Hacker News Reader

Not true. YouTube, Facebook and Twitter were all successful products before they added personalised algorithmic feeds. Facebook just showed you everything by your friends. Twitter showed your follows (like bsky) and YouTube showed your channels.

The personalised algorithmic junk came later. It was never required for the websites to be wildly popular.

View on HN

But popular does not mean profitable.

You would go on Facebook for 5 minutes and catch up with your friends. Great.

That’s not much time to shovel adverts. Better to get you engaged with ragebait or cute kittens or whatever keeps you on the site for an hour or 5.

Alright. So? If facebook can’t pull a profit without being a blight on society, they don’t deserve to be in business.

Sure. But that’s why they do it.

Yes, I know social media companies make money hand over fist by optimising for addiction. Just like cigarettes and gambling.

If we banned personalised algorithmic feeds, I'm sure some social media companies would go out of business. I'm still waiting to hear any downside.

Successful and profitable are not the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com