5 ms·

I tire of the traditional media's need to write a negative story about how Facebook is cancer, and then throw in a legitimate company like Apple or Google to ma

I tire of the traditional media's need to write a negative story about how Facebook is cancer, and then throw in a legitimate company like Apple or Google to make it "Facebook and Google" are cancer. And this instance is particularly obtuse because the "former Google and Facebook execs" are the president of Facebook, and some random product manager from Google. There's only one former president of Facebook and there are probably 20000 former Google product managers. The latter guy is just some rando.

Sir_Substance 9y ago
>and then throw in a legitimate company like Apple or Google to make it "Facebook and Google" are cancer. This is very much a matter of perspective. Prior to Apple launching the app store as a walled garden for ios and then launching it on macos proper, it was generally an untested assumption that users would not be willing to accept such a software delivery model. Prior to Google, it was assumed that it would be unacceptable to require people sign up to and give personal details for access to software. Most software licences were distributed by emailing codes to the user. The web app with mandatory registration was usually only seen in enterprise grade portal-based software. Today, the standard software experience requires so many accounts that /average users/ are turning in desperation to password managers to corral the hundreds of accounts they need for their month-to-month computing, and Microsoft has moved from "next-next-done" installers to actively pushing a walled garden on the population. Despite Android having full support for distributing packages as .apk files that can be installed without the app store in the exact way you would use an msi or a deb, I would anecdotally say less than 5% of apps are offered for download from their creators websites in this traditional fashion. Sure seems like the tumors are metastasizing to me.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  Besides the factual mistakes in your comment (for example, the majority of Google's numerous services do not require any kind of account), you seem to be talking about software distribution and licensing, while this article is about attention. There's a pretty strong case to be made that Facebook sucks up all of your attention and gives you nothing in return. You can't make that case against Apple and Google. One of them sells telephones, and the other provides access to all of the information in the world. The reason these can't be lumped together with Facebook is because Facebook lacks any kind of redeeming product. They give you nothing.
  - str33t_punk 9y ago
    To you I guess. Many people value Facebook for the experiences it gives. You sound like one of those people that 'doesn't watch TV' in the 90s. To many TV doesn't give any value at all -- it is mindless drivel. However, many others like TV. So it goes with Video Games as well. The product of an entertainment company is entertainment. If you don't find entertainment in the product then don't consume it, but don't act like a spoil sport when others like it. Stop purporting your own opinion as fact.
    - notonfacebook 9y ago
      I have never seen a more foolish comparison than the TV one. If someone doesn't watch TV, at best the in crowd might think you are a fool and behind the times. The shadow profiles maintained by Facebook is the equivalent of watching your TV by stealing the non-watcher's electricity. Triangulation of other people's profiles based on your phone book is the equivalent of handing over your non-watching neighbor's address to the (physical mail) spammers and then going and collecting only the interesting stuff from their house by using their key without their knowledge or permission. Calling someone a spoil sport for pointing out the problems that FB causes to non-users is the equivalent of turning up the volume on your TV to a 1000 and telling your non-watching neighbor that all they need to do to drown out the noise is to go get a TV and then do the same.
sillysaurus3 9y ago
On the other hand, if what the rando is saying is true, nothing else matters, and their words should be judged on their own merits. The question is, is it true?
- threatofrain 9y ago
  Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person. Evaluating someone's argument is costly, which is why some technical communities might consider the reputation of the author before embarking on the serious task of understanding a complex theory. HN does offer higher-than-usual quality of discussion, but its ability to discuss is still palpably limited. In this light, waiting for the right starting point of discussion can be productive. A lot of debates are tiresome because they seem to start back from ground 0, and it can wear down community enthusiasm for the subject.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    I don't agree. In fact, this is an extremely interesting topic worthy of a separate essay, so that hopefully this can be refuted once and for all. You'll find it difficult (but not impossible) to figure out who I am. And I like it that way. Not because I'm particularly scared of anything, but because merit alone should be our filter. This is further exemplified by the classism present in the current society. If you haven't gone through the right funnel, if you haven't been born to the right parents, if you merely got unlucky and your family's fortune was stolen or squandered, then suddenly you are unworthy of being listened to. Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. That is quite dramatic, but not quite overly so. It's how companies feel about their employees when they fire them, for example. In fact, follow this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 Just start at the top and keep reading. It's an absolutely fascinating debate, and one of the sides is completely anonymous. I still don't know how to feel about the situation. Both sides bring up good points. But such quality came out of letting merit alone be the judge. And people will disagree whether it's quality, but it certainly made me think.
hkmurakami 9y ago
The Rando is the founder of a $1.2B VC fund.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  You are confusing Chamath Palihapitiya, the former Facebook exec, with Tristan Harris, the former product manager at Google.
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    Oh this isn't Chamath speaking this time? (I will admit I only scanned the article for his name which does appear) My bad!
delhanty 9y ago
About The Guardian in particular, I've been saying this for a while. [0] I'll quote #peoplewindow's reply, broadly agreeing with my comment: >The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111
- randomsearch 9y ago
  Utter nonsense. Check out the Guardian’s history and structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. Pretty much the opposite of Facebook.
  - delhanty 9y ago
    >The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. That statement is nonsense. Of course The Guardian can't possible be objective w.r.t. Facebook. Facebook and The Guardian are competitors in the market for online advertising. edit: double-down
    - ghughes 9y ago
      GP's statement is fairly accurate and so is yours. All mainstream news outlets are competitors in the online ad market, and The Guardian is about as good as you get in terms of independence and objectivity.
  - wbillingsley 9y ago
    > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap... Technically, no. Though the Guardian is good and thorough at what it does, it is explicitly established to advance a liberal viewpoint, rather than be purely "objective". See their own about page for the Scott Trust, which is the non-profit that is responsible for publishing and governing The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-... The current editor, Katharine Viner, has also been fairly explicit about this in the past (notably in live chats when in charge of the then-new Australian edition). Most UK news outlets wear their political stance on their sleeve. One of the common ways to get an objective view is to read both The Guardian (left) and The Telegraph (right), and from that triangulate what in the story is a matter of political perspective. In terms of this topic, the power of tech, Katharine Viner posted a "long read" in 2016 that it's unlikely they'll deviate from in terms of "The Guardian view on..." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology... From an organisational perspective, you can also read a bit "between the lines" from their financial situation -- growing readership but losing money. Which puts them at an awkward cross-roads where their mission to promote liberal values is best served by remaining free, but it that places their future in jeopardy. TL;DR: though The Guardian is good, don't mistake "independent" for "neutral"; it has a well-established political view.
wbillingsley 9y ago
It may be because in the EU (and The Guardian is a pro-EU UK news organisation), Google is up before the regulators on more than one case, for example recently receiving a record fine from EU authorities that runs into the billions of dollars. They don't appear to have been randomly chosen, but appear to be the European most-wanted in terms of multinational tech companies accused by authorities of abusing their power. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap...

Sir_Substance 9y ago

>and then throw in a legitimate company like Apple or Google to make it "Facebook and Google" are cancer. This is very much a matter of perspective. Prior to Apple launching the app store as a walled garden for ios and then launching it on macos proper, it was generally an untested assumption that users would not be willing to accept such a software delivery model. Prior to Google, it was assumed that it would be unacceptable to require people sign up to and give personal details for access to software. Most software licences were distributed by emailing codes to the user. The web app with mandatory registration was usually only seen in enterprise grade portal-based software. Today, the standard software experience requires so many accounts that /average users/ are turning in desperation to password managers to corral the hundreds of accounts they need for their month-to-month computing, and Microsoft has moved from "next-next-done" installers to actively pushing a walled garden on the population. Despite Android having full support for distributing packages as .apk files that can be installed without the app store in the exact way you would use an msi or a deb, I would anecdotally say less than 5% of apps are offered for download from their creators websites in this traditional fashion. Sure seems like the tumors are metastasizing to me.

ebikelaw 9y ago
Besides the factual mistakes in your comment (for example, the majority of Google's numerous services do not require any kind of account), you seem to be talking about software distribution and licensing, while this article is about attention. There's a pretty strong case to be made that Facebook sucks up all of your attention and gives you nothing in return. You can't make that case against Apple and Google. One of them sells telephones, and the other provides access to all of the information in the world. The reason these can't be lumped together with Facebook is because Facebook lacks any kind of redeeming product. They give you nothing.
- str33t_punk 9y ago
  To you I guess. Many people value Facebook for the experiences it gives. You sound like one of those people that 'doesn't watch TV' in the 90s. To many TV doesn't give any value at all -- it is mindless drivel. However, many others like TV. So it goes with Video Games as well. The product of an entertainment company is entertainment. If you don't find entertainment in the product then don't consume it, but don't act like a spoil sport when others like it. Stop purporting your own opinion as fact.
  - notonfacebook 9y ago
    I have never seen a more foolish comparison than the TV one. If someone doesn't watch TV, at best the in crowd might think you are a fool and behind the times. The shadow profiles maintained by Facebook is the equivalent of watching your TV by stealing the non-watcher's electricity. Triangulation of other people's profiles based on your phone book is the equivalent of handing over your non-watching neighbor's address to the (physical mail) spammers and then going and collecting only the interesting stuff from their house by using their key without their knowledge or permission. Calling someone a spoil sport for pointing out the problems that FB causes to non-users is the equivalent of turning up the volume on your TV to a 1000 and telling your non-watching neighbor that all they need to do to drown out the noise is to go get a TV and then do the same.

sillysaurus3 9y ago

On the other hand, if what the rando is saying is true, nothing else matters, and their words should be judged on their own merits. The question is, is it true?

threatofrain 9y ago
Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person. Evaluating someone's argument is costly, which is why some technical communities might consider the reputation of the author before embarking on the serious task of understanding a complex theory. HN does offer higher-than-usual quality of discussion, but its ability to discuss is still palpably limited. In this light, waiting for the right starting point of discussion can be productive. A lot of debates are tiresome because they seem to start back from ground 0, and it can wear down community enthusiasm for the subject.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I don't agree. In fact, this is an extremely interesting topic worthy of a separate essay, so that hopefully this can be refuted once and for all. You'll find it difficult (but not impossible) to figure out who I am. And I like it that way. Not because I'm particularly scared of anything, but because merit alone should be our filter. This is further exemplified by the classism present in the current society. If you haven't gone through the right funnel, if you haven't been born to the right parents, if you merely got unlucky and your family's fortune was stolen or squandered, then suddenly you are unworthy of being listened to. Right? That's what you're saying by "Words ought not be judged solely on their truthiness independent of their person." Either you're somebody, or you're nobody. And if you're nobody then you may as well go die. That is quite dramatic, but not quite overly so. It's how companies feel about their employees when they fire them, for example. In fact, follow this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15792258 Just start at the top and keep reading. It's an absolutely fascinating debate, and one of the sides is completely anonymous. I still don't know how to feel about the situation. Both sides bring up good points. But such quality came out of letting merit alone be the judge. And people will disagree whether it's quality, but it certainly made me think.

hkmurakami 9y ago

The Rando is the founder of a $1.2B VC fund.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
You are confusing Chamath Palihapitiya, the former Facebook exec, with Tristan Harris, the former product manager at Google.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Oh this isn't Chamath speaking this time? (I will admit I only scanned the article for his name which does appear) My bad!

delhanty 9y ago

About The Guardian in particular, I've been saying this for a while. [0] I'll quote #peoplewindow's reply, broadly agreeing with my comment: >The Guardian has been pushing the line that non-Guardian news sources are 'dangerous for democracy' for a long time now. Other similar publications like the NYT have the same viewpoint. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15573111

randomsearch 9y ago
Utter nonsense. Check out the Guardian’s history and structure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. Pretty much the opposite of Facebook.
- delhanty 9y ago
  >The Guardian is about as good as you’re going to get in terms of a mainstream outlet being able to take an objective view here. That statement is nonsense. Of course The Guardian can't possible be objective w.r.t. Facebook. Facebook and The Guardian are competitors in the market for online advertising. edit: double-down
  - ghughes 9y ago
    GP's statement is fairly accurate and so is yours. All mainstream news outlets are competitors in the online ad market, and The Guardian is about as good as you get in terms of independence and objectivity.
- wbillingsley 9y ago
  > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap... Technically, no. Though the Guardian is good and thorough at what it does, it is explicitly established to advance a liberal viewpoint, rather than be purely "objective". See their own about page for the Scott Trust, which is the non-profit that is responsible for publishing and governing The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-... The current editor, Katharine Viner, has also been fairly explicit about this in the past (notably in live chats when in charge of the then-new Australian edition). Most UK news outlets wear their political stance on their sleeve. One of the common ways to get an objective view is to read both The Guardian (left) and The Telegraph (right), and from that triangulate what in the story is a matter of political perspective. In terms of this topic, the power of tech, Katharine Viner posted a "long read" in 2016 that it's unlikely they'll deviate from in terms of "The Guardian view on..." https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology-disrupted-the-truth https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jul/12/how-technology... From an organisational perspective, you can also read a bit "between the lines" from their financial situation -- growing readership but losing money. Which puts them at an awkward cross-roads where their mission to promote liberal values is best served by remaining free, but it that places their future in jeopardy. TL;DR: though The Guardian is good, don't mistake "independent" for "neutral"; it has a well-established political view.

wbillingsley 9y ago

It may be because in the EU (and The Guardian is a pro-EU UK news organisation), Google is up before the regulators on more than one case, for example recently receiving a record fine from EU authorities that runs into the billions of dollars. They don't appear to have been randomly chosen, but appear to be the European most-wanted in terms of multinational tech companies accused by authorities of abusing their power. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-appeals-eu-fine-search-engine-results-shopping-service https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/11/google-ap...