4 ms·

Yes -- otherwise they are squandering their long term Internet freedom for short term access to addicting garbage (Facebook).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
return0 9y ago
jesus that's judgemental.
- andrepd 9y ago
  It's also a fact (Facebook is literally addictive).
  - return0 9y ago
    like almost everything (including HN, trust me, i ve been there)
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Here is some information: * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-activates-same-part-of-the-brain-as-cocaine.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-... * http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ * https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-true-costs-of-facebook-addiction-low-self-esteem-and-poor-body-image/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-tru... * https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-our-phones-tristan-harris-wants-to-rescue-them/ https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-... * https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-weapons-of-mass-manipulation-and-this-guy-is-declaring-war-on-them/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-we... * https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3 https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peop... * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-bin... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-orwellian-journalists-democracy-guatemala-slovakia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-... More things are happening in real life, email/telephone, newspapers, magazines, and in books than on Facebook. I think that Facebook is bad for the human mind and bad for society.
  - return0 9y ago
    I 'm not disputing that facebook is an addiction (like many things in life). But there is a big chunk of users who learned to use the internet SOLELY for facebook, they remain there solely for that and would stop using it if it wasn't for facebook. Having the freedom to research any topic, while sounding noble as a thing, is just not something that a lot of people want to do.
    - exergy 9y ago
      You're missing the point. Why should we regress? The system, as it exists, freely allows these fabled old people of yours to access Facebook. But in letting net neutrality evaporate, the rest of us get screwed for no benefit. Jesus, net neutrality makes my blood boil. Fuck Ajit Pai, that /r/punchablefaces wanker extraordinaire.
      - return0 9y ago
        maybe if your blood didn't boil you could make some rational arguments.
    - JoshMnem 9y ago
      > But there is a big chunk of users who learned to use the internet SOLELY for facebook, they remain there solely for that and would stop using it if it wasn't for facebook. I'd argue that it would be better in most cases not to use the Internet if Facebook were the only option. Accepting Facebook as your "Internet" means that the next generations probably will not have a Free, open Internet. I grew up before the Internet was widely used. Many aspects of life were better without the Internet. If you aren't doing something critical to your life with the Internet (and Facebook is not one of those critical things in most cases), then the Internet is not a necessity. (The Internet is a necessity for many people these days, but Facebook is not a genuine necessity.)
      - return0 9y ago
        What kind of thinking is that? TV was equally bad in our times (if not far worse). You realize how horribly authoritarian is what you propose?
gwatch 9y ago
Let people have the freedom to decide how they want to spend their time. So what if fb is addictive? You don’t own other people. It is fascistic to impose your will on others.
saas_co_de 9y ago
so what you are saying is that you, or the government, should be a censor and have the right to determine what information other people are allowed to consume? that seems like a difficult ideology to defend.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  That is not what I'm arguing. :) Are you arguing against Net Neutrality? Governments do have a duty to protect people from predatory companies. When private companies inhibit the freedom of a population, would you argue that governments shouldn't intervene to protect the freedom of the people?
  - saas_co_de 9y ago
    So, if FB wants to subsidize an internet plan that is exclusively for FB services, would you say that the government should allow that or prevent it?
    - exergy 9y ago
      There's the rub. If the government made a neutral internet a human right, or increased competition by breaking up monopolies, the idiots who think they can get away with offering just Facebook would get royally shafted because consumers would realise that they can get a lot more for the same price by moving to the competition. This would lead to a glorious future where internet would be used properly for what it was intended to do: let anyone share anything with anyone else.
    - thisacctforreal 9y ago
      To add, how about Wikipedia doing the same? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
      - JoshMnem 9y ago
        It seems like a bad idea from a first glance. It looks like there are also Twitter Zero, Google Free Zone, and possibly others. Other countries have the right to develop their Internet with the same freedom that we currently have. (I'm in the US.) People who are concerned with "freedom" should be looking at the long-term effects of those policies on consumers and smaller entrepreneurs too -- not just the effects on larger companies.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

return0 9y ago

jesus that's judgemental.

andrepd 9y ago
It's also a fact (Facebook is literally addictive).
- return0 9y ago
  like almost everything (including HN, trust me, i ve been there)
JoshMnem 9y ago
Here is some information: * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-activates-same-part-of-the-brain-as-cocaine.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12161461/Facebook-addiction-... * http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ http://www.salimvirani.com/facebook/ * https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-true-costs-of-facebook-addiction-low-self-esteem-and-poor-body-image/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2012/04/05/the-tru... * https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-our-phones-tristan-harris-wants-to-rescue-them/ https://www.wired.com/story/our-minds-have-been-hijacked-by-... * https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-weapons-of-mass-manipulation-and-this-guy-is-declaring-war-on-them/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609104/smartphones-are-we... * https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3 https://journal.thriveglobal.com/how-technology-hijacks-peop... * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-binge-breaker/501122/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/the-bin... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-orwellian-journalists-democracy-guatemala-slovakia https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/25/facebook-... More things are happening in real life, email/telephone, newspapers, magazines, and in books than on Facebook. I think that Facebook is bad for the human mind and bad for society.
- return0 9y ago
  I 'm not disputing that facebook is an addiction (like many things in life). But there is a big chunk of users who learned to use the internet SOLELY for facebook, they remain there solely for that and would stop using it if it wasn't for facebook. Having the freedom to research any topic, while sounding noble as a thing, is just not something that a lot of people want to do.
  - exergy 9y ago
    You're missing the point. Why should we regress? The system, as it exists, freely allows these fabled old people of yours to access Facebook. But in letting net neutrality evaporate, the rest of us get screwed for no benefit. Jesus, net neutrality makes my blood boil. Fuck Ajit Pai, that /r/punchablefaces wanker extraordinaire.
    - return0 9y ago
      maybe if your blood didn't boil you could make some rational arguments.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    > But there is a big chunk of users who learned to use the internet SOLELY for facebook, they remain there solely for that and would stop using it if it wasn't for facebook. I'd argue that it would be better in most cases not to use the Internet if Facebook were the only option. Accepting Facebook as your "Internet" means that the next generations probably will not have a Free, open Internet. I grew up before the Internet was widely used. Many aspects of life were better without the Internet. If you aren't doing something critical to your life with the Internet (and Facebook is not one of those critical things in most cases), then the Internet is not a necessity. (The Internet is a necessity for many people these days, but Facebook is not a genuine necessity.)
    - return0 9y ago
      What kind of thinking is that? TV was equally bad in our times (if not far worse). You realize how horribly authoritarian is what you propose?

gwatch 9y ago

Let people have the freedom to decide how they want to spend their time. So what if fb is addictive? You don’t own other people. It is fascistic to impose your will on others.

saas_co_de 9y ago

so what you are saying is that you, or the government, should be a censor and have the right to determine what information other people are allowed to consume? that seems like a difficult ideology to defend.

JoshMnem 9y ago
That is not what I'm arguing. :) Are you arguing against Net Neutrality? Governments do have a duty to protect people from predatory companies. When private companies inhibit the freedom of a population, would you argue that governments shouldn't intervene to protect the freedom of the people?
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  So, if FB wants to subsidize an internet plan that is exclusively for FB services, would you say that the government should allow that or prevent it?
  - exergy 9y ago
    There's the rub. If the government made a neutral internet a human right, or increased competition by breaking up monopolies, the idiots who think they can get away with offering just Facebook would get royally shafted because consumers would realise that they can get a lot more for the same price by moving to the competition. This would lead to a glorious future where internet would be used properly for what it was intended to do: let anyone share anything with anyone else.
  - thisacctforreal 9y ago
    To add, how about Wikipedia doing the same? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
    - JoshMnem 9y ago
      It seems like a bad idea from a first glance. It looks like there are also Twitter Zero, Google Free Zone, and possibly others. Other countries have the right to develop their Internet with the same freedom that we currently have. (I'm in the US.) People who are concerned with "freedom" should be looking at the long-term effects of those policies on consumers and smaller entrepreneurs too -- not just the effects on larger companies.