5 ms·

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 i

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)

tdkl 11y ago
> All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. At least the Internet is open and not behind a privacy threatening login. Fuck Facebook.
- coderdude 11y ago
  Anywhere you find people with heads up their asses you'll see pro-fb talk. Nice 180 from a few years ago HN.
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
> 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.
- jusben1369 11y ago
  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.
  - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
    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.
    - eatonphil 11y ago
      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? Edit: left out "reminds" in the second sentence.
      - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
        > 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.
VLM 11y ago
"Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society." War, genocide, torture, brainwashing, we could list historically popular and widely used concepts all day that turn out to be bad ideas.
hobs 11y ago
The demand for heroin is overwhelming.[0] An argument from popularity is not an argument that something is a net positive for society. Obesity is becoming more popular. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw
- knodi123 11y ago
  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.
  - ljk 11y ago
    > obesity is not popular depends on who you ask, really https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
    - hemdawgz 11y ago
      The existance of a movement still doesn't mean it's popular at large.
      - ljk 11y ago
        good point, hopefully it stays that way
- jusben1369 11y ago
  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.
  - hobs 11y ago
    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] [0]http://www.addictions.com/opiate/10-opiate-addiction-statistics/ http://www.addictions.com/opiate/10-opiate-addiction-statist...
imgabe 11y ago
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.

tdkl 11y ago

> All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. At least the Internet is open and not behind a privacy threatening login. Fuck Facebook.

coderdude 11y ago
Anywhere you find people with heads up their asses you'll see pro-fb talk. Nice 180 from a few years ago HN.

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago

> 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.

jusben1369 11y ago
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.
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  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.
  - eatonphil 11y ago
    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? Edit: left out "reminds" in the second sentence.
    - AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
      > 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.

VLM 11y ago

"Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society." War, genocide, torture, brainwashing, we could list historically popular and widely used concepts all day that turn out to be bad ideas.

hobs 11y ago

The demand for heroin is overwhelming.[0] An argument from popularity is not an argument that something is a net positive for society. Obesity is becoming more popular. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw

knodi123 11y ago
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.
- ljk 11y ago
  > obesity is not popular depends on who you ask, really https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement
  - hemdawgz 11y ago
    The existance of a movement still doesn't mean it's popular at large.
    - ljk 11y ago
      good point, hopefully it stays that way
jusben1369 11y ago
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.
- hobs 11y ago
  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] [0]http://www.addictions.com/opiate/10-opiate-addiction-statistics/ http://www.addictions.com/opiate/10-opiate-addiction-statist...

imgabe 11y ago

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.