4 ms·

What is the Internet supposed to be mean? Because if the FB site for your community center is able to reach more community members through FB than on their own

What is the Internet supposed to be mean? Because if the FB site for your community center is able to reach more community members through FB than on their own that's kind of awesome. A free service is making your community a better place!

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
Please stop perpetuating the myth that it's free, it's not.
- forrestthewoods 11y ago
  No.
- prawn 11y ago
  Communities are choosing to use it largely because it's free, so I think it's fair to use the term in this context.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    No, communities are choosing it because they think it's free. That's exactly why perpetuating the myth is such a bad idea. Just because people think that it is, doesn't make it so.
    - prawn 11y ago
      It is free to them. It literally costs them no money. That's why they're choosing it. They're not fussed about the cost to their users. (I don't use Facebook and don't like when communities build on Facebook.)
- renaudg 11y ago
  It is just as free to use as any other website with ads is.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    That's actually not true. Most websites with ads don't have a huge network effect[1] that causes and strengthens a monopoly with the potential for abuse that that brings with it. Also, most websites with ads are not in a position to create a comprehensive database of the social structure of the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
    - renaudg 11y ago
      Cool. It is still free to use though.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
        No, not if you are using any economically sensible definition of cost (and thus of "free"). "I have to directly pay x units of currency" is not a useful measure of cost. There are lots of ways in which either you can be paying costs indirectly, or in which other people are forced to pay costs caused by you, neither of which really makes much sense to call "free". Network effects are what economists call an externality: A cost (or a benefit in the case of positive externalities) that is paid for by people who didn't participate in the decision that led to that cost. Also, monopolistic structures and concentrations of power often have long-term consequences that lead to what economists call opportunity costs: A monopoly that hinders innovation, for example, might end up preventing a beneficial technological development, or even just lower prices due to competition. That people often confuse "immediate payment" with "costs" is exactly the misconception that companies like facebook like to use to hide the costs.
skewart 11y ago
That's a fair question. I think there is a widely held consensus among most techy people on a set of values/ideas that were instrumental to the birth anf growth of the internet, and which are a core part of what makes it one of the most amazing human inventions ever. Openness and accessibility are among the most important internet values. Companies that create closed gardens violate these values. Many people believe that this erosion of openness for the sake of short-term profits (2-3 years) will lead to a weaker and all around worse internet in the long run (5-20 years). The community center people are seduced by the ease of creating a FB site without paying any cash, while likely not realizing that it's harming their community by excluding people. Of course, being too dogmatic about values is never good. But I would argue this is a case where it's good to stand up for accessibility.
tim333 11y ago
To me the internet is supposed to be an open network to connect computers which means companies like Facebook can do what they want pretty much. I recently did some web presence for a charity and made a regular website, a Wordpress blog, a Facebook page and a subreddit. The Facebook thing got easily the most traffic but I was free to put up any amount of other stuff. I'm not sure trying to change Facebook would really be in the spirit of the open internet.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago

Please stop perpetuating the myth that it's free, it's not.

forrestthewoods 11y ago
No.
prawn 11y ago
Communities are choosing to use it largely because it's free, so I think it's fair to use the term in this context.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  No, communities are choosing it because they think it's free. That's exactly why perpetuating the myth is such a bad idea. Just because people think that it is, doesn't make it so.
  - prawn 11y ago
    It is free to them. It literally costs them no money. That's why they're choosing it. They're not fussed about the cost to their users. (I don't use Facebook and don't like when communities build on Facebook.)
renaudg 11y ago
It is just as free to use as any other website with ads is.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  That's actually not true. Most websites with ads don't have a huge network effect[1] that causes and strengthens a monopoly with the potential for abuse that that brings with it. Also, most websites with ads are not in a position to create a comprehensive database of the social structure of the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
  - renaudg 11y ago
    Cool. It is still free to use though.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
      No, not if you are using any economically sensible definition of cost (and thus of "free"). "I have to directly pay x units of currency" is not a useful measure of cost. There are lots of ways in which either you can be paying costs indirectly, or in which other people are forced to pay costs caused by you, neither of which really makes much sense to call "free". Network effects are what economists call an externality: A cost (or a benefit in the case of positive externalities) that is paid for by people who didn't participate in the decision that led to that cost. Also, monopolistic structures and concentrations of power often have long-term consequences that lead to what economists call opportunity costs: A monopoly that hinders innovation, for example, might end up preventing a beneficial technological development, or even just lower prices due to competition. That people often confuse "immediate payment" with "costs" is exactly the misconception that companies like facebook like to use to hide the costs.

skewart 11y ago

That's a fair question. I think there is a widely held consensus among most techy people on a set of values/ideas that were instrumental to the birth anf growth of the internet, and which are a core part of what makes it one of the most amazing human inventions ever. Openness and accessibility are among the most important internet values. Companies that create closed gardens violate these values. Many people believe that this erosion of openness for the sake of short-term profits (2-3 years) will lead to a weaker and all around worse internet in the long run (5-20 years). The community center people are seduced by the ease of creating a FB site without paying any cash, while likely not realizing that it's harming their community by excluding people. Of course, being too dogmatic about values is never good. But I would argue this is a case where it's good to stand up for accessibility.

tim333 11y ago

To me the internet is supposed to be an open network to connect computers which means companies like Facebook can do what they want pretty much. I recently did some web presence for a charity and made a regular website, a Wordpress blog, a Facebook page and a subreddit. The Facebook thing got easily the most traffic but I was free to put up any amount of other stuff. I'm not sure trying to change Facebook would really be in the spirit of the open internet.