4 ms·

Quit using it. Let's go back to the way the internet used to be, y'know with instant messaging and a multitude of cultures that have their own ecosystems. Let's

Quit using it. Let's go back to the way the internet used to be, y'know with instant messaging and a multitude of cultures that have their own ecosystems. Let's stop consolidating all of this information and wealth in the hands of people who don't give a shit about what makes us different (unless it sells an ad).

wildflowero 9y ago
I quite honestly believe that Facebook contributed to -- or was responsible for -- the ever growing rate of depression. This type of behavior has led numerous people to participate in degenerate activities instead of contributing something to society. Social media may have started well but now it has morphed into becoming the cesspool of the internet.
- hetspookjee 9y ago
  While I think that Facebook is horrible I'm not too sure in thinking that it's the biggest reason. I think the advance of technology is rather more responsible for the current state and if it weren't Facebook it would be something similar with another name. Contributed surely but not responsible imo.
  - mbid 9y ago
    "Oh, the man would've died anyway some day, so I'm not really responsible for his death, I've only contributed."
fzeroracer 9y ago
Go back to what, the AIM and Myspace domination? Before Facebook it was Myspace that was the juggernaut of the social media sphere. As the number of people that can freely access the internet grows, you see them focusing around a single social media platform. That's because social media strongly benefits from centralization, it's easier to talk to family and friends if you don't have to manage fifty different accounts. The idea that there was a 'multitude of cultures' before Facebook is just wrong. There was the main social media platforms and a bunch of niche offshoots. That's why this is such a tricky problem to fix because even if Facebook vanished tomorrow, eventually there would be another platform which absolutely everyone would circle around.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Not AIM and MySpace, but things like XMPP, where you could use one chat client and connect to your own Jabber server, Twitter, and Google chat. One solution is open, decentralized protocols. The article addresses that a little bit here: > ...the internet platforms were able to pursue business strategies that would not have been allowed in prior decades. No one stopped them from using free products to centralize the internet and then replace its core functions.
  - fzeroracer 9y ago
    It's a solution to a separate problem. You need to make something easy to use for the masses, you need to make it safe from bad actors and you need to actually advertise it. It's easy to talk about open and decentralized protocols but social media is a popularity contest, not one based off the best or most free platform. As the article mentions nothing was and nothing is stopping them from capitalizing on open and free products, followed by gutting and replacing them.
    - JoshMnem 9y ago
      They build their products on open technologies and then attempt to extinguish the open technologies. XMPP, RSS/Atom, and HTML are three examples of EEE in modern times. - XMPP => proprietary chat that locks users in - RSS/Atom => algorithmic news feeds that lock users in - HTML => AMP -- if you want distribution, they tie your hands with markup and monetization restrictions - etc.
- dreamfactored 9y ago
  Federated social networking solves this and didn't exist then. It allows separate networks to interoperate so you can still capture the overall utility of network effects. I think it would need governments to push this though e.g. recognise this as they might pollution and create the right economic dis/incentives. If this was the standard model, you'd have greater utility as you wouldn't have siloed platforms and you'd get greater control over your personal data (as EU has already recognised and is legislating in any case).
banku_brougham 9y ago
This is very unhelpful advice, as we are talking about a massively influential platform and the advice is ‘dont let it influence you.’ Our society has more dependencies than node.js, and the incentives in facebook’s world are skewed toward big payoffs for bad actors who will benefit at the expense of all others. I’d classify this comment as fitting a very common paradigm called ‘If I were the god this would be my simple solution, so let us dispense with further discussion of the matter.’
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  I call this the "eat less and exercise" advice. That is, when some dismiss the obesity epidemic in the US by saying "people just need to eat less and exercise". Of course, this is nominally true, but at the same time, it's useless advice. People have been hearing that they need to eat less and exercise for decades, and Americans keep getting fatter. Unless you change something at a more fundamental level, "willpower" isn't going to change things broadly in society. The same is true for Facebook. They have thousands of very smart people who are incentivized to do everything they can to get you to scroll, scroll, scroll. To think it's going to be useful to tell society at large to "just walk away from the dopamine pushers" is not going to change the situation.
  - tzakrajs 9y ago
    Except you need to eat. Facebook is cocaine.
    - serpentstar 9y ago
      False. Interacting socially is required for human survival. Like eating--not like cocaine. Facebook's encroachment on the social sphere has real consequences for individuals like you and me. You pay a heavy cost if you forego it completely. Missed invitations, missed opportunities. Lack of presence means a lack of visibility to others.

wildflowero 9y ago

I quite honestly believe that Facebook contributed to -- or was responsible for -- the ever growing rate of depression. This type of behavior has led numerous people to participate in degenerate activities instead of contributing something to society. Social media may have started well but now it has morphed into becoming the cesspool of the internet.

hetspookjee 9y ago
While I think that Facebook is horrible I'm not too sure in thinking that it's the biggest reason. I think the advance of technology is rather more responsible for the current state and if it weren't Facebook it would be something similar with another name. Contributed surely but not responsible imo.
- mbid 9y ago
  "Oh, the man would've died anyway some day, so I'm not really responsible for his death, I've only contributed."

fzeroracer 9y ago

Go back to what, the AIM and Myspace domination? Before Facebook it was Myspace that was the juggernaut of the social media sphere. As the number of people that can freely access the internet grows, you see them focusing around a single social media platform. That's because social media strongly benefits from centralization, it's easier to talk to family and friends if you don't have to manage fifty different accounts. The idea that there was a 'multitude of cultures' before Facebook is just wrong. There was the main social media platforms and a bunch of niche offshoots. That's why this is such a tricky problem to fix because even if Facebook vanished tomorrow, eventually there would be another platform which absolutely everyone would circle around.

JoshMnem 9y ago
Not AIM and MySpace, but things like XMPP, where you could use one chat client and connect to your own Jabber server, Twitter, and Google chat. One solution is open, decentralized protocols. The article addresses that a little bit here: > ...the internet platforms were able to pursue business strategies that would not have been allowed in prior decades. No one stopped them from using free products to centralize the internet and then replace its core functions.
- fzeroracer 9y ago
  It's a solution to a separate problem. You need to make something easy to use for the masses, you need to make it safe from bad actors and you need to actually advertise it. It's easy to talk about open and decentralized protocols but social media is a popularity contest, not one based off the best or most free platform. As the article mentions nothing was and nothing is stopping them from capitalizing on open and free products, followed by gutting and replacing them.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    They build their products on open technologies and then attempt to extinguish the open technologies. XMPP, RSS/Atom, and HTML are three examples of EEE in modern times. - XMPP => proprietary chat that locks users in - RSS/Atom => algorithmic news feeds that lock users in - HTML => AMP -- if you want distribution, they tie your hands with markup and monetization restrictions - etc.
dreamfactored 9y ago
Federated social networking solves this and didn't exist then. It allows separate networks to interoperate so you can still capture the overall utility of network effects. I think it would need governments to push this though e.g. recognise this as they might pollution and create the right economic dis/incentives. If this was the standard model, you'd have greater utility as you wouldn't have siloed platforms and you'd get greater control over your personal data (as EU has already recognised and is legislating in any case).

banku_brougham 9y ago

This is very unhelpful advice, as we are talking about a massively influential platform and the advice is ‘dont let it influence you.’ Our society has more dependencies than node.js, and the incentives in facebook’s world are skewed toward big payoffs for bad actors who will benefit at the expense of all others. I’d classify this comment as fitting a very common paradigm called ‘If I were the god this would be my simple solution, so let us dispense with further discussion of the matter.’

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
I call this the "eat less and exercise" advice. That is, when some dismiss the obesity epidemic in the US by saying "people just need to eat less and exercise". Of course, this is nominally true, but at the same time, it's useless advice. People have been hearing that they need to eat less and exercise for decades, and Americans keep getting fatter. Unless you change something at a more fundamental level, "willpower" isn't going to change things broadly in society. The same is true for Facebook. They have thousands of very smart people who are incentivized to do everything they can to get you to scroll, scroll, scroll. To think it's going to be useful to tell society at large to "just walk away from the dopamine pushers" is not going to change the situation.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  Except you need to eat. Facebook is cocaine.
  - serpentstar 9y ago
    False. Interacting socially is required for human survival. Like eating--not like cocaine. Facebook's encroachment on the social sphere has real consequences for individuals like you and me. You pay a heavy cost if you forego it completely. Missed invitations, missed opportunities. Lack of presence means a lack of visibility to others.