4 ms·

"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 en

"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.
  - dguaraglia 10y ago
    See, I don't care for Snapchat. Always thought it was a dumb idea sold on a false premise ("oh, but you are safe because the image is gone immediately!", like anyone but their engineers know exactly what's going on at the storage level.) But that's me, some of my friends love it and spend hours doing face swaps and sharing mustached pictures. So, to each their own. The fact that you don't like Facebook doesn't mean you can dismiss it any more than I can dismiss Snapchat. Just look at the numbers mentioned in the article. We couldn't care less about these systems, and yet there they are. I guess that's what everyone here is trying to say.
bduerst 10y ago
Facebook is a company, TV is a device; Facebook uses the internet, TV uses the airwaves; etc. etc. I was referring to a counter-cultural phenomenon rather than trying to say Facebook is exactly the same thing as TV set. It's not an attack on your previous statement, just an observation.

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.
- dguaraglia 10y ago
  See, I don't care for Snapchat. Always thought it was a dumb idea sold on a false premise ("oh, but you are safe because the image is gone immediately!", like anyone but their engineers know exactly what's going on at the storage level.) But that's me, some of my friends love it and spend hours doing face swaps and sharing mustached pictures. So, to each their own. The fact that you don't like Facebook doesn't mean you can dismiss it any more than I can dismiss Snapchat. Just look at the numbers mentioned in the article. We couldn't care less about these systems, and yet there they are. I guess that's what everyone here is trying to say.

bduerst 10y ago

Facebook is a company, TV is a device; Facebook uses the internet, TV uses the airwaves; etc. etc. I was referring to a counter-cultural phenomenon rather than trying to say Facebook is exactly the same thing as TV set. It's not an attack on your previous statement, just an observation.