[dmje]

Conflating "media" and "content" is the issue here.

Facebook is successful because of content. Google+ failed because there wasn't any content.

Heading tech up against content in some way is also a silly argument. Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech.

Ultimately, a web page with some stirring, moving or life changing words on it is going to have more potential impact than all the NerdMagic in the world. But: they're heavily codependent.

[throwaway3699]

Most content on Facebook is garbage. So more accurately it's addictive content that fits the algorithm which is important. For that to happen, you need users. Typical chicken and egg problem.

[digitalengineer]

Garbage content is part of the plan. That is literally what makes it addictive. See ‘The Hook Model’. Basically people ‘gamble’ for good content like they do on a slot machine.

[cbozeman]

Facebook isn't successful because of content.

Facebook is successful because of its ease of use comparative to Google+. Facebook's genius was that it was designed to be easy enough for the masses to use. Google+ was clearly designed by engineers, for engineers.

There's your problem right there, but you got it right in the second part of your post.

> Good tech supports the transmission of content. Bad tech gets in the way. Good content is enabled by good tech.

That was the crux of the issue. Steve Jobs understood this. Its why my Mom was able to grasp an iPhone interface far easier and sooner than the Android phone she had had for years before. It still blows my fucking mind how anyone can find the iPhone more intuitive, but I guess that's because I grew up in the 80s and 90s, with 80s and 90s computers as a kid, so you had to learn the technical underpinnings somewhat in order to even operate those machines.

Ease of use = more content.

[tomnipotent]

> Facebook isn't successful because of content.

Of course Facebook is successful because of content. Do you think people keep going back not to view photos or posts of others?

[cbozeman]

You could share photos on MySpace.

You could share photos on Friendster.

You could share photos on <insert a dozen dead platforms here>.

Its ease of use. It always has been.

[cblconfederate]

> Google+ failed

Google itself has lots of (free) content. Search is a medium

While stirring content may exist (where is it?) , it rarely meets big tech (so it can be win-win for both)

[rizzom5000]

Youtube, Twitch, TikTok, Instagram, Hulu, Netflix, etc. appear to firmly support that content is king; at least in some small corner of the internet.

[cbozeman]

They don't support that content is king, they support that ease of use is king.

Imagine if, to upload a TikTok video, you had to bring it into an editing suite as complex as DaVinci Resolve and tweak all kind of things... add and refine audio tracks... color grade it, etc. It wouldn't have taken off at all.

What all these platforms have in common is that even idiots can use them to make "content"... if you can even call it that.

[raverbashing]

And maybe even more important, content discovery is king

Either you're very good at discovery or you have to be great at curation/creation