Skip to main content

The Cognitive Gap Of Why

So a non-trivial number of people whom I respect and enjoy have made the very same mistake about a bunch of inter-related application usage patterns specifically about social media tools and the infrastructures therein.

That's a complicated starting sentence, so let me give a specific example (which is just the latest in a long line of argumentation all of a theme): the excellent CGP Grey made an argument about Youtube and why it can't be better at serving up videos and be more like Netflix when presenting content. It's an excellent point, to be fair: Youtube is fantastically bad at serving up content that I want in the way that I want it when I'm trying to watch stuff, and I'm not even a publisher; CGP Grey's problems are at least twice the difficulty level from mine.

The problem is, of course, that the problem reverts to a very old axiom that I've used since I heard it the first time: nearly every question that starts with "why" can be answered with "money".

Netflix and Youtube have two fundamentally different business models. For Netflix, their customers and their users are the same people: the audience for Netflix is the people that gave them money, and so they are motivated to deliver a good user experience because not doing so will cost them money. Their Ops focus is stability, reliability, deliverability, and service. Their UX focus is about getting photons into eyeballs as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Their goal as a company is to satisfy the viewer.

For Youtube, though, the users and the customers are two entirely different groups. Youtube doesn't make any money from the person who comes to look at the videos they host; in point of fact, they arguably cost money for Youtube. In fact, content-uploaders aren't the customers, either, which is hilarious because Youtube wouldn't exist without the people who upload stuff. No, the customers for Youtube are the advertisers and aggregators that want the data about the users. That's what Youtube is selling, even over and above the ads on top of the content itself; they're selling data about what users are watching.

The same is true of social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus. The people who use those sites are not the people that the sites care about, at the end of the day. It's why Facebook won't set their algorithms to display status updates in explicit chronological order. It's why Twitter is changing the methodology of the timeline. It's why Google Plus doesn't disable plus-one sharing, even though nearly everyone who uses G+ hates it. The people that use the sites are not the audience. They're not the customers. The customers are the people who pay Facebook, Twitter, and Google for data about the users.

If a service isn't charging you for using it, then you are the service model.

The answer to nearly every "why" is almost always "money".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Organizing And You: Lessons from Labor History

    I made a joke on Twitter a while ago: Do I need to post the Thomas M Comeau Organizing Principles again? https://t.co/QQIrJ9Sd3i — Jerome Comeau says Defund The Police (@Heronymus) July 15, 2021 and it recently came back up because a member of my family got their first union job and was like "every job should be offering these sorts of benefits" and so I went ahead and wrote down what I remember of what my dad told me. My father had many jobs, but his profession was basically a labor union organizer, and he talked a lot about the bedrock foundation items needed to be serious about organizing collective action. Here's what I remember.    The Thomas M. Comeau Principles of Organizing -- a fundamental list for finding and building worker solidarity from 50 years of Union Involvement. This list is not ranked; all of the principles stated herein are coequal in their importance. Numbering is a rhetorical choice, not a valuation. 1) Be good at your job. Even in an at-will

Activision, Blizzard, Game development, IT, and my personal role in all of that.

 I'm pretty sure if you spend any sort of time at all on Twitter and/or spend any sort of time playing videogames, you are by now at least aware of the lawsuit brought forth by the State of California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing versus Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al. From this point on, I'll add a Content Warning for folks who are sensitive about sexual assault, suicide, and discrimination based on sex, gender, and skin color, as well as crude humor around and about sexual assault , and what the State of California refers to as "a pervasive 'frat boy' culture" around Act/Bliz, especially in the World of Warcraft-associated departments.   Just reading the complaint is hard rowing, even with the clinical legalese in place. The complaint itself is relatively short; 29 pages laying out ten Causes of Action (basically, "these are the legs on which our lawsuit stands"). I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to properly express how a

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness. To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic