old yet >75% of your comments are about China? Do you even comment on normal Hacker News topics that aren't related to politics?
Because you didn't look past two days of comments? Most of my comments over the past two days have been in this article and the other about Xinjiang, which are both about China. But you're right, I have an interest in it.
Anyway, this thread with you is clearly off-topic, so I'm going to stop it. If have further questions for me, you can study my other comments or figure out a way to privately message me.
> Also I find it quite telling that Lionsion still refuses to respond to any of my points.
Ok, I'll bite. Here's my response:
You need to go outside and take a walk, because your "points" have been off topic, literally paranoid, and bizarrely personal. You're accusing me of being an "agent provocateur" and either a Chinese or Russian troll. That's crazy talk and utter nonsense.
Ignoring you isn't "telling," it's frustration and a lack of better options.
The truth is I'm a guy who was frustrated by a thread yesterday that was totally ruined by people who derailed it, perhaps like the 50 Cent Party would. Just to make it super clear: I don't think it was disrupted by the actual 50 Cent Party, but by people who maybe should consider learning to not act like it.
Edit: I apologize to everyone who reads this thread (or the dead comments below). In situations like this, the correct action is to ignore someone like my interlocutor, but that's difficult when he makes personal attacks. I should have held firm despite them.
> What sort of bizarre hedging is saying that people are just acting "perhaps like" paid Chinese trolls?
You need to re-read my comment, especially the sentence after the one you partially quoted. What I was getting at was that someone who inadvertently behaves like a propagandist should re-evaluate their behavior and modify it, because it's destructive (if it wasn't destructive, why would the propagandist do it?). For instance, someone pushing hyper-partisan memes on Facebook should stop because Russians agents literally do that same thing as a disruption tactic.
> but I am not exaggerating when I say that I think putting these things on the record is important for everyone.
Anyway, you are not acting like a stable, sensible person. You're getting too worked up. Please, take a break. Do something relaxing or fun. This is not a productive derail that anyone else would benefit from.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Nationalistic flamewar and personal attacks are not allowed here. Please don't create accounts to do this with.
In case anyone is wondering: no, this is not because of your views. I don't know what they are and it doesn't matter, just as a fireman doesn't care what color a fire is.
> You need to re-read my comment, especially the sentence after the one you partially quoted.
You're not fooling anyone when you say that you're not accusing people of being propagandists, but rather that they're just "perhaps like" them.
> Anyway, you are not acting like a stable, sensible person. You're getting too worked up.
Says the guy whose two month old account has 75% of its comments about one topic, but nice try. I also wonder if you are subconsciously channeling some tactics from the past:
EDIT: And of course, recalling Cato, I will end by nothing that you still have not responded to anything I've said but rather have devolved to calling people who disagree with you crazy. Gee, it's almost like you're just trying to divide people instead of actually trying to have a good faith discussion.
> pointing out the random articles dealing with China ever is also unrelated. (A freaking article about the Moon lander for pete's sake)
Which was observed to have had anomalous commenting behavior.
I think it's an important question to consider if the 50 Cent Party operates on non-Chinese forums, and the observation in that comment is relevant to that question.
> The topic is propaganda, that other countries and organizations like companies do that is related to the topic.
And the topic of the Xinjiang re-education camp thread, judging by the comments, must have been "everything bad that any country has ever done ever." /s
I think this one will stay, but mainly because the content is an inoculation against the kind of trolling that usually leads to China threads getting buried.
I do have an irrational hope that the inoculation will last for more than a single thread though.
> The thing is there's this strange, "uncanny" feeling I get whenever these things are shared too
I posted this because I got super frustrated with all the derails and distractions that utterly destroyed the Xinjiang indoctrination camp post from yesterday. If you don't believe me you can look at my comment history.
Your comment history is extremely problematic for Hacker News, because you've been using it to engage in nationalistic flamewar. I don't care what your views are or which nations you have feelings about: doing this is as toxic as it gets.
Edit: actually you went so far over the line that we banned the account. No one is allowed to turn HN into nationalistic hell, regardless of which nation they're fighting for.
Okay, so I understand how you feel. The thing is I clicked on that post and the top comments are critical of indoctrination camps. There's one top-level comment you replied to that pointed out an irony given the imprisoned population here in the US.
The article details, AFAICT, the CCP's attempts to spread propaganda to its own people, not to the west, although I have no doubts it does try to spread it elsewhere. So given that, what is the likelihood that most of the critical, anti-US comments are in fact CCP propaganda hires? I don't know, but it seems a little bit much to assume everything is a plot to subvert people's opinions.
I'm not a propagandist. I agree with the sentiment in the comment on that article (I missed) about the US imprisoned population. People can disagree with you and point out opinions you disagree with.
I said earlier, somewhat sarcastically, it sucks that people are pushing things in this comment thread and voting down and flagging comments that point out other countries do the same. I am always somewhat paranoid, and anyone would given Snowden leaks and having read history about things like COINTELPRO, etc., but it was somewhat tongue in cheek (yes, I'm not perfect, I say mean things online like most people). Do I really believe all of you are US gov't plants trying to sway people to be belligerent to China? I don't think so.
I get we should keep our eyes open, but we should be willing to accept that there are people who disagree with us, and not everyone who disagrees with us is a Russian/Chinese/etc bot. I'm actually really bothered by the attitude online these days that calls everyone who disagrees with us as being an astroturf. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it really helps to further strengthen the echo chambers we've created for ourselves.
> The rating was sustained by constant comments by Chinese studying in the US and burnishing their reps with the Party.
I can believe it. The Chinese government apparently paying students to wave flags when their officials come visit [1]. Since they manage to do that successfully, it wouldn't surprise me if they do similar things with internet comments.
> All governments do propaganda, this is a well known fact....Even companies astroturf.
This paper isn't about that kind of propaganda, where a particular narrative gets pushed. It's about an insidious kind of propaganda where an unrelated or semi-related narrative is pushed to distract from some topic.
> Why is this downvoted?
Probably because it can be interpreted as a similar kind of propaganda to the kind the article describes (e.g. lets get everyone riled up about Israel such that they forget about China). I can see the loose topic-similarity aiding such a goal.
Facebook's challenge, IMHO, isn't technical, it's cultural. Namely: it's transparently selfish and seems to mostly act for it's short term advantage. It doesn't know how to share a pie. It doesn't seem to have a consistent strategy for people to build around.
> most producers would clone their content to FB very quickly, especially smaller ones who are pissed off at demonetization.
> and the trust they've lost in the last year.
Facebook let social games get out of hand, then it kneecapped all the social game makers.
Facebook kneecapped people who learned to depend on FB Pages to reach their audiences, to force them to buy ads.
Facebook just kneecapped video producers, probably worse than Youtube did. They kneecapped the news media as well.
If I was a video content producer, I wouldn't use a Facebook Youtube clone, even if it seemed better. I'd expect to get kneecapped, probably in the 2-3 year timeframe.