6 ms·

This type of reply always appears on posts _mentioning_ Facebook, let alone about the product. Yet the fact still stands: billions of people around the world us

by morley 10y ago

This type of reply always appears on posts _mentioning_ Facebook, let alone about the product. Yet the fact still stands: billions of people around the world use Facebook every month. I personally find the stock "I don't use Facebook" comments off-topic and tiring. Facebook's effect on society is worth having a reasonable discussion about, whether you use it or not.

bduerst 10y ago
It kind of reminds me of the "I don't own a TV" person from the 90's - i.e. whenever a group starts a discussion about their favorite TV show, that person let's it be known how much better their life is without TV.
- swampthinker 10y ago
  Same thing happens around vegans and people who vape.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    I'm a crossfitting vegan who only uses gluten free vape fluid.
- radnor 10y ago
  Exactly. I imagine The Onion will eventually have a similar article to this one: http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429 http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Once again, the Onion is spot on with the satire. I was reminded of the XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/1299/ https://xkcd.com/1299/
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  "TV" is an entire medium. Facebook isn't. The difference between someone not finding use in a single site or service, vs. writing off the entirety of what an entire a/v format can delivery over decades isn't really similar.
  - saganus 10y ago
    Maybe the comparison is made more in terms of the contemporary context for each medium, instead of in a pure 1 to 1 relation. Nowadays I would say that Facebook is more of a "format" of sorts than "just a service", in that it has tremendous power to sway the opinion of large groups of people all over the world, kind of how the TV was a "format" with a lot of impact during its time. Maybe in the past you could've argued the same in e.g. a comparison between TV and theaters (or other previous format). Maybe people more used to going to the theaters could've made the same comparison saying that TV is just a "show in a box" and it's not delivering the same impact as a play. I could even make the same distinction between Facebook and say Snapchat. To me, when I use Facebook, "at least" I can get some interesting stories, some interesting discussions among friends (very seldom but they are there), vs Snapchat which to me looks like "just a service" to take pictures, but I'm pretty sure that a teenager could give me a full dissertation on how Snapchat is much more than just a service and is instead the prime communication media of their time. My point being that I believe you might be biased due to age or due to being born with the TV as the main world-wide reaching medium vs today's kids for which that medium is now FB/Snapchat/whatever the new thing is, even though in strict terms you are correct in saying that FB is a service (i.e. it's "just a webpage") but in the end, taking account the contemporary context for that, it's really much more.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I don't have any problem understanding why people enjoy and use Snapchat, or Twitter, or a number of other social media apps and sites. Facebook in particular however, has always seemed like a place that people go to spend time that ultimately makes them unhappy.
      - 10y ago
- nostrademons 10y ago
  Just the 90s? https://twitter.com/sama/status/730465368574038016 https://twitter.com/sama/status/730465368574038016
Aelinsaar 10y ago
I'm not sure why sharing my experience with Facebook is somehow not part of that discussion.
- revscat 10y ago
  It's not you specifically, it's that this comment specifically is almost 100% likely to show up. It's boring, and at this point doesn't add anything to the discussion.
- ajkjk 10y ago
  My theory: My initial reaction to your post is that it doesn't contribute anything useful: clearly you're sufficiently different from the Facebook-using masses that statements about them have zero relevance to you and vice versa, and because the masses are, well, masses, it's still perfectly legitimate to talk about them. Since your post (like the similar ones that appear on every submission about Facebook) doesn't contribute anything useful (and especially not anything novel), and since I (subconsciously) project onto you and assume you are probably aware of that, I find myself filling in blanks and concluding that you're posting for a different reason - something to the effect of "hey look at me, I don't use Facebook, I'm better than that, you're all wasting your time and I'm not". And, unsurprisingly, that kind of gloating and attention-seeking, even subtextual, is annoying and elicits a negative response. I'm not saying you necessarily meant it that way, and I think this is all half-subconscious, but I do think it's what's happening.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    So you're not sure that's what I meant, but you're willing to read what I said in the worst possible light anyway, even if it means blaming my subconscious? Maybe don't spend so much energy on reading into things and making assumptions.
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      No, I'm telling you how I did in fact read it, but trying to be generous by saying that I'm not accusing you of meaning it that way.

by morley 10y ago

bduerst 10y ago

It kind of reminds me of the "I don't own a TV" person from the 90's - i.e. whenever a group starts a discussion about their favorite TV show, that person let's it be known how much better their life is without TV.

swampthinker 10y ago
Same thing happens around vegans and people who vape.
- coredog64 10y ago
  I'm a crossfitting vegan who only uses gluten free vape fluid.
radnor 10y ago
Exactly. I imagine The Onion will eventually have a similar article to this one: http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel-429 http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-constantly-mentioni...
- bduerst 10y ago
  Once again, the Onion is spot on with the satire. I was reminded of the XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/1299/ https://xkcd.com/1299/
Aelinsaar 10y ago
"TV" is an entire medium. Facebook isn't. The difference between someone not finding use in a single site or service, vs. writing off the entirety of what an entire a/v format can delivery over decades isn't really similar.
- saganus 10y ago
  Maybe the comparison is made more in terms of the contemporary context for each medium, instead of in a pure 1 to 1 relation. Nowadays I would say that Facebook is more of a "format" of sorts than "just a service", in that it has tremendous power to sway the opinion of large groups of people all over the world, kind of how the TV was a "format" with a lot of impact during its time. Maybe in the past you could've argued the same in e.g. a comparison between TV and theaters (or other previous format). Maybe people more used to going to the theaters could've made the same comparison saying that TV is just a "show in a box" and it's not delivering the same impact as a play. I could even make the same distinction between Facebook and say Snapchat. To me, when I use Facebook, "at least" I can get some interesting stories, some interesting discussions among friends (very seldom but they are there), vs Snapchat which to me looks like "just a service" to take pictures, but I'm pretty sure that a teenager could give me a full dissertation on how Snapchat is much more than just a service and is instead the prime communication media of their time. My point being that I believe you might be biased due to age or due to being born with the TV as the main world-wide reaching medium vs today's kids for which that medium is now FB/Snapchat/whatever the new thing is, even though in strict terms you are correct in saying that FB is a service (i.e. it's "just a webpage") but in the end, taking account the contemporary context for that, it's really much more.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I don't have any problem understanding why people enjoy and use Snapchat, or Twitter, or a number of other social media apps and sites. Facebook in particular however, has always seemed like a place that people go to spend time that ultimately makes them unhappy.
    - 10y ago
nostrademons 10y ago
Just the 90s? https://twitter.com/sama/status/730465368574038016 https://twitter.com/sama/status/730465368574038016

Aelinsaar 10y ago

I'm not sure why sharing my experience with Facebook is somehow not part of that discussion.

revscat 10y ago
It's not you specifically, it's that this comment specifically is almost 100% likely to show up. It's boring, and at this point doesn't add anything to the discussion.
ajkjk 10y ago
My theory: My initial reaction to your post is that it doesn't contribute anything useful: clearly you're sufficiently different from the Facebook-using masses that statements about them have zero relevance to you and vice versa, and because the masses are, well, masses, it's still perfectly legitimate to talk about them. Since your post (like the similar ones that appear on every submission about Facebook) doesn't contribute anything useful (and especially not anything novel), and since I (subconsciously) project onto you and assume you are probably aware of that, I find myself filling in blanks and concluding that you're posting for a different reason - something to the effect of "hey look at me, I don't use Facebook, I'm better than that, you're all wasting your time and I'm not". And, unsurprisingly, that kind of gloating and attention-seeking, even subtextual, is annoying and elicits a negative response. I'm not saying you necessarily meant it that way, and I think this is all half-subconscious, but I do think it's what's happening.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  So you're not sure that's what I meant, but you're willing to read what I said in the worst possible light anyway, even if it means blaming my subconscious? Maybe don't spend so much energy on reading into things and making assumptions.
  - ajkjk 10y ago
    No, I'm telling you how I did in fact read it, but trying to be generous by saying that I'm not accusing you of meaning it that way.