zlacker

> None of these are a sign a product has no value.

You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value.

>No one would advertise with Facebook if there was no value from purchasing ad space. The billions of dollars people spend is evidence there is value there for advertisers

No one is disputing that the advertisers are getting value. The pursuit of advertiser value at the expense of users is the complaint.

>>thfura+(OP)
>You described the majority of those as being about the perception of value rather than value.

Which is why they weren't useful to bring up.

>>charci+08
No, the difference between value and perceived value was pretty much their point.

>>thfura+z41
I see perceived values as more of a multiplier. If an app had 0 value, 0 times anything is still 0. You can't take hostages over something with no value. If people didn't value their life it wouldn't work, similarly if people saw 0 value in an app they wouldn't use it.

>>charci+fJ1
My argument was about how value is decreasing. No one is arguing that these websites have zero value to begin with.

A more interesting thought experiment is where that threshold is before the lack of value invigorates the energy needed to migrate. That's part of why I put the boiling frog metaphor there. Rate of change definitely has impact on perceived value.