[Nextgrid]

The real problem is that the business relies on abusing their users - an obvious conflict of interest.

Over time, either the users will evolve to make the abuse less effective (equivalent of "banner blindness" of early web advertising), use technical countermeasures (ad-blocking, alternative clients, etc) or use their political power to vote for regulations that will make outlaw said abuse. A mix of all of these is currently happening.

The only areas where this kind of adversarial relationship will work is if the adversary has no choice - such as military/defense or law enforcement for example (military enemies can't vote, suspected & convicted criminals can but the feedback loop is so long that it's not going to have effects any time soon). But if the adversary has a free choice, over time they will exercise that choice which will reduce (and eventually eliminate) the profitability of abusing them.

I don't see this - or any other business built primarily on advertising and "growth & engagement" - as a winning long-term strategy.

[quickthrowman]

> The real problem is that the business relies on abusing their users - an obvious conflict of interest.

This has been my thesis re: FB for a long time now. Using fear, hate, sex, etc to manipulate higher engagement from users isn’t sustainable. It’s abusive and eventually people will move on.