4 ms·
Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their o
by kelvin0 10y ago
Actually the manifesto should be written with current FB users in mind, and how their use of the platform is (over?)empowering a select few into driving their own agenda.
Mark Zuckerberg and others like him do what they do best, it's up to the 'masses' to develop critical thinking about their everyday actions and impacts. It's easy to blame the Emperor, much more difficult to admit our part in putting him into power.
- bresc 10y agoIt's not up to the masses. There is so much going on in the world, that it became impossible to deal with everything and have an opinion on everything. So it's actually up to a as large and diverse group as possible, to oppose movements like this. Which ultimately results in just a few making decisions for the masses. You can try to solve this problem before or just demand that the once/few in charge right now do the right thing. But it's not up to the masses and it has never been.
- kelvin0 10y agoIf everyone stopped using FB (not saying they should), what do you think would happen? As individuals we have a choice in certain actions and their impacts. I agree with you that having an opinion on everything and boycotting this and that can lead down a rabbit hole ... but we did bring this upon 'ourselves'. (I am not a FB user, but I do respect peoples use of it)
- eropple 10y agoIf "everyone" did something, we'd have all the unicorn hides we could ever want. Expecting "everyone" to do anything is silly and is frequently used--not saying you are, but it's a thing that happens--to delegitimize concerns by whatabouting them to death.
- kelvin0 10y agoOK, here's my last stab at making this small point: The only reason FB is successful is because 'we' CHOOSE to use it. No one is coercing FB users physically into it's usage. Thus, once we acknowledge this simple fact, we can also CHOOSE not to use it anymore. That's the core of my point I tried to make originally. Thanks for your patience and feedback.
- eropple 10y agoI understood your point. You were not unclear. You're just not talking about anything meaningful. That we can "choose" to do something is irrelevant when the choice is not impactful. You aren't turning two billion people. You aren't going to make them choose. If a million people left Facebook tomorrow, Facebook would not notice nor be materially weakened. Your "choice" is noise. And the harping on that choice is, by people much more malicious than you, designed to disempower movements to rein in organizations like Facebook, because--hey, people can just not use it. (Even though choosing to not use it doesn't do anything.) You're providing cover for a narrative that wants to hurt you.
- kelvin0 10y agoGlad to see my point was clear, so I guess we agree to disagree. In the meantime, I choose (and have done so ever since it first launched) to not use such platforms as FB.
- devoply 10y agoMasses don't do anything. If you want to do something you need a different set of elite with a different set of ideas and/or ideology. That usually leads to conflict and wars though. So be warned. But we do I think need a different way to run society in an automated world rather than strap on the new technological reality to the old paradigm of shareholders and owners of capital who get people to work. We honestly will soon not need owners of capital/shareholders.