[kelnos]

> This is peer pressure and has nothing to do with the way Facebook monetize its product.

Sure it does. Facebook relies on the concept of peer pressure and people's desire for a sense of belonging to continue to monetize its product. They know that human connections aren't fungible, so they can gain adoption through local monopolies.

[hk__2]

> Sure it does. Facebook relies on the concept of peer pressure and people's desire for a sense of belonging to continue to monetize its product.

Every single social network relies on this concept; the way it’s monetized is independant of that.

[intended]

Sorry I kind of missed the independence part - in the main, no social network has value unless it has most of the target audience on the network.

So monetization results are entirely dependent on having those people subscribed.

Thus all the emphasis on techniques to get people hooked/attracted/addicted etc.

That’s sort of an operating cost/basic imperative to the social network.

So when you say it’s independent , what do you mean?

[hk__2]

> So when you say it’s independent , what do you mean?

We agree that "monetization results are entirely dependent on having those people subscribed". What I’m saying is the _way_ Facebook does that monetization (with ads) is independent of that. If Facebook were a subscription-based service, it’d still rely on those "techniques to get people hooked/attracted/addicted etc". So you can’t complain about Facebook’s ad-based model by saying it encourages peer pressure because the latter would still exist even if there weren’t ads.