4 ms·

Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Proj

Forget scary. Let's talk about utility. Facebook gives you distraction but Google gives you information (YouTube, Google Search, GMail, Maps, Voice, Fiber, Project Fi, etc) and is more restrictive about how it lets partners use its platform to interact with users.

libdjml 9y ago
This 100% Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your way. Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest common denominator tricks.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  I agree with everything you said except for "generally stays out of your way." Try blocking all Google domains via a hosts file, and you'll see that they have put their hooks into all kinds of systems, and do so in ways that seriously impede how normal web-pages should function.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc. google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful service.
jonathanyc 9y ago
YouTube suggesting extremist videos to people in order to maximize views is giving you “information”? Can we stop pretending Google is somehow more useful to the average person than Facebook?
- kimdcmason 9y ago
  .
  - jonathanyc 9y ago
    Your reply is amusing. Do you call presenting examples cherry-picking whenever they don’t suit you? Facebook, too, provides many useful features to many people. But your puerile comment insists we see things as black and white, and that we can only say “Facebook bad, Google good.” Facebook allowing people to communicate is good; leaking their data, not so much. Google allowing people to find what they’re looking for is good; uploading their locations without meaningful consent, not so much. Nice try with the logical fallacy spiel, but you should really be back in class.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
      - jonathanyc 9y ago
        It’s pitiful when someone is is so unable to argue for their own position that they have to resort to shotgunning logical fallacies in lieu of contributing any content whatsoever.
  - grzm 9y ago
    There's been evidence, admittedly anecdotal AFAIK, that YouTube recommendation algorithms can tend towards increasingly extremist content from quite innocuous starting points. For example: * https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/973716995521748992 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/973716995521748992 * https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/972837152940855296 https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/972837152940855296 This doesn't mean YouTube staff are purposefully designing the algorithm to specifically trend towards extremism: this can fall out naturally from human psychology and ML algorithms that note which videos increase engagement and recommend videos based on user interest and recommending videos that will increase the user's time on site. I think this is worth looking into in a more methodical manner. You can dismiss it as cherry-picking, but I think it's something reasonable people can be concerned about. And these services and products should be looked at separately, determining which parts are good and which parts are bad.
JabavuAdams 9y ago
This. To me, the major problem with FB isn't even privacy. It's the fact that FB relies on, and encourages its users to behave like addicts. HN has noprocrast because YC has a financial interest in their founders not wasting their time, or becoming addicts. Can you imagine FB implementing noprocrast? It goes against everything they do.

libdjml 9y ago

This 100% Google build genuinely useful products, and use the knowledge it gains about you to show (generally somewhat useful) ads, and generally stays out of your way. Facebook on the other hand desperately tries to manipulate you into consuming as much time as possible on their platform at almost any cost, using lowest common denominator tricks.

CaptSpify 9y ago
I agree with everything you said except for "generally stays out of your way." Try blocking all Google domains via a hosts file, and you'll see that they have put their hooks into all kinds of systems, and do so in ways that seriously impede how normal web-pages should function.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
It's just kind of a false choice. I use FB to keep in touch and chat with friends, find out about local events, follow various interesting people, etc. google tried to do the same thing with Google Plus and failed. But I certainly don't feel manipulated by FB, I feel they are providing me with a useful service.

jonathanyc 9y ago

YouTube suggesting extremist videos to people in order to maximize views is giving you “information”? Can we stop pretending Google is somehow more useful to the average person than Facebook?

kimdcmason 9y ago
.
- jonathanyc 9y ago
  Your reply is amusing. Do you call presenting examples cherry-picking whenever they don’t suit you? Facebook, too, provides many useful features to many people. But your puerile comment insists we see things as black and white, and that we can only say “Facebook bad, Google good.” Facebook allowing people to communicate is good; leaking their data, not so much. Google allowing people to find what they’re looking for is good; uploading their locations without meaningful consent, not so much. Nice try with the logical fallacy spiel, but you should really be back in class.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
    - jonathanyc 9y ago
      It’s pitiful when someone is is so unable to argue for their own position that they have to resort to shotgunning logical fallacies in lieu of contributing any content whatsoever.
- grzm 9y ago
  There's been evidence, admittedly anecdotal AFAIK, that YouTube recommendation algorithms can tend towards increasingly extremist content from quite innocuous starting points. For example: * https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/973716995521748992 https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/973716995521748992 * https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/972837152940855296 https://twitter.com/Limerick1914/status/972837152940855296 This doesn't mean YouTube staff are purposefully designing the algorithm to specifically trend towards extremism: this can fall out naturally from human psychology and ML algorithms that note which videos increase engagement and recommend videos based on user interest and recommending videos that will increase the user's time on site. I think this is worth looking into in a more methodical manner. You can dismiss it as cherry-picking, but I think it's something reasonable people can be concerned about. And these services and products should be looked at separately, determining which parts are good and which parts are bad.

JabavuAdams 9y ago

This. To me, the major problem with FB isn't even privacy. It's the fact that FB relies on, and encourages its users to behave like addicts. HN has noprocrast because YC has a financial interest in their founders not wasting their time, or becoming addicts. Can you imagine FB implementing noprocrast? It goes against everything they do.