5 ms·

Most of what the article complains about can be solved with an ad blocker. The rest by staying off of Facebook.

anigbrowl 9y ago
Staying off Facebook means committing social semi-suicide for a lot of people. It's the primary channel for my local community, contacting local elected representatives, family members in distant places, and several sociopolitical communities of which I'm a part. For many people it's a necessity, and other channels like email etc. are far less efficient precisely because they don't leverage the networking effects. This advise is like telling someone who's worried about toxins in their food to eat less of it.
- OJFord 9y ago
  > It's the primary channel for my local community, contacting local elected representatives, Which should be recognised as madness in itself. Hopefully you're mistaken, and it's merely one such channel.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    'Primary' implies at least a secondary, not a unity. My local councilmember tends to respond within minutes or hours to community concerns raised through Facebook, vsa day or longer via email. Given the democratic nature of the position, being speedily accessible/accountable via social media seems entirely appropriate, not to mention efficient. I don't like that the dominant social media platform is a privately owned commercial operation, but absent an accessible federated open source social media tool with significant network effects, that's what we've got.
    - OJFord 9y ago
      Yes, I think Facebook being the primary channel - however many others there are - is mad.
- quesera 9y ago
  > This advise is like telling someone who's worried about toxins in their food to eat less of it. Which, depending on toxicity, is exactly appropriate. You're arguing that there are no options, but that's clearly not correct.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    No it isn't. The appropriate response is to maintain quality of supply, not to passively accept the existence of substandard food. I am not arguing that there are no options, and I don't know what point you aimed to make by suggesting that.

Staying off Facebook means committing social semi-suicide for a lot of people. It's the primary channel for my local community, contacting local elected representatives, family members in distant places, and several sociopolitical communities of which I'm a part. For many people it's a necessity, and other channels like email etc. are far less efficient precisely because they don't leverage the networking effects. This advise is like telling someone who's worried about toxins in their food to eat less of it.

OJFord 9y ago
> It's the primary channel for my local community, contacting local elected representatives, Which should be recognised as madness in itself. Hopefully you're mistaken, and it's merely one such channel.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  'Primary' implies at least a secondary, not a unity. My local councilmember tends to respond within minutes or hours to community concerns raised through Facebook, vsa day or longer via email. Given the democratic nature of the position, being speedily accessible/accountable via social media seems entirely appropriate, not to mention efficient. I don't like that the dominant social media platform is a privately owned commercial operation, but absent an accessible federated open source social media tool with significant network effects, that's what we've got.
  - OJFord 9y ago
    Yes, I think Facebook being the primary channel - however many others there are - is mad.
quesera 9y ago
> This advise is like telling someone who's worried about toxins in their food to eat less of it. Which, depending on toxicity, is exactly appropriate. You're arguing that there are no options, but that's clearly not correct.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No it isn't. The appropriate response is to maintain quality of supply, not to passively accept the existence of substandard food. I am not arguing that there are no options, and I don't know what point you aimed to make by suggesting that.