5 ms·

I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. While I think the positives far outweigh the negatives in abstract, I wonder if the r

by uptown 10y ago

I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. While I think the positives far outweigh the negatives in abstract, I wonder if the relatively segregated and disconnected civilizations we've built until now are equipped to deal with the complexities of a more-connected world. Cultural differences, religious differences, ethical differences, etc. are all potential points of friction when you begin connecting groups that had previously been separated by geography but can now interface with one-another. I think Mark's vision for a more-connected world is inevitable -- arguably, it's something that's been happening for all time, albeit perhaps not at the pace we see today, as digital connectivity provides the ability to connect distant groups far easier than physical connectivity ever allowed. I just hope the outcome is a net positive for humanity.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Well it will happen regardless of whether Facebook does it or not. Also it won't just be Facebook, there are many other companies (and future companies) that will increasingly make the world more connected. That's been the trend ever since the beginning of human history so I doubt it will stop. So from FB's point of view, they probably don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a more connected place than them.
mattmcknight 10y ago
Tyler Cowen made some good points on this in terms of the general spread of bad mood, where a negative interpretation of the situation in one country can spread to others where it does not really apply.[1] I think there is also evidence of a more rapid spread of bad ideas, such as extremist views that can inspire individuals to acts of violence. The impact of connectedness on enabling international crime is also clear, and we've moved from email scams to ransomware. It seems that your idea for the increase in opportunities for interpersonal conflict would be an addition to this list of downsides, particularly as the quality of translation services increases. [1]http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-18/bad-moods-are-the-other-global-migration-problem http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-18/bad-moods-...
bdrool 10y ago
> I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. I don't know about anyone else, but giving people Facebook-only service and calling it pretending that's the same as full internet access is not my idea of "more connected". Free or not, that's an insane level of lock-in.
- mattmcknight 10y ago
  It's not a Facebook only service, includes Google, Wikipedia, etc. and is sponsored by a consortium of companies. One bizarre consequence of zero rating limitations is that in Angola people started attaching pirated content to Wikipedia articles to create free filesharing. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...
  - bdrool 10y ago
    I knew that would be response, but a tiny handful of token free sites don't help. It's either the internet or it isn't. And guess what: it's not. It's impossible to overstate just how bad it would be to allow Facebook to define what is and isn't "the internet" for billions of people. I'm continuously stunned that anyone would defend their efforts in this area.
    - mpbm 10y ago
      I'm not sure how you'd propose to stop them from trying. They're offering a service. People will accept or reject that service based on the costs and benefits. Can you think of a way to provide internet to everyone in the world that wouldn't involve a powerful entity who's intentions worry you? Maybe distributing mesh networking tech? Well, that would have to be developed, manufactured, and distributed, AND maintained. Who's going to do that? A charity? A consortium of charities?
swsieber 10y ago
The book "Here Comes Everybody" also talks about that. Something I got out of it was that it ties people down less to a geographic area and allows to them to form communities with other like minded people (or consume like minded material). After reading it, my conclusion is that it will be negative, unless we consciously discipline ourselves because of how self-reinforcing it can be (ie we start consuming only media that we agree with, unless we consciously decide that could be bad).
- elorant 10y ago
  While we’re in the topic of books about worldwide connectivity may I suggest Mitchel’s” e-topia” [1]. Oldie but goodie. It describes connectivity from an architectural point of view promoting a vision about connected cities that shares a lot of commonalities with IoT, only it was written 15 years before the term became mainstream. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/e-topia-Urban-Life-Jim-Know-ebook/dp/B003VPWY00/ https://www.amazon.com/e-topia-Urban-Life-Jim-Know-ebook/dp/...
davidivadavid 10y ago
What I'm curious to see is if anyone is going to take the opposite end of that bet: Facebook's "openness"/"World is flat"/"End of history" vs. decentralized, tribal, anonymized, balkanized social networks. As Facebook keeps accumulating users, and as users accumulate "friends", the SNR decreases and makes the product experience less valuable, notwithstanding the efforts they make to "optimize" the feed. Mine is mostly filled with things I'd rather never see. Facebook is a social network that mostly reproduces geographic social networks, but that doesn't connect people based on affinities. The people discovery mechanism is close to non-existent. People in your Facebook neighbourhood are people who most likely live in your current, past, or "work" neighbourhood. Are there any social networks that try to dynamically create communities/"neighbourhoods" based on behavior? (e.g. upvote a post and you get "closer" to the poster, with symmetric behavior for downvoting, and second order effects propagating to other users based on their own upvote/downvote of said post). Apologies if that's too vague, I'm thinking out loud here.
- sheac 10y ago
  The only systems that readily comes to mind is Reddit. It's amazing how you can wind up on a subreddit and realise that you're nowhere near the bottom of the rabbit hole that you've been calling a hobby for the past n years. I don't know if this qualifies for what you're after, though, because these communities are: * based on users actively seeking out forums based on what they consider themselves to be interested in, and * each community is centred around a single topic. There might be a subreddit for people who love Fraggles and a subreddit for people who love pop-tarts, but no subreddit for people who love both Fraggles and pop-tarts.
  - davidivadavid 10y ago
    Reddit does have the affinity thing, but as you point out, it's not nearly as granular as it could be.

by uptown 10y ago

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

Well it will happen regardless of whether Facebook does it or not. Also it won't just be Facebook, there are many other companies (and future companies) that will increasingly make the world more connected. That's been the trend ever since the beginning of human history so I doubt it will stop. So from FB's point of view, they probably don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a more connected place than them.

mattmcknight 10y ago

Tyler Cowen made some good points on this in terms of the general spread of bad mood, where a negative interpretation of the situation in one country can spread to others where it does not really apply.[1] I think there is also evidence of a more rapid spread of bad ideas, such as extremist views that can inspire individuals to acts of violence. The impact of connectedness on enabling international crime is also clear, and we've moved from email scams to ransomware. It seems that your idea for the increase in opportunities for interpersonal conflict would be an addition to this list of downsides, particularly as the quality of translation services increases. [1]http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-18/bad-moods-are-the-other-global-migration-problem http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-18/bad-moods-...

bdrool 10y ago

> I'm curious what others think about the vision for a more-connected world. I don't know about anyone else, but giving people Facebook-only service and calling it pretending that's the same as full internet access is not my idea of "more connected". Free or not, that's an insane level of lock-in.

mattmcknight 10y ago
It's not a Facebook only service, includes Google, Wikipedia, etc. and is sponsored by a consortium of companies. One bizarre consequence of zero rating limitations is that in Angola people started attaching pirated content to Wikipedia articles to create free filesharing. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...
- bdrool 10y ago
  I knew that would be response, but a tiny handful of token free sites don't help. It's either the internet or it isn't. And guess what: it's not. It's impossible to overstate just how bad it would be to allow Facebook to define what is and isn't "the internet" for billions of people. I'm continuously stunned that anyone would defend their efforts in this area.
  - mpbm 10y ago
    I'm not sure how you'd propose to stop them from trying. They're offering a service. People will accept or reject that service based on the costs and benefits. Can you think of a way to provide internet to everyone in the world that wouldn't involve a powerful entity who's intentions worry you? Maybe distributing mesh networking tech? Well, that would have to be developed, manufactured, and distributed, AND maintained. Who's going to do that? A charity? A consortium of charities?

swsieber 10y ago

The book "Here Comes Everybody" also talks about that. Something I got out of it was that it ties people down less to a geographic area and allows to them to form communities with other like minded people (or consume like minded material). After reading it, my conclusion is that it will be negative, unless we consciously discipline ourselves because of how self-reinforcing it can be (ie we start consuming only media that we agree with, unless we consciously decide that could be bad).

elorant 10y ago
While we’re in the topic of books about worldwide connectivity may I suggest Mitchel’s” e-topia” [1]. Oldie but goodie. It describes connectivity from an architectural point of view promoting a vision about connected cities that shares a lot of commonalities with IoT, only it was written 15 years before the term became mainstream. [1]: https://www.amazon.com/e-topia-Urban-Life-Jim-Know-ebook/dp/B003VPWY00/ https://www.amazon.com/e-topia-Urban-Life-Jim-Know-ebook/dp/...

davidivadavid 10y ago

What I'm curious to see is if anyone is going to take the opposite end of that bet: Facebook's "openness"/"World is flat"/"End of history" vs. decentralized, tribal, anonymized, balkanized social networks. As Facebook keeps accumulating users, and as users accumulate "friends", the SNR decreases and makes the product experience less valuable, notwithstanding the efforts they make to "optimize" the feed. Mine is mostly filled with things I'd rather never see. Facebook is a social network that mostly reproduces geographic social networks, but that doesn't connect people based on affinities. The people discovery mechanism is close to non-existent. People in your Facebook neighbourhood are people who most likely live in your current, past, or "work" neighbourhood. Are there any social networks that try to dynamically create communities/"neighbourhoods" based on behavior? (e.g. upvote a post and you get "closer" to the poster, with symmetric behavior for downvoting, and second order effects propagating to other users based on their own upvote/downvote of said post). Apologies if that's too vague, I'm thinking out loud here.

sheac 10y ago
The only systems that readily comes to mind is Reddit. It's amazing how you can wind up on a subreddit and realise that you're nowhere near the bottom of the rabbit hole that you've been calling a hobby for the past n years. I don't know if this qualifies for what you're after, though, because these communities are: * based on users actively seeking out forums based on what they consider themselves to be interested in, and * each community is centred around a single topic. There might be a subreddit for people who love Fraggles and a subreddit for people who love pop-tarts, but no subreddit for people who love both Fraggles and pop-tarts.
- davidivadavid 10y ago
  Reddit does have the affinity thing, but as you point out, it's not nearly as granular as it could be.