They tried. Facebook Watch. It's a total disaster.

> Zuckerberg could’ve made a YouTube competitor or a Netflix competitor given that he already has a platform for video sharing and an ads infrastructure

Facebook has no content production experience though, and when they do dip their toes into that market its via AI slop (like their official AI accounts on instagram). I think this is because they don't value the human element of art at all.

They would be entirely reliant other content providers, which is a rough place to be in when you have to deal with actual studios and not just independent creators. Independent creators are easier for Facebook to exploit since they are usually small operations and dependent on facebook/instagram for market reach.

Youtube isn't really known to be highly profitable. I'm also not sure people would go to a Facebook YouTube when the normal YouTube exists

I don't think he meant you ate Christians, more that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_t...

I bet (pun intended) that's pretty good for the owners pockets

fair point

> and then execute it incredibly well

...sometimes

He copied the analog thing of the same name in his university that was taking too long to digitise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_book

I dont think he did

um, I'm not sure exactly why what motivated that comment, but its extremely possible to believe every word there from a purely logical perspective, as opposed to an emotional one. yes we shouldn't post personal attacks, but saying 'Zuckerberg got lucky' and 'seems to chase the latest "it" thing' doesn't need to qualify as a personal attack. these can just be normal observations. see I wouldn't say the same things about sama, because I don't think they're true, and I dislike the both of them.

as for the newsguidelines, I think it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" to think about what motivates tech ceos and talk about how they do things

I definitely didn't mean this as a personal attack.

That's not true though. Social network sites existed, just not so "centralized" and "viral". Facebook created a simple and more user-friendly interface. WhatsApp as it understand, does not make much if any money. Instagram is a cash cow due.

They have released some good open source technology, but as the OP said, Meta hasn't much going for it apart from addictive apps for showing ads

Social networks definitely existed, they just didn’t gain the same momentum/popularity as Facebook. As others have pointed out there was MySpace - but even before that there was Friendster and Asian Avenue. I’m sure there were probably another one or two.

That’s not to take anything away from the success of early Facebook, but the idea of a social network was not created by fb.

> Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook.

You never heard of MySpace?

Those are fair points, though I didn't say he wasn't a good business person. I could probably concede that he is, but I don't see him as the tech visionary he's often propped up to be.

> Many people I see underestimate what it takes to build a business. It is the classic “I could have built that in a weekend” critique.

My dude, no one in your reply thread is making that claim. We bristling at the claim that "Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook". Unless you're saying FB's innovation is its business model and is what made it dominate, well, your original statement just didn't substantiate that.

IMO, the only thing I'd credit Zuck for is sticking (at least at the start) to his singular vision of what a social network should be; first it was just open for .edu emails, then when it was released more broadly their product roadmap stuck to fostering a social environment online.

And then he lost that vision. I'd say it was circa Cambridge Analytica when engagement---often ragebait because it gave them more and stronger of that sweet sweet monetizable ad signals---replaced fostering an online social environment. Others would say it's the algorithmic news feed. Either way, losing that vision started FB's demise.

IME, FB was best when it was a supplement and not a replacement for real life. FB had value to me because we could plan parties there and even keep in touch after, get that social buzz going for a little while longer. But it was _never_ the party.

But their recent efforts---Metaverse, all the AI crap---has all the hallmakrs of trying to replace real life. They now want to be the party but good luck with that. Judging by the blowback and lack of adoption consumers see what they're up to a mile away. Zuck has no idea how to stay relevant so now we have a platform more concerned with its market cap than having actual utility.

>Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook.

Seriously? Of course they did. An easy counter-example is MySpace, which launched several months before Facebook's very first appearance as a Hot Or Not mimic (which predates Zuck by 3 years), and had many millions more users for years (especially while FB was restricted to colleges).

Major competition and a lot of money was going into social media around then (and for a couple years prior), FB is just the eventual winner.

> Social networks didn't really exist before The Facebook

Social networks were all the rage. He executed the best of all and had the right strategy to build the user base.

Insane how? Google had already done it, and it's pretty clear that if someone wants to buy for $1B, it might be worth more than $1B.

I've never seen him say or do anything particularly human. If I believed in such things, I'd think he was some kind of souless drone sent here by aliens/demons/etc to destroy humanity.

Your impression about his intelligence is way off. Mark was part of the study for mathematically precocious youth, which has a math cutoff at the 1/10K rarity. He also has ambition at the same level. What’s probably missing, of late, is good taste and judgment.