4 ms·

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 facebo

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?
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    It isn't authoritarian at all to say that Facebook is not a necessity. TV is mostly-garbage, but it isn't as bad as Facebook.

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?
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  It isn't authoritarian at all to say that Facebook is not a necessity. TV is mostly-garbage, but it isn't as bad as Facebook.