All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society. (I'm fine with rebuttals; just make sure your argument couldn't also be used to rebut people having access to the internet in general)
> All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall.
I like the spirit of this idea, but I don't believe it's correct in this context. Facebook, after all, is a service that bases its experience around togetherness and being "connected" to the people you "care" about. It encourages an all-inclusive behavior from its users, instead of a selectively-inclusive, or even exclusive, behavior.
This is a unique trait of the Facebook service, which much of the web absolutely did not copycat with success until Facebook's IPO. To compare Facebook and its particularly vicious UX which ruthlessly looks to capture the attention spans of the world's lowest-common-denominator, to the overall internet is an insult to people who had better plans for the internet than this.
Yes I think it would fail if you tried to get too literal. But the original thread was the "I wonder how much more productive our lives would or would not be without FB" It was in that broader context that I made my comment.
I, too, was attempting to make the comment in this broader context.
The point I probably failed to elaborate upon adequately is that Facebook's model is all about sucking productivity from individual users and then streamlining this service for technological and industrial innovation. Yes, the latter half of this equation means more "productivity" caused by the output of new jobs in development, tech startups, ads, etc., but at the cost of a total reversal of the values and goals set forth by the original web.
I respect what you're saying and the contrasting views here are good. At the same time, what you're saying reminds me a ton of the ultra (politically) conservative Americans who freak out over changes to a document defining our country set 240 years ago. I don't know that they are wrong or that they are right. But it certainly comes off super close-minded (or maybe even lazy?) to think that original ideas and values are somehow intrinsically purer than current ones.
My point being, if "the values and goals set forth by the original web" (whatever that means because "the original web" was a quarter hackers, corporations, academics, and government with very diverse goals and values), who cares?
> But it certainly comes off super close-minded to think that original ideas and values are somehow purer than current ones.
Facebook looks to use technology to trick people into allowing the collecting of huge swarms of data from every user to feed its new features and cheapen its bottom line. There are many ways to make a profit, and in fact, I have no ethical quandary with Facebook doing this (I choose not to use Facebook because I am a discerning consumer. If you want to not be discerning in your internet use, I think that's your right.)
However, my _moral_ quandary with this premise is enormous. Of all the great ways to make a profit, why choose this cynical and disturbing model? Most great products help people, but Facebook does not make life easier or more enjoyable for its users. It's really just a blogging and chat platform riddled with "features" that exploit its users at every turn. I do not wish to engage in such activities myself, but I won't tell others not to do it. Ultimately, it is the consumer who needs to individually realize that these products are bullshit, not the companies making them. The only reason Facebook is successful is because its users are foolish enough to adopt it. If people didn't agree to these travesties, Facebook would not exist in its current form.
The "old" internet made up of hackers, academics, and government types, was far too discerning to allow something like Facebook to just happen.
To be clear, I didn't mean to accuse you of close-mindedness - I was referring to this behavior in general. Still, isn't completely irrelevant what the "old" internet thought? How does that make any difference here? I don't think it's exactly looking back with rosy glasses, but I don't see how it's a productive line of thought.
When there are opportunities to profit, someone will exploit it. There's no sense of morals, just a decision by the person who sees the opportunity whether to use it.
Out of curiosity though, do you (and how do you) plan on acting on your frustration? Do you see there being a need for people lobbying against Facebook like some lobby against junk food and obesity? I just wonder what's the point of having that opinion (and telling people about it) unless you wanted to do something.
Offtopic, but just so you're clear on something, people "freak out" because the document is utterly ignored or worked around, not because it's been changed. It's not conducive to the respect of law when the lawmakers and enforcers don't respect it themselves.
That is an interesting thought; thanks for pointing it out. I'll be a little clearer and use a specific example: gun control. We have a right to bear arms, but at this point it is such a huge part of American culture (or a major subset of it) that any potential (legal) changes to the right are met with hostility. People use our Constitution to defend the fact that our culture has evolved (around it). But it is a circular argument I think.
Now maybe the changes that are proposed to be made against aren't actually legal (which is what you are suggesting if I understand you correctly). I can't speak to that, I really don't know enough. I've just assumed changes would be legal. But your point is that I shouldn't just assume that and maybe I shouldn't.
Your point is valid, but the specific instance of obesity is worded poorly. Popular means "liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group", and obesity is not popular.
Wait, heroin isn't popular the way FB is. There aren't a billion heroin users (or whatever) on the planet. _For those people who use heroin_ it might be very popular but by far the majority of people are deciding not to use it. Unlike FB.
Because its more difficult to deliver, don't worry, they are trying.
You can argue whatever numbers you want, but the core principle is not assailed, which is that more != better than.
Between the years 1999 and 2010, sales for prescription painkillers to hospitals, doctors and pharmacies increased fourfold. By 2010, the number of pain medications prescribed was enough to keep every single American medicated for one month’s time.[0]
I don't agree with the logic that just because something is popular it must be a net positive. Drinking a pint of gin every day was really popular at one time. It wasn't generally a positive thing.
Since ancient times it's been fashionable to diss the newest media. "This invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory" -- Socrates, on writing. Facebook, as a synecdoche for "how the hoi polloi use the internet" is just another example of this. The reality is that my Facebook is a news feed tailored to my interests and reflecting what's happening to the people I care about and as such it's useful.
Socrates wasn't wrong. The adoption of new media should reflect a rational analysis of its benefits and drawbacks.
Writing enables us to store, transmit, and reflect upon information in ways that surpass speech. One negative consequence is that we get less practice in exercising memory, and we encounter more information than we could commit to memory in any case.
Social media enables us to get current information on the doings of people whose lives interest us. One negative consequence is that the information users encounter is subject to manipulation by those who dictate the content of the website, with the result that most users have reduced intellectual autonomy. What's more, much of the information presented is not relevant to users, which wastes much of the finite attention they possess. Data collected about users can be and is used to advance interests contrary to their own. Some of these issues are intrinsic to social media as a concept, others specific to the platforms that currently dominate.
Either way, it cannot reasonably be presumed that those opposed to the use of social media are simply Luddites.
One way to test it: there are significant numbers of muslims who as a matter of religious practise, fully commit the Quran to memory for recitation, this is one of the few modern traditions to use the old style of word-perfect oral memory. And there are plenty of "control" muslims from essentially the same backgrounds who don't bother. Comparing them might be interesting.
It isn't exposure to writing in itself that reduces remembering, but the difference in how literate people tend to behave, by relying more on "external storage" than their own memories. I first became aware of this possibility when I took a class in translating Homeric epic poetry, much of which has been shaped by its origin as an oral tradition. (For instance, it has been speculated that the many repetitive phrases the Homeric epics are aids to memory -- 'the swift-footed Achilles,' etc.)
It's well established that remembering is to some extent a skill. You can find sources with a cursory search. If you're interested in a longer treatment of the subject, "Moonwalking with Einstein" by a journalist named Josh Foer, who managed to win the largest memory competition in the US using mnemonics, is well worth the read.
Facebook requires my real name and pesters me for private information that can be used against me in a variety of ways (harassment, phishing, discrimination, etc). Posts on my feed can also hurt me if a potential employer doesn't like things I say or reveal. In the past, this wasn't a problem. In fact, FB is mostly liabilities if we consider the narrow range of things that are socially acceptable, especially to business culture.
My social identity not only has value but is also extremely fragile and can open me up to liabilities if it isn't curated properly. This is just exhausting. We are willfully handing over this valuable thing to FB for free. I don't think we can just dismiss this or compare it to old media.
Personally, I think we've reached the point where most people are starting to understand this. FB, past one's teen/college years, becomes a 'vacation and baby pics' only type thing. People know this information can be used against them and don't post anything that could be used against them. There's even a name for this "Real job radio silence."
On top of that, we're starting to see research that reveals social media anxiety. That's very different than picking up a copy of the New York Times or watching TV.
Minor nitpick - hoi polloi means the masses/people so the additional 'the' is redundant.
On your actual comment though, I feel I have to disagree; at least based on anecdotal evidence from people I know who use Facebook. It is a news feed if you count news as being only what people you know are talking about, which to me sort of misses the point of the internet. Surely you want to know about stuff that everyone else is talking about?
This wouldn't be a huge issue if people generally made the effort to seek out other things, but I find that this isn't the case.
Anyway, yeah, anecdotal and based on feeling rather than fact so feel free to discount.
I'm pretty sure writing had existed for millennia by the time Plato came around. And Plato knew that, so I have my doubts that you cited this quote with proper context.
Facebook's hardly "the newest media". Great grandparents are using it. It's become as mundane as the telephone, and with its neverending autoplaying videos, as inane as television.
If your Facebook feed is full of inane autoplaying videos, consider using the many provided tools to prune it - you can unfollow people and pages, tell FB you want to see less posts of a particular type, and opt out of posts from particularly spammy websites no matter who posts them.
I found that uninstalling television also saved a lot of time or at least "stopped" me watching random crap.
Anecdotally we had a 2-3 week period where the whole family had no TV/Internet access. I was quite disappointed when it all came back on and the board game nights and even the ad-hoc charades stopped. We do however have weekly game nights. I still consciously choose to only watch "planned" TV programmes.
One of the big benefits I've seen as a cord-cutter: I've stopped mindlessly surfing. Without channels, and having to select what I want from an app, I have to decide what I want, instead of seeing "what's on". Now I still watch crap from time to time, but it have to choose it, which has made me go to it a lot less.
I've been a cord-cutter long enough that now, instead of mindlessly surfing, I've got a backlog of so many shows I want to watch and don't have time for it seems I'm back to square one. The more things change...
Not seeing any ads anymore changed things in my household. I recall all the garbage ads I've seen as a kid. It's refreshing not having to endure any of that anymore.
This pretty much highlights my main beef with the current model of broadcast television, which is that it seems designed around leading to "that question", or "What's on?".
If you don't already know what you'd like to watch then perhaps you'd be better off finding something else to do that you enjoy (aside from those times when you genuinely do just want to crash and not think too much).
Reminds me of the scene from Seinfeld when they're pitching a TV show and get asked "why would anyone watch this?" and George answers "Because it's on TV!"
That is, people are just going to bounce through the major networks anyway.
It makes it a lot easier to keep in contact with family members and to know when there are concerts or other events in the area that I'd be interested in being at. That saves me quite a bit of time.
Oh yeah, I agree. I was just responding to what I thought was the person above me's recommendation to not use Facebook at all. I may have been incorrect in that interpretation of what they were saying, though.
Unless you're literally mindlessly staring at known data, you're learning. Social status updates and such are essentially a game, and they teach various aspects of social politics.
Dubious what useful skills most people can actually get from that but you can definitely "get good at facebook", as you put it. (And before anybody jumps on me - I hate facebook and I despise the completely fake life that comes out of the gaming aspects of facebook, but I can appreciate its values as a game designer)
Wasted? Are you implying that their time might be better applied elsewhere? People should be free to do whatever they want to. If you are talking about FB on the job, well perhaps those employees haven't been given enough work.
I honestly can't answer that but I cold-turkey'd my fb account about 2 years ago and I will never look back. You have to be a god damned fool to keep them posted on your day to day life.
I personally love Facebook. I keep in touch with family I can't see often. They get to see my daughter as if they live near us.
I've engaged with people I would have never engaged with all because we have mutual friends, and end up growing friendships out of it.
I get to share things I find interesting, my thoughts, my feelings. I get to see a deeper side of my family and friends whom also do the same.
Look if your family and friends suck and all you see is "I had a bologna sandwich today" repeatedly, or that's all you can contribute, than take a look at your life and choice of peers, because using Facebook or not doesn't make or break them.
> You have to be a god damned fool to keep them posted on your day to day life.
That's a little much. There is one important usecase that I have: messenger. A lot of people (even the ones that I regularly meet) prefer to use messenger and that's the only reason I am sticking with it for now.
Not to worry, your "friends" and/or "groups" are valuable to them as well, probably even more so than any "posts" or "updates" from you would be - those exist solely to trick users into seeing there is value in being on FB, but are otherwise just cluttering up FB's data stores.
IMHO best comment on hackernews of 2014. Eyeballs is an inaccurate description, it was imported from the tv era. Online privacy is fading because it's the source of user information commodity that is being mined/traded/exploited. A brave new world.
2 bad news day in a row, and BTC is sensibly at the same price level... This resilience is making me more skeptical of a upcoming crash event. Price stability is sinequanone for acceptance as a currency.
