4 ms·
yes, I know, you, the person about to reply, you are different; that's great, but you're statistically invisible Sort of like non-smokers in the fifties, but t
by IntronExon 9y ago
yes, I know, you, the person about to reply, you are different; that's great, but you're statistically invisible
Sort of like non-smokers in the fifties, but times change. More predictable and depressing than people who don’t use FB chiming in are the people who have endless rationalizations for why they need it. Often the reasons boil down to “network effects” which fits with the tendency of some here to cite Tragedy of The Commoms whenever a hard problem crops up.
- ryandrake 9y agoI’m so tired of the “I won’t know about my friends’ parties without Facebook” excuse. If you don’t have even enough IRL contact with them, or contact through other channels, to discover all these parties, then... well... hate to break it to you but they might not really be friends. Willing to admit I’m wrong though. I just don’t think FB is as necessary as you think it is. How did you all manage to have social lives before FB existed?
- dragonwriter 9y agoPeople had social lives before phones existed; people without phones were socially disadvantaged when the common norm became to communicate by phone. Social interaction mechanisms are pretty much the poster child for network effects, where using what other people are using matters a lot to utility.
- IntronExon 9y agoI think your argument works better as s comparison between mediums, such as telephone vs. letters/meetings and telephone vs. internet. Despite what they would like, FB is not the medium.
- dragonwriter 9y agoNetwork effects aren't just between mediums as you are defining them: one might call “the internet” a medium, but it's clear that someone using the internet but not Facebook is as locked out and disadvantaged if social communication is occurring on FB as someone who isn't using the internet at all.
- IntronExon 9y agoIt isn’t clear to me at all, given the wealth of options. Someone using an encrypted messenger for example, strikes me as being quite connected.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Someone using an encrypted messenger for example, strikes me as being quite connected. To the network of people using a compatible encrypted messenger, not to people using "the internet" in some generic sense. Network effects definitely apply to each of the options at the level that they have their own network (e.g., "email" is a network, to the extent that it is interoperable; "Facebook" and any particular encrypted messaging system are each their own networks. The utility of each is determined largely by how many and which other people are using them and what those other people are using them for.)
- KozmoNau7 9y agoNo, FB is not necessary to keep up with events (10-15 concerts/month for me, on average), but it makes it a lot easier and more convenient, especially if you follow the relevant venues and artists. It makes it very easy to invite other people to come along. I pull my FB list of upcoming events via CalDAV to my local calendar, for local handling of reminders. So yes, I could invite people manually, but it would be a bit of a mess. FB has all the artists and all the venues in one place. The convenience should not be underestimated.
- IntronExon 9y agoI guess you have to ask yourself is supporting FB and ceding your privacy is worth it for... convenience.
- KozmoNau7 9y agoIt's a choice everyone has to make for themselves. I have absolutely nothing on Facebook that isn't related to either bands or musical venues.