4 ms·

Okay, but do we really need a "future Facebook"? Are innovation and creativity in social media really something the world will suffer for a lack of? In any cas

Okay, but do we really need a "future Facebook"? Are innovation and creativity in social media really something the world will suffer for a lack of? In any case, the next big thing is usually not just a better version of the last big thing.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Of course we do. >1 billion people shouldn't have their lives dictated by a proprietary, opaque Skinner's box with no regard for privacy or rights.
- gwatch 9y ago
  No one is forced to use Facebook. Where is the coercion? On the other hand you want to you government as a bludgeon against a private company engaged in consensual transactions with private individuals, causing no harm to third parties.
- 659087 9y ago
  What we need to fix that is more of a future "not Facebook", though.
- wskinner 9y ago
  Then they shouldn't use the proprietary, opaque Skinner box. :) It's not like they have a gun to their heads.
  - whyever 9y ago
    It's not so easy. You might have to give up a big part of your social life, depending on how much of it happens via the box.
  - marcusestes 9y ago
    Neither did the rats.
  - bearmobius 9y ago
    Some thoughts about the "no one's forcing you to use it" arguments (of which I'm also partial to, having removed myself from Facebook). Humans do have a need to socialise/connect with other humans, just as we have need food and water - we quickly lose sanity in isolation. To give an example, the worst punishment in prisons is solitary confinement (being separated from the other criminals!). The link between social isolation and health problems and ultimately early death has also been demonstrated. It seems to follow from this then that we do really need Facebook to the degree to which they control all means of socialising, and online communication is only becoming more and more primary over time. In other words, imagining the extreme case where FB is only means to connect with the world (and this is their stated mission), we can no longer choose not to use them anymore than we can choose not to breathe and eat, insofar as physiological well being goes.
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      >It seems to follow from this then that we do really need Facebook to the degree to which they control all means of socialising And therein is the fallacy. Facebook might be popular, but they are absolutely not the controller of all means of socializing. Everyone I'm friends with on Facebook, I also have the email (and often phone, and often other IM service) contact info. You confuse generalized control with control in their own walled garden. Anyone is free to step outside of that garden whenever they please.
  - nunez 9y ago
    Not having a facebook account is a negative social signal these days. The gun is metaphorical.
- karllager 9y ago
  > 1 billion people shouldn't have their lives dictated by a proprietary, opaque Skinner's box with no regard for privacy or rights. Of course they should not. Or should they? We live in a free society and you are voluntarily participating. Or not. It's your choice. And that's wonderful. People do not realise, how simple it is to stop. As with cigarettes the real trick is to just not do it anymore. You need some willpower and some plan to cope with the temporary withdrawal effects. Single datapoint: I briefly used FB for a few weeks about ten years ago, but never saw its value. Today, thanks to dusty email and many other (more open) sites, I have a growing number of friends around the globe and locally. There are places (like Central Asia), which are already operating in a Free Basics mode in that basically anything beyond facebook is an extreme hurdle to use. But anyone in the western world with lots of choices can stop feeding FB today, if they cared.
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    your data point of one doesn't really validate that addiction effects people differently and hence different outcomes. My wife stopped smoking for 5 months, then she started again. ooops, some much for just quit and all will be happy in the world.
  - geebee 9y ago
    I agree with you that it's possible to stop using Facebook. It isn't like food or water. However, Facebook really is, at this point, a clear monopoly. The reason I use facebook is because that's the social network that everyone else uses. If I want to see baby pictures, hear about my friend's band's upcoming show, get updates on how people are doing after the norCal fires, or get trolled politically repeatedly by my insular political bubble, Facebook is the only place where I can do this. The next best network is nearly useless to me - not strictly because it's worse in terms of features or reliability, but because nobody else is using it. I can't say it's absolutely impossible to do this without facebook - I agree that people can, with effort, patch it together, as you've done. However, I think the "voluntary" participation aspect you've identified, while not entirely inaccurate, should recognize the coercion that results from a monopoly.
    - 9y ago
pascalxus 9y ago
It's a good question. I wish innovation could be opened up in more important areas like housing, transportation and healthcare costs. But it's all locked up from laws, zoning, political gridlock and barriers to entry.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  it sucks but I don't like houses falling on me, air bags exploding in my face, or experimental drugs... oh wait the healthcare market is too far gone for even regulation to help it.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Of course we do. >1 billion people shouldn't have their lives dictated by a proprietary, opaque Skinner's box with no regard for privacy or rights.

gwatch 9y ago
No one is forced to use Facebook. Where is the coercion? On the other hand you want to you government as a bludgeon against a private company engaged in consensual transactions with private individuals, causing no harm to third parties.
659087 9y ago
What we need to fix that is more of a future "not Facebook", though.
wskinner 9y ago
Then they shouldn't use the proprietary, opaque Skinner box. :) It's not like they have a gun to their heads.
- whyever 9y ago
  It's not so easy. You might have to give up a big part of your social life, depending on how much of it happens via the box.
- marcusestes 9y ago
  Neither did the rats.
- bearmobius 9y ago
  Some thoughts about the "no one's forcing you to use it" arguments (of which I'm also partial to, having removed myself from Facebook). Humans do have a need to socialise/connect with other humans, just as we have need food and water - we quickly lose sanity in isolation. To give an example, the worst punishment in prisons is solitary confinement (being separated from the other criminals!). The link between social isolation and health problems and ultimately early death has also been demonstrated. It seems to follow from this then that we do really need Facebook to the degree to which they control all means of socialising, and online communication is only becoming more and more primary over time. In other words, imagining the extreme case where FB is only means to connect with the world (and this is their stated mission), we can no longer choose not to use them anymore than we can choose not to breathe and eat, insofar as physiological well being goes.
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    >It seems to follow from this then that we do really need Facebook to the degree to which they control all means of socialising And therein is the fallacy. Facebook might be popular, but they are absolutely not the controller of all means of socializing. Everyone I'm friends with on Facebook, I also have the email (and often phone, and often other IM service) contact info. You confuse generalized control with control in their own walled garden. Anyone is free to step outside of that garden whenever they please.
- nunez 9y ago
  Not having a facebook account is a negative social signal these days. The gun is metaphorical.
karllager 9y ago
> 1 billion people shouldn't have their lives dictated by a proprietary, opaque Skinner's box with no regard for privacy or rights. Of course they should not. Or should they? We live in a free society and you are voluntarily participating. Or not. It's your choice. And that's wonderful. People do not realise, how simple it is to stop. As with cigarettes the real trick is to just not do it anymore. You need some willpower and some plan to cope with the temporary withdrawal effects. Single datapoint: I briefly used FB for a few weeks about ten years ago, but never saw its value. Today, thanks to dusty email and many other (more open) sites, I have a growing number of friends around the globe and locally. There are places (like Central Asia), which are already operating in a Free Basics mode in that basically anything beyond facebook is an extreme hurdle to use. But anyone in the western world with lots of choices can stop feeding FB today, if they cared.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  your data point of one doesn't really validate that addiction effects people differently and hence different outcomes. My wife stopped smoking for 5 months, then she started again. ooops, some much for just quit and all will be happy in the world.
- geebee 9y ago
  I agree with you that it's possible to stop using Facebook. It isn't like food or water. However, Facebook really is, at this point, a clear monopoly. The reason I use facebook is because that's the social network that everyone else uses. If I want to see baby pictures, hear about my friend's band's upcoming show, get updates on how people are doing after the norCal fires, or get trolled politically repeatedly by my insular political bubble, Facebook is the only place where I can do this. The next best network is nearly useless to me - not strictly because it's worse in terms of features or reliability, but because nobody else is using it. I can't say it's absolutely impossible to do this without facebook - I agree that people can, with effort, patch it together, as you've done. However, I think the "voluntary" participation aspect you've identified, while not entirely inaccurate, should recognize the coercion that results from a monopoly.
  - 9y ago

pascalxus 9y ago

It's a good question. I wish innovation could be opened up in more important areas like housing, transportation and healthcare costs. But it's all locked up from laws, zoning, political gridlock and barriers to entry.

sharemywin 9y ago
it sucks but I don't like houses falling on me, air bags exploding in my face, or experimental drugs... oh wait the healthcare market is too far gone for even regulation to help it.