6 ms·

Is it a problem? If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? It might not be the original intent, or the hopes of some (and only so

by ysavir 10y ago

Is it a problem? If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? It might not be the original intent, or the hopes of some (and only some), but if people are content with this outcome, there's little debate to be had. The question presented here, though, is whether or not allowing Facebook to monopolize the industry is a threat to society. Services provided are irrelevant. This is a matter of centralization.

zardo 10y ago
>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Don't mistake addiction for contentment. How many of those people would like to be doing something else, but just can't pull themselves away from the slot machine?
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  and how many people tell themselves they'd like to do something else (say, learn a language or instrument) as a form of ego-protection because it's "what sophisticated people do"? The underlying assumption that we should all want to learn Latin and to play the Cello seems to have been roundly invalidated, despite continuing to be played out in the public sphere.
  - always_good 10y ago
    Probably not very many people tell themselves that. Seems more like something cynical and judgmental people assume other people tell themselves. But I can tell you almost anything creative / productive / self-developmental feels more rewarding than the time I fritter away doing nothing on the internet, like idly scrolling Reddit. I'm not content that my default mode is to do things that never feel rewarding. So any minute I can reclaim for something more self-developmental, like a Duolingo Spanish exercise, makes my life a little better and satisfying in my own eyes.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      But _why_ do you want to learn Spanish? Is it because you are planning an extended stay in a Spanish-speaking country, or have Spanish-speaking friends, or is it because you have a romantic conception of multilingualism? My point was that people often seem to romanticise fairly arbitrary personal development goals as being a lofty intent, but when push comes to shove you'll find them in front of the TV or playing a game. What does that say about our internal reward system and the value of forcing yourself to do something that you tell yourself you'll enjoy over something you genuinely enjoy? The idea that entertainment is a "lower pursuit" and learning arbitrary skills is a "higher pursuit" smacks of social construction.
      - externalities88 10y ago
        Whaaat! Social species make social constructs! Get out. Is having a romanticized idea as a motivation wrong? We're humans, not robots. Well, maybe you are; it's the Internet. You undermine your point with the tone deaf point of "social construction". Anything humans take on collectively is a social construct. Ideally as many voices as possible are considered when they are designed. But our social constructs today don't allow this. How much of "sit in front of $GADGET not learning Spanish" is due to the social construct of having no vacation time. Or having to work constantly to afford the basics, forget paying for Spanish. Suggesting there be a limit on who experiences what is also a social construct. Cause reality imposes no such limit. Our society does. It's a social construct to have 200 diff companies doing data analytics. When those problems can be handled by one group of 200. Suggesting arbitrary limits on social constructs is ridiculous. Because you don't agree with one is not basis enough to suggest it not be a thing
      - PKop 10y ago
        Could you substitute "eating healthy" and "exercise" into this line of thinking? Or other alternatives that you yourself might agree are "better" while maybe being difficult to choose to do, and not as "enjoyable" as some less ideal alternative action? That something is "enjoyable" in the short-term does not mean that it is beneficial in the long term. Doing drugs, getting high, gambling, any other short-term dopamine hit is easy, and feels good in the moment, yet can pretty easily be characterized as bad in the long term, and objectively worse than alternative actions that in the short term are not as pleasurable and enjoyable. I use obviously extreme examples to illustrate the logic. Figuring out which pursuits and behaviors fit into which bucket certainly is not quite so straight forward. But I think the OP you are responding to has something right when they describe it challenging to escape the easy/addictive and replace it with the difficult/beneficial. If you only characterized exercise as "practicing picking up a heavy weight and putting it over there. Why do you need to do this? etc." then certainly the benefits can seem ridiculous. That there is no direct practical need to learn Spanish, doesn't mean learning to speak it doesn't garner ancillary benefits.
Pokepokalypse 10y ago
>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Because that happiness is an illusion. One that prevents them from seeing the seriousness of their situation. Whether it's texting-and-driving, or climate-change-denial. This "tool" is going to do us more harm than good.
- ysavir 10y ago
  Can you qualify that real quick by providing evidence that you are more capable than others at identifying degrees of reality vs illusion in activities?
adrianN 10y ago
Children are generally not happy at school, yet we force them to attend.
- afsina 10y ago
  It is mandatory. Maybe they don't need that much schooling.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    what is "needed" seems more like a post-facto rationalization for each individual. everyone's future is uncertain. extra education generally provides more options and flexibility, while the same doesn't really apply to a more limited education.
- no_wizard 10y ago
  I think that says more about how we run our school systems than the schooling kids being a problem. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-sc... Great example of this.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Engineers who have identified a systemic risk to society. Couldn't your argument apply all the same to heroin?
- pmalynin 10y ago
  And why shouldn't it?
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    You seem to be suggesting that a heroin epidemic would be in no way problematic and that no one should take any steps against it.
- none_for_me_thx 10y ago
  I believe the word you're looking for is technocrats.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> Is it a problem? If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? If people are happy doing heroin all day, who are we to challenge them?
- ysavir 10y ago
  I mean, if you really want to take it to that extreme, why is the argument against facebook videogames and not videogame culture as a whole? Seems like in this case, Facebook is just a scapegoat.
  - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
    I think most of those who've responded to you recognize the argument is against Facebook, videogames, tv, etc and in general all vapid time sucks designed to keep the user in an unenlightened state
    - ysavir 10y ago
      I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of the responses were in the same vein as "look at these mindless sheep who can't lift their heads from their phones".
  - erdevs 10y ago
    I completely disagree that videogames are bad (in moderation, of course, as all things). Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement. Compare this to other forms of entertainment media and games look good. There are vapid videogames on mobile and social which are little more than slot machines, but that doesn't mean all or most games are fruitless wastes of time. And even in mobile, if you get deeply into many of the top performing games, there is a lot of thinking and strategy involved. It's far from idle, passive, worthless entertainment. What's more, games often help people connect to others, sometimes from around the world, in a shared interest. For people who are socially stressed or are going through a rough time without enough support in real life, this can be extremely helpful. And even for those who have plenty of social life, it's often fun to meet people in game.
rustynails 10y ago
Excellent point about centralisation. I can't help but feel many people either misunderstood or didn't read the article. In my view, the power Zuckerberg wields is staggering, although I've seen many postings here with contrasting views on that level of power. The article is excellent. It's well structured and insightful. It also leads us to ask excellent questions and provides relevant content to mull over. As an example, Zuckerberg's message was fascinating in what it didn't say. My superficial value add to truthhawk's article is as follows. 1. How much sway does Facebook actually have? Do most people seek information outside of Facebook? If they hear/see something enough, does it become truth? 2. Would Zuckerberg want to be president? I've always viewed the President as being a servant to power brokers behind the scenes. Wouldn't Zuckerberg have more influence by striking deals with potential candidates and hold leverage through Facebook profile analysis? Does Zuckerberg have the power to be more than a president? 3. Does anyone actually have the power to take on Facebook? Might that person be subjected to extra criticism (eg. during the next election) if they don't play ball? 4. Facebook exists and it is particularly powerful. If you were to decentralise the leadership (as discussed by truthhawk), would that add benefit? How? I see potential for a fragmented committee, or worse. Could Zuckerberg be like Jobs was to Apple? 5. Long term, assuming Facebook and Zuckerberg survive the test of time, who takes over? What sort of people would gravitate to that role? What might that mean for this wealth of information on many citizens of the world? Even if Zuckerberg is a benevolent dictator, the potential vacuum of power that will be created horrifies me, especially thinking about the personalities that may fight for it. I don't believe Facebook will disappear any time soon. There are serious questions around Facebook that we desperately need to consider. This article is excellent as it helps focus us on this goal. This is why I (mostly) love HN. It really makes me think about the world around me in so many interesting and meaningful ways. I may have given up on MSM and once-brilliant sites like Ars Technica (who now thrust biased gender and governmental politics down our throats). I hope HN can keep its secret sauce flowing. Thanks truthhawk
- TruthHawk 10y ago
  Thank you, rustynails! Happy to see the post prompting thought. Great questions, and ones we will have to keep an eye on in the coming months/years. Side note: the user who submitted this to HN is an Ars Technica co-founder!

by ysavir 10y ago

zardo 10y ago

>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Don't mistake addiction for contentment. How many of those people would like to be doing something else, but just can't pull themselves away from the slot machine?

beaconstudios 10y ago
and how many people tell themselves they'd like to do something else (say, learn a language or instrument) as a form of ego-protection because it's "what sophisticated people do"? The underlying assumption that we should all want to learn Latin and to play the Cello seems to have been roundly invalidated, despite continuing to be played out in the public sphere.
- always_good 10y ago
  Probably not very many people tell themselves that. Seems more like something cynical and judgmental people assume other people tell themselves. But I can tell you almost anything creative / productive / self-developmental feels more rewarding than the time I fritter away doing nothing on the internet, like idly scrolling Reddit. I'm not content that my default mode is to do things that never feel rewarding. So any minute I can reclaim for something more self-developmental, like a Duolingo Spanish exercise, makes my life a little better and satisfying in my own eyes.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    But _why_ do you want to learn Spanish? Is it because you are planning an extended stay in a Spanish-speaking country, or have Spanish-speaking friends, or is it because you have a romantic conception of multilingualism? My point was that people often seem to romanticise fairly arbitrary personal development goals as being a lofty intent, but when push comes to shove you'll find them in front of the TV or playing a game. What does that say about our internal reward system and the value of forcing yourself to do something that you tell yourself you'll enjoy over something you genuinely enjoy? The idea that entertainment is a "lower pursuit" and learning arbitrary skills is a "higher pursuit" smacks of social construction.
    - externalities88 10y ago
      Whaaat! Social species make social constructs! Get out. Is having a romanticized idea as a motivation wrong? We're humans, not robots. Well, maybe you are; it's the Internet. You undermine your point with the tone deaf point of "social construction". Anything humans take on collectively is a social construct. Ideally as many voices as possible are considered when they are designed. But our social constructs today don't allow this. How much of "sit in front of $GADGET not learning Spanish" is due to the social construct of having no vacation time. Or having to work constantly to afford the basics, forget paying for Spanish. Suggesting there be a limit on who experiences what is also a social construct. Cause reality imposes no such limit. Our society does. It's a social construct to have 200 diff companies doing data analytics. When those problems can be handled by one group of 200. Suggesting arbitrary limits on social constructs is ridiculous. Because you don't agree with one is not basis enough to suggest it not be a thing
    - PKop 10y ago
      Could you substitute "eating healthy" and "exercise" into this line of thinking? Or other alternatives that you yourself might agree are "better" while maybe being difficult to choose to do, and not as "enjoyable" as some less ideal alternative action? That something is "enjoyable" in the short-term does not mean that it is beneficial in the long term. Doing drugs, getting high, gambling, any other short-term dopamine hit is easy, and feels good in the moment, yet can pretty easily be characterized as bad in the long term, and objectively worse than alternative actions that in the short term are not as pleasurable and enjoyable. I use obviously extreme examples to illustrate the logic. Figuring out which pursuits and behaviors fit into which bucket certainly is not quite so straight forward. But I think the OP you are responding to has something right when they describe it challenging to escape the easy/addictive and replace it with the difficult/beneficial. If you only characterized exercise as "practicing picking up a heavy weight and putting it over there. Why do you need to do this? etc." then certainly the benefits can seem ridiculous. That there is no direct practical need to learn Spanish, doesn't mean learning to speak it doesn't garner ancillary benefits.

Pokepokalypse 10y ago

>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Because that happiness is an illusion. One that prevents them from seeing the seriousness of their situation. Whether it's texting-and-driving, or climate-change-denial. This "tool" is going to do us more harm than good.

ysavir 10y ago
Can you qualify that real quick by providing evidence that you are more capable than others at identifying degrees of reality vs illusion in activities?

adrianN 10y ago

Children are generally not happy at school, yet we force them to attend.

afsina 10y ago
It is mandatory. Maybe they don't need that much schooling.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  what is "needed" seems more like a post-facto rationalization for each individual. everyone's future is uncertain. extra education generally provides more options and flexibility, while the same doesn't really apply to a more limited education.
no_wizard 10y ago
I think that says more about how we run our school systems than the schooling kids being a problem. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-sc... Great example of this.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? Engineers who have identified a systemic risk to society. Couldn't your argument apply all the same to heroin?

pmalynin 10y ago
And why shouldn't it?
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  You seem to be suggesting that a heroin epidemic would be in no way problematic and that no one should take any steps against it.
none_for_me_thx 10y ago
I believe the word you're looking for is technocrats.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> Is it a problem? If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? If people are happy doing heroin all day, who are we to challenge them?

ysavir 10y ago
I mean, if you really want to take it to that extreme, why is the argument against facebook videogames and not videogame culture as a whole? Seems like in this case, Facebook is just a scapegoat.
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  I think most of those who've responded to you recognize the argument is against Facebook, videogames, tv, etc and in general all vapid time sucks designed to keep the user in an unenlightened state
  - ysavir 10y ago
    I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of the responses were in the same vein as "look at these mindless sheep who can't lift their heads from their phones".
- erdevs 10y ago
  I completely disagree that videogames are bad (in moderation, of course, as all things). Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement. Compare this to other forms of entertainment media and games look good. There are vapid videogames on mobile and social which are little more than slot machines, but that doesn't mean all or most games are fruitless wastes of time. And even in mobile, if you get deeply into many of the top performing games, there is a lot of thinking and strategy involved. It's far from idle, passive, worthless entertainment. What's more, games often help people connect to others, sometimes from around the world, in a shared interest. For people who are socially stressed or are going through a rough time without enough support in real life, this can be extremely helpful. And even for those who have plenty of social life, it's often fun to meet people in game.

rustynails 10y ago

Excellent point about centralisation. I can't help but feel many people either misunderstood or didn't read the article. In my view, the power Zuckerberg wields is staggering, although I've seen many postings here with contrasting views on that level of power. The article is excellent. It's well structured and insightful. It also leads us to ask excellent questions and provides relevant content to mull over. As an example, Zuckerberg's message was fascinating in what it didn't say. My superficial value add to truthhawk's article is as follows. 1. How much sway does Facebook actually have? Do most people seek information outside of Facebook? If they hear/see something enough, does it become truth? 2. Would Zuckerberg want to be president? I've always viewed the President as being a servant to power brokers behind the scenes. Wouldn't Zuckerberg have more influence by striking deals with potential candidates and hold leverage through Facebook profile analysis? Does Zuckerberg have the power to be more than a president? 3. Does anyone actually have the power to take on Facebook? Might that person be subjected to extra criticism (eg. during the next election) if they don't play ball? 4. Facebook exists and it is particularly powerful. If you were to decentralise the leadership (as discussed by truthhawk), would that add benefit? How? I see potential for a fragmented committee, or worse. Could Zuckerberg be like Jobs was to Apple? 5. Long term, assuming Facebook and Zuckerberg survive the test of time, who takes over? What sort of people would gravitate to that role? What might that mean for this wealth of information on many citizens of the world? Even if Zuckerberg is a benevolent dictator, the potential vacuum of power that will be created horrifies me, especially thinking about the personalities that may fight for it. I don't believe Facebook will disappear any time soon. There are serious questions around Facebook that we desperately need to consider. This article is excellent as it helps focus us on this goal. This is why I (mostly) love HN. It really makes me think about the world around me in so many interesting and meaningful ways. I may have given up on MSM and once-brilliant sites like Ars Technica (who now thrust biased gender and governmental politics down our throats). I hope HN can keep its secret sauce flowing. Thanks truthhawk

TruthHawk 10y ago
Thank you, rustynails! Happy to see the post prompting thought. Great questions, and ones we will have to keep an eye on in the coming months/years. Side note: the user who submitted this to HN is an Ars Technica co-founder!