I don't mind the ads, I mean I know that's how FB pays the bills.
It's the suggested pages, 3 or 4 at a time, taking up half my feed. And yeah are some pages I might like but thank you I have enough Star Trek stuff in my feed. And while I am of the right age and demographic I will pass on Lion-O's Dank Thunder Meme Stash if you don't mind.
They're all just party crashers in my mind.
I don't mind the people you might know or pages you might like bits, but adding strangers to my stream is just not acceptable!
Its terrible content, terrible search, terrible to actually get to what its alerts are referring to. If my wargame club wasn't on it I wouldn't use it.
I have FB primarily for messenger for some friends and family. One time it had a story about a pro wrestler from the 80s and I was trying to remember who it was so I looked at the story. The next three months were constant stream of pro-wrestling pages filling up the site.
It seems to have replaced forums for wargaming communication, so sadly stuck with it. Aside from all the complaints above, I also get irritated by the algorithm giving me sports posts and articles 3-5 days after the match in question has occurred.
I do not use it at all, I just use messenger to talk to family. It's awful, the suggested posts just take over everything, it's the worst part of social media these days. The entire idea was that you could essentially curate your feed so that you could see the things you wanted to see, no have an algorithm suggest utter dross.
As the user experience declines I wondered how the company is doing, a worse user experience is usually a sign of a struggling company trying to monetize every inch of its property.
So I checked, FB made $39 billion last year, so you can see why they're pushing to make more money.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Does your feed also loop the same 10 comments over and over again for days while ignoring new and relevant posts by friends and family?
Hah yeah mine keeps doing that!
And yes I hate having to constantly go to the comments to tell it to show me everything instead of the few that it "thinks" I want to read.
Honestly it seems Google/Youtube and FB have all turned a corner ni the last 5-10 years that has progressively made their search and display worse and worse. Personally I'm convinced its a combination of bots, a desperation to maximise ad revenue and a shift in human behaviour that has resulted in people just following what the algorithms show, which causes the algorithms to show the same type of thing more and more. The result of which is a positive feedback loop where designers think they are giving people more of what they want because people engage with it more; but that's because its all they are giving people to engage with and a LOT of people are too lazy to search for more (which is then heavily hindered by the search systems not showing many results).
Layered on top I'm willing to bet various blocks of "human behaviour data" is actually bot behaviour as bot detection and bot creation constantly battle each other. So it wouldn't shock me if a huge chunk of the data is based on bots doing bot things to boost channels and so forth with abnormal patterns of behaviour.
Ergo its gone from following and aiding human behaviour to defining human behaviour whilst patting itself on the back that its still doing the former.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: i'm fairly certain banishing an item from my feed is counted as 'interacting' with it, thus making more and more of the same annoying nonsense show up
but hey, at least FB is more usable than X/Twitter
Banishing/ignoring things either tends to make the system think you love it or (more often) makes it think you HATE that content. Thus it doesn't just remove it from your feed, it wants to remove all other instances of that content/creator from your feed (esp on youtube). So suddenly you go from ignoring one thing from someone one time to never getting any updates from them ever.
Steam "kind of" does this with their library news reel in that if you've a game you don't interact with for a while, Steam stops telling you news regarding it. So a game can have a semi-major update and you have no clue its happened.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: i'm fairly certain banishing an item from my feed is counted as 'interacting' with it, thus making more and more of the same annoying nonsense show up
but hey, at least FB is more usable than X/Twitter
Sort of. . . If you use any of the reaction buttons prior to banishing, yes, FB will push that crap even more.
What I've noticed is, every few weeks they'll reset or redo the algorithm. . . Basically, I'll go from having almost no sponsored/forced ads inside my feed (a particular thing I fething loathe, I get you "need" ads, but put them off to the side or something), to at the beginning of a week it will be 30+% of my entire feed. Seemingly every other post will be some sponsored ad or sponsored page. My personal tactic is to report every single one of them. Every. Single. One. its either spam/scam, sexually explicit, or just offensive if I can't be bothered. In my mind its a case of "you waste my time with this gak, I waste your time"
When I got some of the megachurches in the US as "sponsored ads" I made the mistake of leaving the angry react. . . . which then flooded my feed with more gakky megachurch bs. So, if you truly want stuff gone, you just report it/banish it, but DO NOT HIT A REACT BUTTON!!!!
I keep getting religious stuff in my feed. I think it’s getting info from YouTube, as I have an interest in apologetics and the discussion there on, but am otherwise happily atheist.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I keep getting religious stuff in my feed. I think it’s getting info from YouTube, as I have an interest in apologetics and the discussion there on, but am otherwise happily atheist.
It will pull from youtube, google, your search history - anything it can get its hands on.
Also even if you turn things off you can bet its a whole rafter of settings that turn themselves on again next time something gets a refresh/update
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I keep getting religious stuff in my feed. I think it’s getting info from YouTube, as I have an interest in apologetics and the discussion there on, but am otherwise happily atheist.
It could also be your interest in wargaming. I started getting ads for far right “anti-tyranny” tactical gear and Norse rune jewelry shortly after joining a couple of wargaming groups. Those are definitely not things I looked at on YouTube.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I keep getting religious stuff in my feed. I think it’s getting info from YouTube, as I have an interest in apologetics and the discussion there on, but am otherwise happily atheist.
It could also be your interest in wargaming. I started getting ads for far right “anti-tyranny” tactical gear and Norse rune jewelry shortly after joining a couple of wargaming groups. Those are definitely not things I looked at on YouTube.
Edit: and no, Dreamforge wasn’t one of them.
I mean, YouTube (and Google in general, by extension) has a pretty well documented history of quickly dumping hard right content on people after doing, well, pretty much anything on the website. Doesn't surprise me that Facebook does the same, especially given they're all buying your info from each other to refine their advertising algorithms.
The more social media spirals out if control, the more I miss the old Internet, before social media platforms had really started. Back when it was forums and people's own random Web pages. Those where the equivalent of the Wild West period in USA. Short lived, but very energetic. Now it is sguffinf lore and more to a sanitised corporate medium.
I've been getting 'content exhaustion' issues on my phone. After a couple of refreshes or FB, and scrolling down 20-30 pages, it stops and gives an error, and doesn't show any more. Once that happens, it'll take hours before it lets me scroll more than that 20+ pages down.
This is just since the start of this year.
This is course a perfect example of “engakification”. Which is a proper word now.
What used to be a fun and useful way to keep up with friends and family, is now a corporate hellhole devoted solely to making a ridiculously wealthy man even wealthier.
We’re kind of seeing the same thing with Streaming. Amazon now carries ads (nowt too annoying thus far, but if it could figure out I Don’t Care About Sport, that’d be great), and prices are only going up, ads or not.
I quit facebook a decade ago, and I don't miss it at all. I'd hardly been using it before that.
But lots of the stuff I used to find on forums and blogs seems to have moved onto it sadly. I recently decided to make "burner" account to join some of those groups, but I realised that making an email nowadays pretty much REQUIRES your phone number. I went with Protonmail but then they had a go at me for using it to try to sign up to Facebook and wouldn't show me the confirmation email.
Honestly pretty shocked at how restrictive and invasive the major services have gotten, it's much worse than I thought.
Da Boss wrote: I quit facebook a decade ago, and I don't miss it at all. I'd hardly been using it before that.
I shadow quit. I couldn't delete my account because (believe it or not) Uncle Sam is a heavy user in military accounts. When I got mobilized for the covid, I had to have access to it.
That being said, I deleted just about everything in my profile, including the photos, etc. I used to get notifications to entice me to log back in, but that stopped after a while.
Recently, though, I got a notification of a password reset, and that caused me to want to log in. I put in my password and then facebook demanded I give them a copy of my current photo ID for "verification." Um, no. I got another notification, and this time clicked on the button saying "No, I didn't authorize this," and facebook's response was "okay, no problem."
But now the notifications are starting back up, hot and heavy.
They're literally phishing their users, using threats of unauthorized access to get users to change their password. My wife deleted her account long ago and when they phished her she said they needed to stop or she would contact law enforcement, so they did.
I don't think that's FB fishing as I've had those emails and didn't require any ID or anything. It's more likely scammers trying to get into your FB by just hitting as many accounts as they can
Overread wrote: I don't think that's FB fishing as I've had those emails and didn't require any ID or anything. It's more likely scammers trying to get into your FB by just hitting as many accounts as they can
I think both are likely, but it was strange that facebook - the actual site, not an email - said that they needed to confirm my ID so could I kindly send them an image of my photo ID.
The site makes its money from selling people's private information, and no other site asks me for that kind of stuff. At most they'll ping your phone and email of record. Actually saying "hey, photograph your gov't ID and send it to us! We're totes trusthworthy" is weird.
Overread wrote: I don't think that's FB fishing as I've had those emails and didn't require any ID or anything. It's more likely scammers trying to get into your FB by just hitting as many accounts as they can
I think both are likely, but it was strange that facebook - the actual site, not an email - said that they needed to confirm my ID so could I kindly send them an image of my photo ID.
The site makes its money from selling people's private information, and no other site asks me for that kind of stuff. At most they'll ping your phone and email of record. Actually saying "hey, photograph your gov't ID and send it to us! We're totes trusthworthy" is weird.
Yeah but at the same time you do get clone accounts created of actual real people that scammers then use for all kinds of nefarious purposes. FB thus probably does need to sometimes verify that you really are who you say you are because there's two people registered with the same name in the system and they need to make sure they ban the right one.
Another layer might also be if your activity suggests that your email might be compromised and thus they want ID proof to verify that you are you and that its not someone has gained access to your email and then used that to gain access to everything else that you have through "oh send me a reminder".
There are certainly risky parts and even these verification elements, which could be totally developed for the end-user benefit ; could be twisted by staffers or management into something else for another use.
It's layers of the onion sadly that make things complicated.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I think both are likely, but it was strange that facebook - the actual site, not an email - said that they needed to confirm my ID so could I kindly send them an image of my photo ID..
If it's been a while since you logged in, and scammers have been trying to access your account in the interim, it's not really that strange that they wanted to confirm you were actually you before giving you access to the account.
I would agree that asking for photo id is not the best way to go about that, and that photo id isn't something to trust to any social media site... but the idea behind it is reasonable.
insaniak wrote: If it's been a while since you logged in, and scammers have been trying to access your account in the interim, it's not really that strange that they wanted to confirm you were actually you before giving you access to the account.
I would agree that asking for photo id is not the best way to go about that, and that photo id isn't something to trust to any social media site... but the idea behind it is reasonable.
It's a paradox: to secure my account I'm asked to do something fraught with security risks.
This is why other sites ask my first grade teacher, or first pet, or where I met my spouse - information that is meaningless trivia.
Anyway, it's best just to stay away from the place.
It's not really a paradox - your bank or such can also require more proof than a random pet name (often something you have to write down so you don't forget which "favourite pet" you chose or if you chose a name that wasn't actually your pet so someone can't hack into your account).
FB is just more "serious" about it than a forum which is happy for just a basic confirmation level of info.
Overread wrote: It's not really a paradox - your bank or such can also require more proof than a random pet name (often something you have to write down so you don't forget which "favourite pet" you chose or if you chose a name that wasn't actually your pet so someone can't hack into your account).
FB is just more "serious" about it than a forum which is happy for just a basic confirmation level of info.
The paradox is that you are electronically transmitting information that could be hacked either en route or once it reaches the source. Furthermore, my bank makes its money by reliably protecting my money; Facebook makes its money by selling all of the personal information it can get from me.
Basically, their business model is slow motion identity theft - everywhere you eat, sleep, your favorite foods, family, where you went to school - all of this is their commodity. There is very little incentive for them to protect my ID. I'm enough of a cynic to assume that half the "data breeches" are when the company decides that a year of "identity theft protection" is worth less than the data they are selling.
It should be deeply disturbing that deleting my Facebook account would have had an adverse effect on my military career.
Commissar von Toussaint wrote: I think both are likely, but it was strange that facebook - the actual site, not an email - said that they needed to confirm my ID so could I kindly send them an image of my photo ID..
If it's been a while since you logged in, and scammers have been trying to access your account in the interim, it's not really that strange that they wanted to confirm you were actually you before giving you access to the account.
I would agree that asking for photo id is not the best way to go about that, and that photo id isn't something to trust to any social media site... but the idea behind it is reasonable.
This. . . Even for folks who are on daily, or very nearly so. I have a friend who got told by a mutual friend of an imposter account. Despite fairly frequent activity, they did need to prove that their account was the real account, and this was post-logging in to facebook, so not a fake site phishing for info. One of those things that could be used was a photo ID.
Yeah, I would trust my bank to protect my personal information more than I would trust social media sites or other businesses. I don't use AirBnB for the same reason... got up to the part of the account setup where they wanted me to upload pics of my driver's license, said 'Nope' and went with a different booking company instead.
The old 'mother's maiden name, etc' style questions are much less obtrusive, and much less risky... particularly because you don't have to use the actual, true information, just need to be able to produce the same answer you supplied originally.
On the facebook front, my current big bugbear is having stuff consistently not show up on my feed until 3 days after it was posted. The kids' school and the local community group frequently posts about things that are going on that day, and not seeing the post until 3 days later is more than a little useless.
And yes, the suggested pages are out of control. There are more ads and suggested pages in the news feed than content that I actually want to see.
Although at least the ads are more relevant than the constant stream of identical, bot-created ads for nonsense products on twitter. The frustration with FB ads is that there are so many obvious scammers that I no longer trust any of them. So they're just useless filler taking up space in the news feed.
Overread wrote: I don't think that's FB fishing as I've had those emails and didn't require any ID or anything. It's more likely scammers trying to get into your FB by just hitting as many accounts as they can
I think both are likely, but it was strange that facebook - the actual site, not an email - said that they needed to confirm my ID so could I kindly send them an image of my photo ID.
The site makes its money from selling people's private information, and no other site asks me for that kind of stuff. At most they'll ping your phone and email of record. Actually saying "hey, photograph your gov't ID and send it to us! We're totes trusthworthy" is weird.
There is a guy I follow on youtube that calls himself the Mechanical Ninjaneer. He has a facebook account under that name also, as that's how a majority of his followers know him. One of his episodes was literally him fighting with facebook because they locked him out of his account for "using a fake name" and they need an ID with his name on it to allow him access. So, he just fabricated his own ID. It was just some random background of a map of Arizona, a picture he took of himself, random numbers for the "ID", his name listed as "Mechanical Ninjaneer", and the words "Official Arizona Identification" across the bottom. He scanned it, sent it in, and they accepted it, no problem.
I'm glad I've avoided all those anti social sites. I've never used them and never seen the need or had the interest in them to do so.
None of my kids, I use that loosely as they're all adults, use them either. They all have horror stories of people that they know that have harmed themselves, killed themselves or had horrible reactions on something they posted.
I don't understand in this time of fairly common identity theft why people post all of what their doing online. They make themselves targets.
Anti social media it is as there's nothing sociable about it.
In an age when nobody writes letters anymore, Facebook was a handy tool for keeping up with what the people you know but don't see every day are up to with their lives. It was also handy for reconnecting with people you had lost contact with over the years, as so many people were using it. It was very definitely 'social' media.
The change came when they introduced advertising. From there, the focus became making money for advertisers rather than keeping the platform user friendly and functional for its original purpose.
someone on the internet ask you to send them your full name, address, passport, credit card, and phone number so they can verify that you are "real" and not a scammer, while promise to keep those information save and only sell them anonymously if you pay them
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: This is course a perfect example of “engakification”. Which is a proper word now.
What used to be a fun and useful way to keep up with friends and family, is now a corporate hellhole devoted solely to making a ridiculously wealthy man even wealthier.
We’re kind of seeing the same thing with Streaming. Amazon now carries ads (nowt too annoying thus far, but if it could figure out I Don’t Care About Sport, that’d be great), and prices are only going up, ads or not.
Once I learned of that concept I saw it everywhere I looked online. FB, amazon, google.. all used to be world class experiences, and are now basically just flea markets.
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market", where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.
Seeing as they've updated their algorithm again, and again I'm subjected to god awful ads inside my feed, there's yet another thing to gripe about:
If you go in to ad settings, the page simply does not load. Like, it just isn't programmed to do anything. So, it used to be, you could click a couple buttons and say "never show me this advertiser again" but now. . . blank screen.
I kinda fancy that I know more about UK financial products than most Dakkanauts. And I know which products are regulated, and which aren’t.
And if it’s not regulated, it can’t be recommended to anyone except experienced investors.
Now. What makes one an experienced investor? It genuinely depends. And part of that “depends” is one’s liquidity and overall situation.
If you’re like me and you do pretty alright? Low risk,low reward investments are best suited. You won’t become a squillionaire overnight. But you’re never gonna lose more than your original stake.
£10, £100, £1,000 in? That’s it. That’s your potential loss.
But crap like Crypto and CFD? Those are complex. And with some? You can risk more than your stake.
It’s those that can’t be advertised. Ever. At all.
Yet…..FB? “Oh we am the Speshul case”. And I’ve seen far, far too many cases cross my desk where some poor dobber had been swindled. I’ve even written to my then MP about it.
His answer, the wording I can’t quite remember is that social media platforms argue they’re somehow not included in advertising laws.
But…hey. Keeps me a job. Just sucks to be the poor devils that fall for it and lose their life savings. Or worse.
On that? How many of us receive any kind of financial education?
Anyways, that’s somewhat political so crashing on.
Facebook is now hosting ads featuring Hard Core Prawn. Not the simply suggestive. Proper “giving her six nowt” Prawn. And when I report it as inappropriate? Apparently it’s not against their rules.
I normally have YouTube premium, so just don’t get the ads. But having been Bill Bombed this month I’m starting to see ads. Just not that one. Or those ones.
Twitter's thing of having community notes instead of content moderation is not really a bonus. You still see the dross in the feed.
Which, now that I think of it, would be a fantastic idea - they need to add a toggle to set the feed to not display anything with a community note on it unless you have interacted with it...
insaniak wrote: Twitter's thing of having community notes instead of content moderation is not really a bonus. You still see the dross in the feed.
Which, now that I think of it, would be a fantastic idea - they need to add a toggle to set the feed to not display anything with a community note on it unless you have interacted with it...
Isn't that 99+% of X these days? May as well just leave the site.
I came off of FB over a decade ago and never regretted it. Dakka is about 95% of my social media interaction, besides an Instagram account for a small etsy business I set up with my partner last year, and a paired account so that people knew it was me. Nothing that I hear about any platform makes me want to engage with them, and the Instagram account has generated about 4% of our sales, so not really worth the effort there.
I only really use FB for communicating with friends and family I don’t see often in person, and trawling a couple of groups. Though even for that it’s a pain in the arse, an old mate who now lives overseas posted on a group that he’d be in the country briefly and that he wanted to catch up with the old gang… but FB never sent me the notification so I didn’t know until after. Useless.
Yeah youtube is the same for not sending notifications. All these services keep doing the whole thing of filtering what news you get and even when you get it.
I've seen old posts appear on FB and they almost look new but they are months or years old if the person doesn't post much to their FB account.
As I see it its rather like how Apple design their interfaces - its a system Telling You what it wants you to know rather than Serving You what you actually want to know.
And the worst thing is that you can't even customise this service in anyway, you get whatever the software/managers want you to get in any given time period. Which results in giving them an insane amount of power in twisting what content gets created and promoted if you look at services like youtube and google
Overread wrote: Yeah youtube is the same for not sending notifications. All these services keep doing the whole thing of filtering what news you get and even when you get it.
Yeah. . . On YT, there's been times where I'll search for a video on a channel im subscribed to, and see "ohh, they posted a brand new video an hour ago", go watch that hour old video. . . and then 3 days later, a notification of "hey, sparkle fluffy pants has uploaded a new video! you should go check it out!" . . . like, bro, waaay ahead of you there.
Overread wrote: Yeah youtube is the same for not sending notifications. All these services keep doing the whole thing of filtering what news you get and even when you get it.
Yeah. . . On YT, there's been times where I'll search for a video on a channel im subscribed to, and see "ohh, they posted a brand new video an hour ago", go watch that hour old video. . . and then 3 days later, a notification of "hey, sparkle fluffy pants has uploaded a new video! you should go check it out!" . . . like, bro, waaay ahead of you there.
They also feth around with the algorithm so heavly that at this point' it's just better to check from hand rather than rely upon the notifications.
Overread wrote: Yeah youtube is the same for not sending notifications. All these services keep doing the whole thing of filtering what news you get and even when you get it.
Yeah. . . On YT, there's been times where I'll search for a video on a channel im subscribed to, and see "ohh, they posted a brand new video an hour ago", go watch that hour old video. . . and then 3 days later, a notification of "hey, sparkle fluffy pants has uploaded a new video! you should go check it out!" . . . like, bro, waaay ahead of you there.
I get similar with Amazon-'buy this book that you have already bought from us two weeks ago...' No logic to the marketing.
Overread wrote: Yeah youtube is the same for not sending notifications. All these services keep doing the whole thing of filtering what news you get and even when you get it.
Yeah. . . On YT, there's been times where I'll search for a video on a channel im subscribed to, and see "ohh, they posted a brand new video an hour ago", go watch that hour old video. . . and then 3 days later, a notification of "hey, sparkle fluffy pants has uploaded a new video! you should go check it out!" . . . like, bro, waaay ahead of you there.
They also feth around with the algorithm so heavly that at this point' it's just better to check from hand rather than rely upon the notifications.
The algorithm is terrible. Channels that I actively avoid and have clicked "do not recommend this channel" still come up all the time.
Once the algorithm decides it's going to make someone popular, they're going to end up popular regardless of anything else because the algorithm just endlessly pushes their videos.
I do get my notifications, but having recently let my YouTube Premium drop off (long, expensive month) the ads are just vile.
Products I have no interest in. Issues I’ve never shown any concern for. And so, so many with utterly obnoxious “music”.
It’s not as if I don’t watch a lot of music videos, from which YouTube can usually make solid recommendations from. Is it really that hard for advertisers to use multiple pieces of music? Because the second I hear dubstep or back-skiffle-scat-jazz or whatever it is they reckon The Kids are listening to these days, I’m just not gonna care what you’re trying to sell me. It could be a two week nudie jelly wrestling holiday with Alex Bliss, Liv Morgan and Elizabeth Olsen, and my brain still shuts off completely at such audio dreck.
Sometimes I wonder if its just Google having too many masters, especially those with cash influencing them to twist the algorithm to certain agendas.
Or even bots just flooding it with so much false information that its lost all sense of control or meaning on predicting human desires. Even more so when many people will follow what the algorithm shows. Even if they dislike it they still follow it for a time, which just reinforces it.
It's kind of like an ant death spiral and I do wonder if it will be the downfall of Google that they end up with systems that end up so alienated that it gives the market room for a competitor to push in.
Facebook's userbase these days is mostly just older people and people with no grasp on opsec. I left in 2011 and have never looked back. I never felt comfortable with posting my face or pictures of myself and my family.
I always felt antisocial media like FB etc is opening yourself up to being burgled or identity taken. The amount of crime that can be put down to what people post is unbelievable.
When I served in the forces, security was drummed into us but doesn't seem to be so controlled now.
My entire online presence is here. To do with my hobby and nothing else. Only one person on here knows my name and address and that's because I bought an item from him and he is a person who seems to be very discreet in this regard.
Antisocial media is very toxic from what I've seen and even on here there's been a few threads that have made me despair about people. Ours is a hobby which is basically mostly adults, of both sexes I hurry to add before my gaming partner for tomorrow thumps me. She hits hard, big bully. Mostly adults playing with toys to have fun, nothing deeper than that.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Honestly? Not paid that close attention.
I normally have YouTube premium, so just don’t get the ads. But having been Bill Bombed this month I’m starting to see ads. Just not that one. Or those ones.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I do get my notifications, but having recently let my YouTube Premium drop off (long, expensive month) the ads are just vile.
Products I have no interest in. Issues I’ve never shown any concern for. And so, so many with utterly obnoxious “music”.
It’s not as if I don’t watch a lot of music videos, from which YouTube can usually make solid recommendations from. Is it really that hard for advertisers to use multiple pieces of music? Because the second I hear dubstep or back-skiffle-scat-jazz or whatever it is they reckon The Kids are listening to these days, I’m just not gonna care what you’re trying to sell me. It could be a two week nudie jelly wrestling holiday with Alex Bliss, Liv Morgan and Elizabeth Olsen, and my brain still shuts off completely at such audio dreck.
How about some punk, ska or metal, man?
YouTube without an addblocker is at this Stage an active security threat.
Dominos, Pizza Hut and other Pizza places now charging for delivery.
Before Deliveroo and Just Eat got their toes in the water? The big Pizza Chains did free delivery over a certain order price. And it had been that way going back as long as I can remember.
Now? Now they charged. Because Just Eat and Deliveroo carried it, normalising paid for deliveries.
Bran Dawri wrote: Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and their ilk are scummy parasites anyway.
In the UK, I’m slightly more accommodating. Whilst yes, they take their cut? For many small takeaways, running their own delivery services isn’t cost effective,
Doesn’t mean E/D/U aren’t taking the piss with their premiums and pricing though.
I suspect its not just the other delivery firms making it normalised; but also the constant rising costs of things like fuel. When all those "free pizza deliveries" were a thing fuel was probably near to half what it is now and that's without inflation and other things rising all the other costs.
Sadly it all hinges on the big firms at the top end- so long as those mega-firms continue to raise prices and wages for the top staff; everything else has to rise to try and stay afloat.
It might also be that in the UK delivery drivers are treated differently than they are in the US. Here a delivery position is usually lower upfront pay but with tips and some companies giving compensation for fuel & the like.
Bran Dawri wrote: Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and their ilk are scummy parasites anyway.
In the UK, I’m slightly more accommodating. Whilst yes, they take their cut? For many small takeaways, running their own delivery services isn’t cost effective,
Doesn’t mean E/D/U aren’t taking the piss with their premiums and pricing though.
It's not just "they take their cut". It's that they full on make-up websites and the like with menus, promoted as being the restaurant in question. It leads to the eatery having to deal with upset customers who ordered via the app that their food "didn't transport well" or "was cold", etc. John Oliver did a good piece on this not long ago.
Kanluwen wrote: It might also be that in the UK delivery drivers are treated differently than they are in the US. Here a delivery position is usually lower upfront pay but with tips and some companies giving compensation for fuel & the like.
Yeah that's a big difference too. In the UK staff get a proper wage and tips really are tips. It's not like the USA where there's a social contract to tip 20% of the meal cost or such to pay the wages for the server/delivery staff. So that certainly has an impact. "Free delivery" isn't really free if you're expected to tip on top of the cost of the item.
UK side its all rolled into the price you pay up front.
Honestly I'm always amazed that that and the whole "tax isn't on the advertised price" are normal accepted htings over much of the USA
Not to mention them charging on both ends - both the restaurant and the customer pay for delivery, with the restaurant end being gouged to death.
I seriously prefer walking through a storm before giving racketeering like that so much as a penny - and have done so.
Kanluwen wrote: It might also be that in the UK delivery drivers are treated differently than they are in the US. Here a delivery position is usually lower upfront pay but with tips and some companies giving compensation for fuel & the like.
Bran Dawri wrote: Just Eat, Deliveroo, Uber Eats and their ilk are scummy parasites anyway.
In the UK, I’m slightly more accommodating. Whilst yes, they take their cut? For many small takeaways, running their own delivery services isn’t cost effective,
Doesn’t mean E/D/U aren’t taking the piss with their premiums and pricing though.
It's not just "they take their cut". It's that they full on make-up websites and the like with menus, promoted as being the restaurant in question. It leads to the eatery having to deal with upset customers who ordered via the app that their food "didn't transport well" or "was cold", etc. John Oliver did a good piece on this not long ago.
Wasn’t aware of the second bit, which certainly throws a different light on it.
Bran Dawri wrote: Not to mention them charging on both ends - both the restaurant and the customer pay for delivery, with the restaurant end being gouged to death.
I seriously prefer walking through a storm before giving racketeering like that so much as a penny - and have done so.
The few times we use doordash or uber eats or whatever the heck, is also the few times we don't get a local mom and pop restaurant. The gakky delivery services can gouge panda express or Chipotle for all I care, but I won't do that to one of our many local eateries.
Did you know selling fake Driver Theory Test certificates isn’t against the terms of service?
Neither did I, but I do now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: I believe this is it (blame John Oliver if it's not available in your region )
Unfortunately I can’t find the vid viewable in the UK :(
But I’ll take your word for it That being said, they may operate slightly differently in the UK, because not every business model can be transposed as it stands, due to different laws and that.
What I’ve noticed is that when ordering from Deliveroo, there’s a price premium, a service charge, and a delivery cost, all paid for by me.
Basically you can't add another middle-man in the ordering process without increasing costs somewhere to consumer or cutting income for the supplier.
And often middlemen will try and do both. Heck a bunch of the big supermarkets in the UK got caught doing that supplying dairy products. Telling customers prices were up and telling farmers demand was down. So they squeezed both ends and it only worked because once you're down to a handful of competing businesses they realise that they don't actually have to compete to profit and they can - shock horror - collude to increase profits for all.
Bran Dawri wrote: Not to mention them charging on both ends - both the restaurant and the customer pay for delivery, with the restaurant end being gouged to death.
I seriously prefer walking through a storm before giving racketeering like that so much as a penny - and have done so.
The few times we use doordash or uber eats or whatever the heck, is also the few times we don't get a local mom and pop restaurant. The gakky delivery services can gouge panda express or Chipotle for all I care, but I won't do that to one of our many local eateries.
I'll never understand this take.
You using the "gakky delivery service" on a franchise doesn't magically make it so that the person driving for said delivery service is suddenly getting treated well.
They're just getting screwed by the crummy delivery service instead of a big company.
True, but working from home and data protection has me super paranoid about things. Mostly because of my own ignorance, but even if got better educated there, I’d still err on the side of caution.
You using the "gakky delivery service" on a franchise doesn't magically make it so that the person driving for said delivery service is suddenly getting treated well.
They're just getting screwed by the crummy delivery service instead of a big company.
I'll never understand why anyone would eat stuff like Chipotle or Panda Express or McD or things like that to begin with...
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: It’s cheap and reliable. If I go into a McDonalds, I know exactly what I’m in for in terms of speed, service and taste. And so it’s a known value.
If I go to a restaurant? Results vary, and a high price isn’t a guarantee of high quality.
Yeah, you already know what you're getting yourself into with chain fast food restaurants. My wife and I tried ubereats once and there were a lot of restaurants in the area that it brought up that we had no idea existed. The problem is all we could go off of was their ratings on the app. Safe to say we didn't order from any of them and stopped bothering with ubereats.
Jaxmeister wrote: When I served in the forces, security was drummed into us but doesn't seem to be so controlled now.
it is mental - I remember it being drummed into everyone. Now you get a note on the intranet about being generically careful, like everyone just shrugged shoulders and gave up. I thought for a moment how social media was exploited in the current war int he East would make people pay attention. A few more intranet articles is all and some challenge coins. Nuts.
Jaxmeister wrote: When I served in the forces, security was drummed into us but doesn't seem to be so controlled now.
it is mental - I remember it being drummed into everyone. Now you get a note on the intranet about being generically careful, like everyone just shrugged shoulders and gave up. I thought for a moment how social media was exploited in the current war int he East would make people pay attention. A few more intranet articles is all and some challenge coins. Nuts.
Now you have MOD and command wondering about security leaks. You would think with what's happening in eastern Europe with disinformation etc, not to mention satellite tracking picking up communications more care would be taken but apparently not.
Bran Dawri wrote: Not to mention them charging on both ends - both the restaurant and the customer pay for delivery, with the restaurant end being gouged to death.
I seriously prefer walking through a storm before giving racketeering like that so much as a penny - and have done so.
The few times we use doordash or uber eats or whatever the heck, is also the few times we don't get a local mom and pop restaurant. The gakky delivery services can gouge panda express or Chipotle for all I care, but I won't do that to one of our many local eateries.
I'll never understand this take.
You using the "gakky delivery service" on a franchise doesn't magically make it so that the person driving for said delivery service is suddenly getting treated well.
They're just getting screwed by the crummy delivery service instead of a big company.
Basically this: it's well established through many many articles that mom and pop restaurants get a raw deal. One pizza shop actually LOST money per order, depending on what a given customer ordered. . So, by using only mainline big corporate chain restaurants, I'm not screwing over the mom and pop shop. See, IDGAF if Panda Express "loses" money on my order. I DO care if "Yummy Teriyaki and Sushi" makes money off of me ordering the food they offer.
The driver, at the end of the day made the choice to drive for whatever delivery service it is. I have zero sympathy on that specific aspect of it. That said, whenever we do go this route, we DO tip pretty damn well. And if other people's tipping isn't enough for the driver, well. . . it does still have a stigma/view of being a side gig, and I feel I've done my bit for the driver.
)
That being said, they may operate slightly differently in the