What's the mindset behind forcing a user to create an account to view the media on a page? For example an artist I like posts their art on Instagram and Twitter but I can't look at it unless I create an account. What's the dumb corporate rationale behind this? I have seen this on so many sites you can't even see what's there without an account? Doesn't it just scare users away? I know it certainly does for me. If I have to log in just to view a page I don't want to view the page.
they want to sell ur email + metadata to data analysis corps so they can sell that aggregate info + analysis to other corps (associating email/identity with specific interests for marketers etc.)
Account registrations are one of the top-line key performance metrics these companies show to their investors to demonstrate they are growing. The day people stop signing up for these websites is the day people stop investing, and then they are in deep fucking shit. They juice these numbers any way they can. Dark patterns like this, lax enforcement against bots, etc. When the well of posters dries up, they have no choice but to squeeze the lurkers.
They have been focusing on growth at all costs for years, but because the VC money is drying up and they need to actually become profitable they're trying to find a way to turn inactive users into revenue.
Unrelated, but I do get mildly annoyed at friends who send links to fb and ig instead of the image. Like come on, you gonna make me make an account?
I feel like it should be socially acceptable to shame people for posting links to facebook, IG, twitter, or any other site that requires login to view stuff.
If they can’t use third party tracking cookies and they respect do not track and you have ppa turned off then they’re just not fucking gonna let you see their shit unless you make an account and give them some way to advertise to you.
The internet is television with even more ads and tracking. You have to either pay to not have it happen or actively take part in an arms race against it or some combination of both.
To pump up their numbers so they can tell investors they have a ton of "active" users.
Meta's business model is about collecting user data for advertisers. All of their services are a means to that end.
I think OP is talking about "the meta" in the
sense, but you're right when it comes to any of these sites.I think OP is talking about "the meta" in the
sense,Correct. I know the overlap between cool gamers and techno-nerds isn't a flat circle, but i probably should have used a different word because I genuinely forget that META is Facebook and Alphabet is Google. How are these motherfuckers taking such basic words away from us
It's either basic ass words or the big evil shit from fantasy and sci-fi novels lmao
What everyone says doesn't completely answer the question. Yes it's about selling your data and attention to advertisers. But if it's about the "meta", than there is a twofold strategy about it: first exploiting the network effect (wikipedia link) while growing. And then locking in the market ("keep you in their ecosystem"), thereby locking out competition. It's ironic, but capitalists hate competition (in their own field) so much they would do everything to avoid it.
Their ideal endgame is what Amazon has achieved: becoming so big, they can start selling other capitalists access to their walled in market.
All these platforms could have been made compatible with each other (like federated instances). Without content walled in behind logins, we would be able to put together our own feed with content from all over the Internet and choose our own algorithms to sort it. But then no one could sell your attention or data to advertisers and small creative upstarts would be able compete with big entrenched content providers.
