These are users who didn't even use it. But just seeing the Facebook login option there next to email (it was the only OAuth) gave them the creeps. These aren't tech savvy users either, just regular small town businesses

I think Facebook has a long, long, long way to go towards brand repair before anyone can 'trust' it in any way

One client really wanted Facebook login so I had to make a Facebook account. That was a dark day.

On a somewhat related note, that business is no longer operating. I still host their site for free, partly out of smugness as they took none of my advice.

What’s surprising to me is that it still works!

I imagine that Gates played to win in business, as many others do, it's just that he was particularly good at it.

Now he's playing hard and to win in philanthropy.

I doubt he gives 2 bits what the average person thinks of him, at least not enough to throw money at rehabilitating his image. If that was his goal, his philanthropy targets would be different.

So one must find another way to feed ones ego. What is left apart from fulfilling the god complex and saving the world?

Edit: has->have

Well one thing I can think of is wanting to make the world better

Personally I believe he should pull a Bill Gates, hand over the reigns and take his philanthropy private.

Legally, he has a duty to maximize value for his board and investors. And there hasn't been a business model that provides a free consumer web product without monetizing user data.

Please stop repeating that nonsense.

You should probably stop using the word "legally" in this context. There have been thousands of companies over the decades that put other things before shareholder value, and somehow managed to not run afoul of the law.

Also, it might help if you provided a citation to this law to bolster your argument.

And there hasn't been a business model that provides a free consumer web product without monetizing user data.

Also false.

There's all the Redhat / enterprise open-source examples, but I'm specifically talking about consumer web products. Redhat's product is enterprise infrastructure.

There's free as in a trial or limited functionality to get you to buy the premium offering, but then the business model isn't really based off a free product... the free product is a promotion, not a business model.

You can have one group of premium users subsidize all the free users. In social, the main examples would be LinkedIn or Angelist, but again, access to the user data is the product these companies eventually sell.

There's Wikipedia, but that's a non-profit. Nothing wrong with that, people make a living that way and we need more like it, but I'm talking about companies where profits can serve as a strong motivator. This also excludes government services.

Maybe Google Maps qualified as free in the beginning, but any free service that Google makes is pretty much some clever way to acquire more user data to support other parts of the enterprise. HN itself falls under this category: HN is an ingestion pipeline for YC (the YC app asks for your HN handle, hello future YC app reviewer!).

I know it's a trite and a tired saying, but it really is true: if you're not paying for it, you are the product. That's not bad per-se... another way of looking at it is in the same way the sharing economy unlocked underutilized physical assets, these services have unlocked a new source of wealth not measured by our wallets: our attention. Lets describe it as we pay for these services with our attention-dollars.

My point is anything that's a "free consumer service" business model is really some kind of machine that converts attention-dollars into cash-dollars.

I would love to see a discussion of non-cash-dollar, non-attention-dollar business models. If you can think of a way of giving away Something that People Want (TM) for free without the corrupting influence of optimizing for their attention, well, you've found the next genuinely interesting unicorn.

I'm certainly not an expert on this subject but monetizing based on relevant content is reasonable. You can still make money without gathering a tremendous amount of user data.

[0]https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates

This was about the other half of the reply that hasn't been explored. Lets make threads here more interesting than an infinite uh-huh!/nuh-uhh!/uh-huh! loop.

Some CEO's like Elon and Jobs can spin a great story and hold on by sheer force of personality, but pension funds aren't buying FB in bulk to get more green cars on the road.

That has nothing to do with the legal requirements of the company or the CEO. That would be the same as saying I am "legally required" to go to work tomorrow, because I could get fired for not showing up.

Citation needed!!!

It is not illegal to have other goals than maximizing shareholder value.

For example, Costco. Publicly traded company but the employees are paid well, customers are well taken care of, and the CEO is rewarded for this. In the short-term, Costco could generate an enormous amount of value by automated, reducing wages, and finding cheaper supplies and lowering quality, selling their customer's membership information, etc.

But they don't. And there is nothing illegal about it.

Could you ever believe that's not all that he does with ads?

Why would a person who believes those things have made the "dumb fucks" quote?

That's the upside-down society we live in today.

He very obviously hasn't.