Or maybe Facebook is still doing fine since there is no good enough alternative. It seems like Facebook is getting worse all the time but since everybody's there and it's familiar people still uses it. Indicators are they are losing young people, who tend to adapt faster and have not yet build habit of use and more and more people are using other services for particular activities.
Still there is nothing which could totally replace Facebook so old users are staying and baiting new users. It still has unique offer for large user base and very useful features so even if it's getting worse it can stand. People might be clicking their feed more but that's because they are so bored with content that they try if they can find something more interesting behind the links. Or they are scrolling down since trying to find something interesting, something different which is hard since algorithms just push same boring content all over again. But statistics look good.
What's the magic of Facebook? If you could answer that and build the service people will flock out from Facebook.
The problem with your argument is that you admit "the statistics look good" but then present a bunch of unsubstantiated personal opinions ("getting worse all the time", "boring") that are just not supported by the available data.
The magic of Facebook is the billion+ users on it. Do those people use Facebook because it offers some unique service which no one else can or does, or because it went viral and everyone jumped on the bandwagon?
United States seems to be following Italy's way. As US is much bigger transition takes more time and tolerances for inequalities are higher but trend is obvious.
In case of doubt check if these are growing:
Regional inequality,
Wealth inequality,
Bureaucracy,
Tax system complexity,
Corruption,
Importance of social networks in business,
Education inequality,
Youth unemployment,
Living with parents longer
Does someone really think that insider information is not widely used in betting? Every bettor I know, professional or casual, tries to get as much insider tips as possible. Difference is that usually pros have better connections and statistics.
More probably this is routing issue. Connection between Deutsche Telekom and Youtube servers is more busy than connections between DT -> Swiss server -> Youtube.
To add, when you're asking DTAG to peer, they determine the location where they set up the peering point with you. That's typically somewhere out of nowhere, so you also have to rent the pipe that brings your data there - from them, obviously.
Additionally, they overcharge a lot for the last mile infrastructure for other ISPs, so in my region some other ISPs started building their own last mile infrastructure and peering with Telia to get access to TAT-14 (and thereby allowing them to peer better with US providers).
(TAT-14 is a transatlantic cable owned by DTAG and Telia)
It’s common knowledge in the industry by now that the DTAG uses their 40 million users as leverage to force companies to directly peer with them (and pay for peering).
Finnish might be a rather good option since there are very few inconsistencies. But then you have to deal with words like päättämättömyydellänsäkään.
Italian is another rather straightforward example but there are a little bit more variety especially for c and g. And for some reason h as a first letter is usually dropped off.
In the long term they will lead you to something like Finnish food market ( which is kinda duopoly ). Long supply chains without any reasonable way to check origins of ingredients. Multinationals have also much more resources and incentives to hide and mask health and environmental effects of the food.
But worst thing is that to maximize profits taste is "optimized". And optimization doesn't mean good taste but rather "doesn't taste anything so that it won't annoy you even if you eat same thing every day".
Why would a growing company want to attract as many new customers as possible? This seems to be a fast lane to default. Growing company wants as many profitable customers which can be served as possible. Or should growing companies try to offer everything for all?
Growing companies generally want to attract as many new customers as feasible because it generates buzz, and gives them a shot at becoming the go-to place for their kind of service.
But that's just the case. Also back end frameworks give general good enough solutions for problems but they are never optimized for particular use case. If you stay in general framework solution your competitive advantage is often easier to copy so you must make difference with customized / tailored solution. Earlier you start smaller the change is. If you hang yourself to general solution too long switch might be even impossible to make since costs and risk grow too high. And then you are in death spiral when more flexible start-ups begin to eat your share.
Can you give an example of when this has happened? It strikes me that driving your model around being difficult to replicate from a technical point of view wouldn't necessarily lead to good business decisions.
Still there is nothing which could totally replace Facebook so old users are staying and baiting new users. It still has unique offer for large user base and very useful features so even if it's getting worse it can stand. People might be clicking their feed more but that's because they are so bored with content that they try if they can find something more interesting behind the links. Or they are scrolling down since trying to find something interesting, something different which is hard since algorithms just push same boring content all over again. But statistics look good.
What's the magic of Facebook? If you could answer that and build the service people will flock out from Facebook.