7 ms·

Just get off facebook.

ue_ 9y ago
I wonder if this will be seen as when people say "Just stop using drugs" to drug addicts. Facebook for those who use it can have immense real or imaginary utility; it's not as simple as telling someone not to use it, unless they are a very casual user and do not rely on it for things like organising group events.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Stopping the use of Facebook and transitioning to another method of organizing group events does not cause physical illness or death.
  - kfrzcode 9y ago
    You're pigeonholing. Facebook is only part of the tapestry of social media poison.
    - crispyambulance 9y ago
      You're right but I still wonder what will ever become of the idea of a "true" online social network. Why do we have to hand over so much of ourselves in order to obtain social connection as a "side-effect" of the true business of social media operators like Facebook and Google? Are these companies the only way to have meaningful online social networks? I don't think it has to be that way, but I also can't fathom how a non-toxic social network can keep the lights on without selling stuff.
      - kfrzcode 9y ago
        I see the big 4 as robber barons[1]. They see opportunity in millions and billions of dollars. The company doesn't care about the individual. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        Of course they don't care about people. The social network that the members enjoy is merely a side-effect of the true business. Sort of like the fact that a cow pasture is not really about the cows' enjoyment but, when you get down to it, hamburgers. Amazingly most people are still as oblivious to this concept as cows are before becoming hamburgers. What I am wondering about is the possibility of a social network that is deliberately and intentionally about being JUST a social network and NOT some kind of complex mechanism for market research and exploitation.
        kfrzcode 9y ago
        I think the obstacle there is momentum and critical mass. Nobody uses askjeeves.com because Google has mindshare. If you were to build this hypothetical pure social media communication platform we'd still have to find it, it'd have to be funded, maintained, and improved. Even then it's useful only if you can get your network on it. Money is the root of all evil and will pervade into whatever is next. It's only human nature. You can see examples of this with https://diasporafoundation.org/ https://diasporafoundation.org/ and https://gab.ai/ https://gab.ai/ -> these platforms and ideas exist but they have a raindrop in a bucket of usershare. I'm not an expert in this field but I think about it a lot. Thanks for discussion, HN.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        Maybe we're all thinking about this in a way that's too constrained? The theoretical dream of cyberspace, back in the 60-80's, before "the web" (as we know it) was that merely being "online" automatically put you in a global community: a place where distance no longer mattered, and where _all_ text is part of one giant hypertext. This was roughly the idea as described by Ted Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson). I think there's a way for this theoretical concept to be realized without dependence on exploitative commerce-oriented websites, and perhaps, without dependence on websites period. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that will be like in reality.
        bridge_ro 9y ago
    - pc86 9y ago
      Honestly, the sooner we can have a real discussion of the pros and cons of using Facebook and not using Facebook while everyone else around you continues, without ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit like "social media poison," the better.
  - lazer_beam 9y ago
    Neither does stopping gambling.
  - harveywi 9y ago
    Gambling can be an addiction, but does not result in physical illness or death upon termination. Still, it can be highly addictive. Same goes for Facebook.
  - waisbrot 9y ago
    You're thinking of physical dependency. Addiction is compulsive behavior despite adverse consequences.
  - dTal 9y ago
    Neither does the cessation of many addictive drugs, notably nicotine.
- Knufen 9y ago
  Some people are probably addicted to facebook, but for the vast majority I don't think your comparison is very good. In almost all cases you can switch to something different than facebook.
  - striking 9y ago
    If all your friends are on Facebook: no, you really can't.
    - Knufen 9y ago
      Yes you can, I have friends whom for various reason don't have a Facebook or stopped using it/deleted it. People will adjust and instead we contact them by mail or phone. Perhaps it's a bit of a annoyance, but you are not kept prisoner.
      - amelius 9y ago
        I often get invited to events through Facebook. Without Facebook, I would miss out on a lot of events. For this reason I'm basically stuck with Facebook, but I've unfollowed most of my friends, so this reduces the burden to some extent.
        noncoml 9y ago
        Are we talking about friends or acquaintances? Because if ones friends forget to invite them to events because they are not on FB, then it’s time to find new friends.
        dTal 9y ago
        While I tend to agree, it's a little like telling someone to just "find a better job"; it's not always so easy. Maybe some people are unfortunate enough to not have real friends, and shallow Facebook connections are all they have. Even though the shallow connections take up time that could be spent forging more meaningful connections with those around them, not everyone is self-confident enough to go cold-turkey.
- moretai 9y ago
  No it's pretty simple.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
blfr 9y ago
Yes. I'm getting tired of these articles complaining about Facebook when you can stop using it literally any minute. Also, Grauniad is a terrible source of tech news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497
- ReverseCold 9y ago
  You can, your friends/family won't, then you can be indirectly tracked.
  - philipov 9y ago
    Anyone who's not on Facebook has demonstrated their antisocial tendencies and needs to be even more carefully monitored.
- Y_Y 9y ago
  This is an excerpt from a book. And it's not that the author dislikes having to use Facebook, but rather it's complex and nefarious interaction with society and the behaviours of its many willing users that is being decried. I'm all for grumbling, but I think a more specific directed kind of grumbling is appropriate for these comments.
- zebrafish 9y ago
  The point is not about "you" the HN reader, or you the poster, or me. The point is about all of the millions of users who are unaware, haven't read this article, are tech-illiterate, don't understand the psychology, etc. You and I are completely insignificant in the face of this horde of people who are becoming increasingly vulnerable to subtle manipulation. That's the point of this article. A rising tide lifts all boats. We're past the point where telling people to stop using the services would have any measurable effect.
  - gggdvnkhmbgjvbn 9y ago
    I agree but wish the article was better written. This is for a general audience address those readers dont need huge digressions into zucks well known personal life, nor the etymology of the term algorithm and hacker.
jasonmaydie 9y ago
Just like we stopped using AOL, myspace, yahoo and napster, facebook will go the way of the dodo sooner or later. People have short term memories. If there's one thing true of the internet, it's that everything slides into obsolesce at some point.. gopher, FTP, icq, geocities, irc and a long list of one massive sites and technologies that are now dead.
- graphitezepp 9y ago
  Idk about that. I used to say that, and some days still do, but Facebook is pretty exceptional in scope and how normalized it is.
  - ryanb23 9y ago
    It will eventually become something else or be replaced, but that may take awhile.
josefresco 9y ago
While it was "easy" for me to drop Facebook, I realize that for others it's harder. And not because "it's addicting" but rather for practical reasons. My wife, who is still on Facebook uses it as a tool to coordinate social events, message teachers, stay in touch with family and even ask useful questions to specific groups. You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms, unless you want to A) piss people off and B) reduce your socialization dramatically. If I didn't have her, I'd probably be forced to be on Facebook, if only to support my kids social activities, and stay in touch with my immediate family. Some content shared on Facebook still annoys her - stay-at-home moms posting about their purchases and political posts are her least favorite - but I have those same issues on Twitter and remain because she and I derive value from the service(s) despite this.
- MrZongle2 9y ago
  "You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms..." Isn't that what many people and groups on Facebook have done? Why feed that mentality? People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with, as that signals that they don't think you're worth the extra effort. Email and telephone are still quite valid and effective means of communication.
  - josefresco 9y ago
    It's not that they force you to use Facebook, you find that it's simply the most optimal way to communicate - to use Mark's own words it's "friction-less". Some people you will text, call, email and no response - message them on FB and bam, instant reply. I realize that's pretty f*cked up but it's useless to scold or hound them to respond to your other inquiries. "People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with" Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh.
    - MrZongle2 9y ago
      "Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh." True. But I think Facebook's usefulness is outweighed by its disadvantages. It's an ever-watching anxiety machine: look at this latest atrocious news story, react to the asinine post an acquaintance has made about their life, respond to this event, post more because you haven't in a little while, watch this video about somebody having a life better than yours (or somebody having a horrible time, which may also happen to you, so watch out!), share your contact information for others so we may increase the webbing to keep you in our walled garden! It's a need machine. It's the worst enabler-friend. It's not in a symbiotic relationship with you; it's parasitic. And IMO Facebook doesn't improve ones life; it merely facilitates using Facebook more and more often to do things that otherwise we either wouldn't do or wouldn't consider a real hassle.

ue_ 9y ago

I wonder if this will be seen as when people say "Just stop using drugs" to drug addicts. Facebook for those who use it can have immense real or imaginary utility; it's not as simple as telling someone not to use it, unless they are a very casual user and do not rely on it for things like organising group events.

ameister14 9y ago
Stopping the use of Facebook and transitioning to another method of organizing group events does not cause physical illness or death.
- kfrzcode 9y ago
  You're pigeonholing. Facebook is only part of the tapestry of social media poison.
  - crispyambulance 9y ago
    You're right but I still wonder what will ever become of the idea of a "true" online social network. Why do we have to hand over so much of ourselves in order to obtain social connection as a "side-effect" of the true business of social media operators like Facebook and Google? Are these companies the only way to have meaningful online social networks? I don't think it has to be that way, but I also can't fathom how a non-toxic social network can keep the lights on without selling stuff.
    - kfrzcode 9y ago
      I see the big 4 as robber barons[1]. They see opportunity in millions and billions of dollars. The company doesn't care about the individual. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
      - crispyambulance 9y ago
        Of course they don't care about people. The social network that the members enjoy is merely a side-effect of the true business. Sort of like the fact that a cow pasture is not really about the cows' enjoyment but, when you get down to it, hamburgers. Amazingly most people are still as oblivious to this concept as cows are before becoming hamburgers. What I am wondering about is the possibility of a social network that is deliberately and intentionally about being JUST a social network and NOT some kind of complex mechanism for market research and exploitation.
        kfrzcode 9y ago
        I think the obstacle there is momentum and critical mass. Nobody uses askjeeves.com because Google has mindshare. If you were to build this hypothetical pure social media communication platform we'd still have to find it, it'd have to be funded, maintained, and improved. Even then it's useful only if you can get your network on it. Money is the root of all evil and will pervade into whatever is next. It's only human nature. You can see examples of this with https://diasporafoundation.org/ https://diasporafoundation.org/ and https://gab.ai/ https://gab.ai/ -> these platforms and ideas exist but they have a raindrop in a bucket of usershare. I'm not an expert in this field but I think about it a lot. Thanks for discussion, HN.
        crispyambulance 9y ago
        Maybe we're all thinking about this in a way that's too constrained? The theoretical dream of cyberspace, back in the 60-80's, before "the web" (as we know it) was that merely being "online" automatically put you in a global community: a place where distance no longer mattered, and where _all_ text is part of one giant hypertext. This was roughly the idea as described by Ted Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson). I think there's a way for this theoretical concept to be realized without dependence on exploitative commerce-oriented websites, and perhaps, without dependence on websites period. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that will be like in reality.
        bridge_ro 9y ago
  - pc86 9y ago
    Honestly, the sooner we can have a real discussion of the pros and cons of using Facebook and not using Facebook while everyone else around you continues, without ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit like "social media poison," the better.
- lazer_beam 9y ago
  Neither does stopping gambling.
- harveywi 9y ago
  Gambling can be an addiction, but does not result in physical illness or death upon termination. Still, it can be highly addictive. Same goes for Facebook.
- waisbrot 9y ago
  You're thinking of physical dependency. Addiction is compulsive behavior despite adverse consequences.
- dTal 9y ago
  Neither does the cessation of many addictive drugs, notably nicotine.
Knufen 9y ago
Some people are probably addicted to facebook, but for the vast majority I don't think your comparison is very good. In almost all cases you can switch to something different than facebook.
- striking 9y ago
  If all your friends are on Facebook: no, you really can't.
  - Knufen 9y ago
    Yes you can, I have friends whom for various reason don't have a Facebook or stopped using it/deleted it. People will adjust and instead we contact them by mail or phone. Perhaps it's a bit of a annoyance, but you are not kept prisoner.
    - amelius 9y ago
      I often get invited to events through Facebook. Without Facebook, I would miss out on a lot of events. For this reason I'm basically stuck with Facebook, but I've unfollowed most of my friends, so this reduces the burden to some extent.
      - noncoml 9y ago
        Are we talking about friends or acquaintances? Because if ones friends forget to invite them to events because they are not on FB, then it’s time to find new friends.
        dTal 9y ago
        While I tend to agree, it's a little like telling someone to just "find a better job"; it's not always so easy. Maybe some people are unfortunate enough to not have real friends, and shallow Facebook connections are all they have. Even though the shallow connections take up time that could be spent forging more meaningful connections with those around them, not everyone is self-confident enough to go cold-turkey.
moretai 9y ago
No it's pretty simple.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

blfr 9y ago

Yes. I'm getting tired of these articles complaining about Facebook when you can stop using it literally any minute. Also, Grauniad is a terrible source of tech news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497

ReverseCold 9y ago
You can, your friends/family won't, then you can be indirectly tracked.
- philipov 9y ago
  Anyone who's not on Facebook has demonstrated their antisocial tendencies and needs to be even more carefully monitored.
Y_Y 9y ago
This is an excerpt from a book. And it's not that the author dislikes having to use Facebook, but rather it's complex and nefarious interaction with society and the behaviours of its many willing users that is being decried. I'm all for grumbling, but I think a more specific directed kind of grumbling is appropriate for these comments.
zebrafish 9y ago
The point is not about "you" the HN reader, or you the poster, or me. The point is about all of the millions of users who are unaware, haven't read this article, are tech-illiterate, don't understand the psychology, etc. You and I are completely insignificant in the face of this horde of people who are becoming increasingly vulnerable to subtle manipulation. That's the point of this article. A rising tide lifts all boats. We're past the point where telling people to stop using the services would have any measurable effect.
- gggdvnkhmbgjvbn 9y ago
  I agree but wish the article was better written. This is for a general audience address those readers dont need huge digressions into zucks well known personal life, nor the etymology of the term algorithm and hacker.

jasonmaydie 9y ago

Just like we stopped using AOL, myspace, yahoo and napster, facebook will go the way of the dodo sooner or later. People have short term memories. If there's one thing true of the internet, it's that everything slides into obsolesce at some point.. gopher, FTP, icq, geocities, irc and a long list of one massive sites and technologies that are now dead.

graphitezepp 9y ago
Idk about that. I used to say that, and some days still do, but Facebook is pretty exceptional in scope and how normalized it is.
- ryanb23 9y ago
  It will eventually become something else or be replaced, but that may take awhile.

josefresco 9y ago

While it was "easy" for me to drop Facebook, I realize that for others it's harder. And not because "it's addicting" but rather for practical reasons. My wife, who is still on Facebook uses it as a tool to coordinate social events, message teachers, stay in touch with family and even ask useful questions to specific groups. You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms, unless you want to A) piss people off and B) reduce your socialization dramatically. If I didn't have her, I'd probably be forced to be on Facebook, if only to support my kids social activities, and stay in touch with my immediate family. Some content shared on Facebook still annoys her - stay-at-home moms posting about their purchases and political posts are her least favorite - but I have those same issues on Twitter and remain because she and I derive value from the service(s) despite this.

MrZongle2 9y ago
"You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms..." Isn't that what many people and groups on Facebook have done? Why feed that mentality? People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with, as that signals that they don't think you're worth the extra effort. Email and telephone are still quite valid and effective means of communication.
- josefresco 9y ago
  It's not that they force you to use Facebook, you find that it's simply the most optimal way to communicate - to use Mark's own words it's "friction-less". Some people you will text, call, email and no response - message them on FB and bam, instant reply. I realize that's pretty f*cked up but it's useless to scold or hound them to respond to your other inquiries. "People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with" Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh.
  - MrZongle2 9y ago
    "Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh." True. But I think Facebook's usefulness is outweighed by its disadvantages. It's an ever-watching anxiety machine: look at this latest atrocious news story, react to the asinine post an acquaintance has made about their life, respond to this event, post more because you haven't in a little while, watch this video about somebody having a life better than yours (or somebody having a horrible time, which may also happen to you, so watch out!), share your contact information for others so we may increase the webbing to keep you in our walled garden! It's a need machine. It's the worst enabler-friend. It's not in a symbiotic relationship with you; it's parasitic. And IMO Facebook doesn't improve ones life; it merely facilitates using Facebook more and more often to do things that otherwise we either wouldn't do or wouldn't consider a real hassle.