[curiousllama]

There has actually been a friends-only feed on FB for years. Timelines -> Friends filters everything down.

The problem? Nobody I care about posts anymore. The "flywheel" is broken.

Social Media hasn't died - it just moved to group chats. Everything I care about gets posted there.

Honestly, I would love a running Feed of my group chats. Scan my inbox, predict what's most engaging, and give me a way to respond directly.

[dataflow]

> There has actually been a friends-only feed on FB for years. Timelines -> Friends filters everything down. The problem? Nobody I care about posts anymore.

Is that really the only problem? How many taps/clicks do you need to get there? Can you make it the default? And how obvious is it that it actually exists?

[kridsdale3]

I used to be TL of the Facebook News Feed.

People in UX research told us constantly they wanted the feed to be about friends, and chronological.

Several times we ran A/B tests with many millions of people to try exactly this. Every time all the usage metrics tanked. Not just virality and doomscroll metrics, but how many likes, messages, comments, re-shares, and app-opens. We never even measured ad-related things on that team.

So people say they want this, like they say they want McDonalds to offer salads. Nobody orders salads at McDonalds.

[dataflow]

I really appreciate the reply, thanks for sharing that.

> Every time all the usage metrics tanked.

What if that's exactly what people want? Less usage of Facebook (horrifying, I know -- it can't be true, right?), with a focus on friends etc. when they do use it? I know you'll dislike the analogy, but isn't all that different from smoking. You think usage metrics tanking implies the outcome is bad... why exactly? Is it that unthinkable that less quantity and more quality is better for people, and what they actually want?

> So people say they want this, like they say they want McDonalds to offer salads. Nobody orders salads at McDonalds.

You seem to be missing that the people who have the means to eat out wherever they want don't eat at McDonald's every few hours. They go in moderation. They actively want to avoid McDonald's most of the time. Once in a while they get a craving, or get super hungry and don't see other options, etc. and they cave in and go there. Of course the get the tasty unhealthy option when they go, but it's foolish to think they prefer to eat McDonald's all the time. (Do you seriously believe that??)

[kridsdale3]

I don't dislike the analogy. I eventually reached a point where I couldn't stomach the TikTok-ification of the product that Zuck forced us to keep marching towards, so I left.

Personally I agree with your point, less social media is better. I personally never go to Facebook anymore and set up app limits on my phone for my health. I won't let my kids use it at all.

But I worked at a company and drew a considerable salary, so I did what I was expected to do to make the product make money.

[palata]

> But I worked at a company and drew a considerable salary, so I did what I was expected to do to make the product make money.

I appreciate the honesty here.

And this is exactly why we need regulations.

[dataflow]

> I couldn't stomach the TikTok-ification

This seems like such a bizarre thing to put your finger on in the middle of an otherwise seemingly sincere post. Of all the hatred people have had toward Facebook the past > decade, I don't think "it's too much like TikTok" was the cause that has kept them up at night. If anything there are a ton of people who would much rather TikTok could be replaced by Facebook, so that at least the national security implications would be less dire in their eyes.

But yeah:

> But I worked at a company and drew a considerable salary

nice to admit what everybody knew. With the kind of compensation Facebook gave, I doubt many would've behaved differently.

[nycdatasci]

Just take the win. It seems like such a bizarre thing to nitpick like this with a prior employee that has voluntarily opened up to you and agreed with many of your points.

[rcxdude]

>Several times we ran A/B tests with many millions of people to try exactly this. Every time all the usage metrics tanked. Not just virality and doomscroll metrics, but how many likes, messages, comments, re-shares, and app-opens. We never even measured ad-related things on that team.

Well, yeah, but this has an implicit "engagement === good" assumption. Exactly the same thing that incentivizes unhealthy McDonald's food: they make more money when they sell food that still leaves you hungry. So, yeah, people probably did want this, and when they got it they started using Facebook in a healthy manner (no point opening it at every available moment to just scroll through 'new' trash), which tanked your metrics. If you're actually worrying about your users you should also consider that them using your product more might not actually be what they want or need.

Ironically enough, I think the same mistake (or rather, it's more of a mistake because there's not quite such a naked financial incentive to make this worse for the affected users) has happened with the youtube analytics dashboard: multiple youtubers have said that it's actively addicting and really bad for their mental health, but any change that feeds that probably looks really good in their metrics because, hey, creators are using it more, that must mean it's good, right?

[kridsdale3]

Trust me, I came in there full of motivation for "do what is good for the actual humans", and most of the rank of file were the same. FB's employees are not evil or exploitative, though I won't say its unfair to describe the leadership in such terms.

Many times in product design meetings I would interject with "but this hurts people!" etc.

We hated that our personal careers were directly tied to increasing the junk-food factor. It didn't feel good at all. But the choice, as crafted by HR and senior directors was clear: Junk food this thing, or lose your jobs.

[fendy3002]

the problem isn't introducing junk foods into menu, but focusing on the junk foods performance and killing other food categories as the result. I know that companies need revenue to survive and improve, but they're currently focusing too much on revenue and profit that they kill everything else.

it's like introducing unskippable ads and page-wide pop up ads makes user use adblock and killing other simpler banner ads.

[gertlex]

I'm sure there's more that could be shared about how "wants" were determined, which would counter my off-the-cusp thought here, but anyways:

Yes... my ideal would be for facebook feed to be a once-a-week addiction (maybe a bit more) where I go, see what's new, and clearly hit an end point where I know I'm seeing things I've seen before. But I'm also part of the "problem" in that I post myself maybe twice/year now.

I'd suspect the current doomscroll-y feed like we have now/you were working on reduces my likelihood of "interacting" with friends' posts. "Do I make the effort of commenting, or lazily keep scrolling to the next-often-good 3rd party content?"

A year or two ago, I copied some greasemonkey type script off reddit, and that nuked all the non-friend content off my feed, but that stopped working a couple months later and I haven't been strongly enough motivated to find an updated approach. I have little enough friend activity that I'd easily notice when I hit old content.

The current doomscrolling feed of algo content sure does manage to hook me, so that's a nice indicator of the current team being successful :P

[h4ck_th3_pl4n3t]

Did you consider that you are gaming your own setup rules of measurement?

It's like "look nobody is ragebaited anymore, that's very bad for clicks"

Guess what, you should not have used that as a means of measurement before, but it was the cheapest way to sell it to advertisers.

If you have incentive to create a shithole of engagement, it's what you will get in return.

[azemetre]

Yeah, it’s weird reading their reply. Like a drug dealer being upset that the less effective drug is less effective.

[wwweston]

There's an old saying: you can never get enough of what doesn't fill your need.

For example, when you need sleep, you can't eat enough to make you not tired, but you may well pound a lot of caffeine and sugar.

If true, this would accomodate the simultaneous truths that:

(a) users accurately report their preference chronological friend connection when they come to a social feed

(b) users spend more time engaging with a social feed when the need they come to fill has irregularly payoffs

That you can get more engagement by not giving them what they want/need (or giving them what they need irregularly) wouldn't mean that they are lying to you, it would simply mean that engagement and social payoff curves aren't the same, and the incentives to drive one might not optimize the other.

[the_clarence]

You're saying that users weren't using the app enough like it's a bad thing. Users saw the tool as useful and used it.

[yason]

My facebook bookmark takes me to https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr

I still see other content, even there, but it's still somehow manageable. I run out of updates very quickly though whereas I'd like to just start seeing older posts from friends that I've seen already.

[dataflow]

This just opens the app for me on mobile. I guess on desktop it might do something.

[voxic11]

It takes 2 clicks and you can just bookmark it. https://www.facebook.com/?filter=friends&sk=h_chr

[alanbernstein]

For fb app users (most) I think bookmarks are irrelevant.

[notlisted]

Open in browser and add to homescreen. What's more, FB can't track you if you use the browser instead of the app.

[dataflow]

> What's more, FB can't track you if you use the browser instead of the app.

For the numerous people who use Messenger or WhatsApp or other products this seems false and irrelevant.

[notlisted]

I don't use those either, but you're correct, though I believe that in the EU, data of these cannot be mixed with FB data.

[notlisted]

I've bookmarked the friends feed and the groups feed ( https://www.facebook.com/?filter=groups&sk=h_chr ) which saves me a LOT of aggravation.

[1980phipsi]

They actually made it even easier to find recently on mobile. Right there at the bottom.

[dataflow]

I literally have no idea what you're referring to, and I just updated the app. Could you share a link or screenshot or something?

[pests]

Facebook commonly runs A/B testing on their UI. It is almost weekly for me and one of my friends to ask each other “hey do you have the <x> tab at the bottom” for Meta apps. Marketplace, Dating, “All Chats” in messenger which was just the same as the slide out menu I bet people didn’t use much. I also think they change per-user depending on what they use.

edit: I decided to check real quick and I do have the friends tab. Here’s a crop of it, note I edited out the last “Menu” tab for privacy.

https://imgur.com/a/6pFa1XF

Tabs are: Home, Friends, Marketplace, Dating, Notifications, Menu.

[dataflow]

Not only was that Friends tab not there for me by default, but it also does not do the aforementioned when I customize the top(? not bottom) tab bar to I include it. What it does is to show me a list: of pending friends, and friend requests. No space to show any posts to begin with. To see my friends' posts, I have to click the hamburger, then Feeds, then Friends, then (sometimes) manually pull down to refresh, because it usually just lies to me that I've already caught up. This is designed to be actively user-hostile, as if they were forced to implement this against their will.

[pests]

The Friends tab for me brings me to the actual friend feed you mentioned last but also includes pending requests and some other top matter.

[1980phipsi]

Mine has Home, Friends, Video, Marketplace, Notifications, Menu. They adjust whether to show dating based on relationship status...

[arch_deluxe]

You might be interested in FreeFollow.org [full disclosure, I'm one of the engineers working on it].

It combines the economic model of web hosting (users pay to host spaces, reading is free, and writing in someone else's space is also free), the simple UI of social media (you have a profile and write posts), and the E2EE security model of 1Password (we actually implemented their published security model). It's also a non-profit so there's no pressure from owners to exploit users.

It's aimed primarily at parents of young kids who are annoyed at constantly sharing via text groups, but non-parents are also surprisingly into it.

[tmpz22]

Independent social media run in a cost-effective way and actually helping their community is the future. I really hope non-American devs learn this because most American devs are too busy trying to get rich.

[ianopolous]

You have some similar ideas to the encrypted social network in the Peergos protocol. We'd love to chat and see if there is scope for collaboration.

[ryan-duve]

When I click "Join the waitlist" on Firefox I see an empty beige box on an otherwise blank page.

[arch_deluxe]

Thanks for letting us know. Unfortunately we haven't been able to reproduce that with the current version of Firefox, but if you'd like to email us at [e-mail] we'll add you to the list manually.

[71bw]

In Edge I get a big red screen yapping about the site being unsafe.

[busymom0]

Since it's E2EE, do you have a limit on the number of members in a group/friends?

[arch_deluxe]

Nope.

[wwweston]

> There has actually been a friends-only feed on FB for years. Timelines -> Friends filters everything down.

I remember when this was called "Lists", and I carefully gathered acquaintances into lists. When I wanted to check in with particular list, I clicked on the list.

Then the lists sidebar disappeared (but you could still get the functionality if you knew the URL / argument structure).

Then the functionality disappeared.

I'm sure some product/UX staff did career making things on a metric somewhere.

> The problem? Nobody I care about posts anymore. The "flywheel" is broken.

Why post when there's no guarantee who/anyone will see it amongst a firehose of bait-y and often angry stuff?

This is part of the anti-flywheel which draws towards doomscroll.

> group chats

Group chats have the baseline virtue of knowing who your audience is.

They're missing other virtues, but that's probably another conversation.

[laweijfmvo]

I think they recently made a big deal about this even? The fact that they would “promote” something that likely reduces time spent scrolling and viewing of ads means that no one is going to use it as an alternative to doom scrolling. They know they got you hooked on the good stuff and are just pretending to not be the bad guys

[macleginn]

It's called Feeds in the version of the interface I see in the browser.

[the_clarence]

If that friends tab is not the default tab its not going to work. Period.

[josu]

I'm looking for it on the mobile app and I can't find it.

[GuB-42]

Discord too. Most of my friends are on Discord, we have group chats and private servers. Many communities use Discord as their primary online hub too.

It is concerning. Discord has been slowly enshittifying for the last couple of years: ads (ex: "quests"), app bugs, etc... There is no export option and even public servers are not accessible to search engines and archives.