4 ms·

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.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      I think you've confused "Generosity" and "Passive Aggression".
      - ajkjk 10y ago
        I don't think so. I'm being generous in the sense that I'm open to multiple interpretations of what happened and I'm going out of my way to not assume (and to express that I do not assume) that you were being intentionally unpleasant. I'm happy to interpret it as an error. But I still want to express that I think your top comment was unpleasant, regardless of how unhappy it makes you to hear that (which is apparently a lot). Sure, you can tell me I shouldn't bother saying any of this, but I'm not really doing it for you; I want other Hacker News comment-browsers to be reminded not to do unpleasant things like that, and about how exactly they're unpleasant, and to do that I have to write something that's pretty much going to piss you off regardless of how I phrase it.
        Aelinsaar 10y ago
        I'm not pissed off, I'm just engaged by your combination of intelligence and poor socialization.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    That is what you meant though, isn't it.
    - Aelinsaar 10y ago
      No, it isn't, which is why I didn't say it. This is the internet though, where there is always someone willing to be a prick to make a point though, and it's rarely worth the time to rebut.
snowwrestler 10y ago
The discussion is about the overall effect of Facebook on the business model of the news industry. How much impact does your personal preference have on that conversation? Probably too small to be measurable.
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  That's true for any and every comment and commentator here.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    The point is that you posted your personal opinion of Facebook as a whole, without any seeming relevance or link to the particular topic at hand other than the fact that it involved Facebook.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Here's a higher-voted comment on this article: > It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11678329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11678329 It's still a personal opinion, of course, but it's directly addressing the question raised by the article: how will news operations make money when all their traffic comes through Facebook? Whereas your comment simply stating that you, personally, don't like Facebook, does not address that question.

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.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    I think you've confused "Generosity" and "Passive Aggression".
    - ajkjk 10y ago
      I don't think so. I'm being generous in the sense that I'm open to multiple interpretations of what happened and I'm going out of my way to not assume (and to express that I do not assume) that you were being intentionally unpleasant. I'm happy to interpret it as an error. But I still want to express that I think your top comment was unpleasant, regardless of how unhappy it makes you to hear that (which is apparently a lot). Sure, you can tell me I shouldn't bother saying any of this, but I'm not really doing it for you; I want other Hacker News comment-browsers to be reminded not to do unpleasant things like that, and about how exactly they're unpleasant, and to do that I have to write something that's pretty much going to piss you off regardless of how I phrase it.
      - Aelinsaar 10y ago
        I'm not pissed off, I'm just engaged by your combination of intelligence and poor socialization.
- nicky0 10y ago
  That is what you meant though, isn't it.
  - Aelinsaar 10y ago
    No, it isn't, which is why I didn't say it. This is the internet though, where there is always someone willing to be a prick to make a point though, and it's rarely worth the time to rebut.

snowwrestler 10y ago

The discussion is about the overall effect of Facebook on the business model of the news industry. How much impact does your personal preference have on that conversation? Probably too small to be measurable.

Aelinsaar 10y ago
That's true for any and every comment and commentator here.
- nicky0 10y ago
  The point is that you posted your personal opinion of Facebook as a whole, without any seeming relevance or link to the particular topic at hand other than the fact that it involved Facebook.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Here's a higher-voted comment on this article: > It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11678329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11678329 It's still a personal opinion, of course, but it's directly addressing the question raised by the article: how will news operations make money when all their traffic comes through Facebook? Whereas your comment simply stating that you, personally, don't like Facebook, does not address that question.