[kiplkipl]

Any time Facebook's UI is insulted, it's common to see the defence that it's a feature, not a bug, because clearly it works or a competitor would replace them. That time spent improving it is time wasted, because it doesn't make money. I see this as proof that a highly-scalable market doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough, and there's a lot of potential revenue lost between good and good-enough.

[dannyr]

> a competitor would replace them

Sadly, competition is difficult to flourish in the current environment because of Facebook's market share and tactics.

It's not as bad in the US compared to other countries especially developing countries where Facebook is pretty much the only online channel. Sometimes, people only have access to Facebook and not the rest of the internet.

[3np]

Got any example of country where you saw this happening?

[reaperducer]

doesn't optimise for good, it optimises for good-enough

It's about pride. Not everyone has pride in their work, in their person, or in their actions.

I once worked with one of these "good enough" people. He bought his wife the cheapest things because they were "good enough." All he was focused on was the ticket price. Not the quality. Not the workmanship. Not going with a good company instead of a bad company.

It's become more common these days in everything from consumer goods to personal behavior. There was an article in the newspaper yesterday saying that sales of Folger's Crystals is up 14%. It's "good enough" coffee. There's a congressman up for re-election right now who admits to having an affair with an intern. His campaign doesn't hide this fact that would have made him un-electable ten years ago. His behavior is "good enough."

It's like all the Facebook and Google employees who are working on things that make the world a worse place. They're making money, so that's "good enough" for them. Someone else can be moral.