>>We define a monthly active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger app (and is also a registered Facebook user), in the last 30 days as of the date of measurement.
I suppose that DAU is the same, but of course daily.
Still, the chart looks too nice to me => personally, I always automatically mistrust any chart that looks that nice/regular.
Well, even if the volume is very high, the scandals had planetary coverage, therefore I would still expect to see some kind of impact? Or would it still be too little to show a variance in the trend?
Dumping here links of DAU/MAU charts of other apps (no specific selection - it's all what I was able to find):
The most stable one seems to be the one of WeChat? I personally understood that without it, when living in China, your life can get very hard as you're not even able to pay for some services or get loans etc... (therefore there is a lot a direct pressure to use it).
> the scandals had planetary coverage, therefore I would still expect to see some kind of impact
You mean you'd expect a meaningful drop. Why? I expected very little consequence. People know Facebook doesn't cost them a monthly fee to use, they realize it's a huge entity that runs advertising to pay the bills. Everyone using the Internet these days is familiar with advertising online. The bulk of the users are precisely the ones that aren't shocked by the privacy scandal. They get to use Facebook and don't have to pay cash for it, they know the deal even if only broadly. Despite the endless attempts by the media to portray all FB users as ignorant.
Target had a huge scandal of stolen customer information. They didn't lose a big part of their sales. Equifax isn't going out of business. Few consumers stopped using Windows over Microsoft's business tactics in the 1990s or after. Walmart used to particularly pay their employees terribly and were pretty vicious cutthroats with suppliers and competitors (still are), outside of a tiny group none of it stopped people from shopping there. Amazon is guilty of a lot of that same behavior over the last two decades.
There's a required threshold for how bad Facebook's behavior would have to be, to turn the average user off of their 'free' service. They haven't got near that level yet. For most people it's a useful social utility that connects them to everyone they know and they don't have to pay money for it. Users will put up with a lot accordingly.
> the scandals had planetary coverage, therefore I would still expect to see some kind of impact
That would assume that news is accurately reporting reality. News is a business as well, you create issues, pile on, and gather ad impressions. There's definitely built-in pressure to exaggerate as a result.
Some of the most egregious is attributing short-term market trends with specific political issues (as opposed to noise or changes market fundamentals).
The darker side is when how news companies can shape public perception. In this case, the business models of the news are under attack by content aggregators like facebook and google.
In the meanwhile I found this (2015) about MAU: https://www.adweek.com/digital/monthly-active-users-definiti...
>>We define a monthly active user as a registered Facebook user who logged in and visited Facebook through our website or a mobile device, or used our Messenger app (and is also a registered Facebook user), in the last 30 days as of the date of measurement.
I suppose that DAU is the same, but of course daily.
Still, the chart looks too nice to me => personally, I always automatically mistrust any chart that looks that nice/regular.