4 ms·

The tone of discussion on HN around this issue seems to have become completely cynical and atypically nasty. Come on, it's a good thing fb is improving and rega

The tone of discussion on HN around this issue seems to have become completely cynical and atypically nasty. Come on, it's a good thing fb is improving and regardless of your stance on the site you cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people and seeing it improve on privacy and transparency is a good thing.

LoSboccacc 9y ago
so we get an ounce of goodwill right after a major scandal and we're supposed to suck it up because, uhm, why exactly? yes we're all nasty and cynical and guess wath, turns out we were right all along, so pardon me if I'm not gonna cut them any slack.
drb91 9y ago
> you cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I'm not really interested in having a value judgment discussion of Facebook here, but it really annoys me when people assume this. At least have an open mind enough where you can imagine someone thinking different from you. It really doesn't take that much imagination or empathy to see why some people view it as, yes, completely and totally a net-negative on the world, regardless of whether you specifically believe it or not; I think the good that facebook does do is both incidental and replaceable. Besides, c'mon, how can you be "nasty" to a corporation? People publicly complaining is probably the only way this change happened in the first place.
- saas_sam 9y ago
  > Besides, c'mon, how can you be "nasty" to a corporation? I think you should at least have an open mind enough where you can imagine someone thinking different from you
- traek 9y ago
  > some people view it as, yes, completely and totally a net-negative on the world [...] I think the good that facebook does do is both incidental and replaceable. OP wasn’t claiming that Facebook is a net positive for the world, just that it indisputably provides a valuable service for at least some people[0] and improving the privacy features is only a good thing. It’s unproductive and misguided to attack Facebook for this. [0] https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ex-flds-new-chapter https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ex-flds-new-chapt...
  - andreyk 9y ago
    Exactly. I am personally all for replacing it with open source decentralized options, I am even working to further that cause, but do you actually think that'll happen anytime soon? Network effects are not so easily replaceable...
- feelin_googley 9y ago
  "... both incidental and replaceable." Sometimes it seems like there is an underlying, unspoken presumption that no progress, no innovation making use of the internet could occur unless funding comes from exploiting data gathered from its use. Sadly it has reached the point where some of that "progress" and "innovation" is simply in the mechanism for gathering more user data, unbeknownst to users. The beast is feeding itself. I have no interest in funding that, either directly or indirectly.
- tomc1985 9y ago
  One can never be nasty enough against an organization, especially one that deceives its supporters so frequently.
tyingq 9y ago
I'd like to see some numbers on how many Google search users understand that the top of page links are ads. Personally, those seem more deceptive.
- ameister14 9y ago
  Judging by the fact that those ads are clicked a lot less than the top organic result, I'd say they are unlikely to be as or more deceptive.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Interesting. You have a reference for that? Keeping in mind searches that can't be monetized don't show ads... Edit: See this for example: https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-clicks-shifting-to-paid https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-clicks-shifting-to-paid "For the ad-heavy non-local SERPs that we work in, paid ads are likely now earning nearly the same percentage of clicks as organic results — a staggering change"
hueving 9y ago
>cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I'm not convinced. On the surface the connectivity seems good but I've seen it poison so many people into bubble-thinking that I think it's doing far more damage than good.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  The mistake you, and most others that come to this conclusion, make is that bubble thinking existed long before FB and will exist long after FB. Hell the idea that you can interact with people outside of the hundred of so people that live in your small town is relatively new idea in most of the US. The difference now is that outsiders can observe the tribal thinking. Sure it's sad the Internet didn't deliver on the revolution of the 90s interms of bringing us all together; however, I think the idea of being connected to people is only going to increase in importance as the global workforce becomes more and more mobile and bonds become decoupled from geography. I don't think it'll be Facebook (at least in the model that exists today), but it's difficult to deny the massive demand for that kind of product that has been the fire driving the company forward.
  - hueving 9y ago
    This isn't true though, Facebook has special filters to remain friends with people and just block any posts from them. This means there is no negative feedback loop when you're posting trash because everyone who disagrees will eventually unfollow you. In real life, social interactions expose you to people with different viewpoints and social decorum forces you to listen/engage for at least some modicum of time. You couldn't selectively ignore people when they were talking to you. If you behave like an asshole, people who disagree eventually stop interacting with you and you quickly notice that (negative feedback).
    - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
      That's a major assertion without much back it up. I have no data either, but anecdotally I'd say you're probably wrong. I grew up in small town america, you don't get exposed to different view points, and if you do the common action is to just deal with the friends you have; there's not much else (this is why the bubbling on social media happens so readily; it's what people are already doing). Also I hesitate to assign people "unfriending" as a negative feedback loop. You get no notification you've been unfriended, and there's no mechanism to indicate why the action took place. If anything it might be reaffirming? I'd also posit you're underestimating the value of a network of weak connections. This is especially true under the idea that most people will work some place different than where they grew up; reconnecting with friends that drift toward the same hub is a powerful tool.
denzil_correa 9y ago
You can read up on some research on Facebook Ad transparency [0]. Do you see any part of these concerns addressed? [0] https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/03/07/investigating-ad-transparency-mechanisms-in-social-media-a-case-study-of-facebooks-explanations/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/03/07/investigating-ad-transpa...
tomc1985 9y ago
It's difficult to be positive when you know that FB is doing everything it can to save its crown jewels. HN's supposed saltiness will likely dissipate when FB starts carving out its data policies.
JoshMnem 9y ago
> regardless of your stance on the site you cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I think it's reasonable to deny that Facebook does net good in the world. Facebook doesn't do any better than open-technology alternatives could offer, and it actively stifles alternatives.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

so we get an ounce of goodwill right after a major scandal and we're supposed to suck it up because, uhm, why exactly? yes we're all nasty and cynical and guess wath, turns out we were right all along, so pardon me if I'm not gonna cut them any slack.

drb91 9y ago

> you cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I'm not really interested in having a value judgment discussion of Facebook here, but it really annoys me when people assume this. At least have an open mind enough where you can imagine someone thinking different from you. It really doesn't take that much imagination or empathy to see why some people view it as, yes, completely and totally a net-negative on the world, regardless of whether you specifically believe it or not; I think the good that facebook does do is both incidental and replaceable. Besides, c'mon, how can you be "nasty" to a corporation? People publicly complaining is probably the only way this change happened in the first place.

saas_sam 9y ago
> Besides, c'mon, how can you be "nasty" to a corporation? I think you should at least have an open mind enough where you can imagine someone thinking different from you
traek 9y ago
> some people view it as, yes, completely and totally a net-negative on the world [...] I think the good that facebook does do is both incidental and replaceable. OP wasn’t claiming that Facebook is a net positive for the world, just that it indisputably provides a valuable service for at least some people[0] and improving the privacy features is only a good thing. It’s unproductive and misguided to attack Facebook for this. [0] https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ex-flds-new-chapter https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ex-flds-new-chapt...
- andreyk 9y ago
  Exactly. I am personally all for replacing it with open source decentralized options, I am even working to further that cause, but do you actually think that'll happen anytime soon? Network effects are not so easily replaceable...
feelin_googley 9y ago
"... both incidental and replaceable." Sometimes it seems like there is an underlying, unspoken presumption that no progress, no innovation making use of the internet could occur unless funding comes from exploiting data gathered from its use. Sadly it has reached the point where some of that "progress" and "innovation" is simply in the mechanism for gathering more user data, unbeknownst to users. The beast is feeding itself. I have no interest in funding that, either directly or indirectly.
tomc1985 9y ago
One can never be nasty enough against an organization, especially one that deceives its supporters so frequently.

tyingq 9y ago

I'd like to see some numbers on how many Google search users understand that the top of page links are ads. Personally, those seem more deceptive.

ameister14 9y ago
Judging by the fact that those ads are clicked a lot less than the top organic result, I'd say they are unlikely to be as or more deceptive.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Interesting. You have a reference for that? Keeping in mind searches that can't be monetized don't show ads... Edit: See this for example: https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-clicks-shifting-to-paid https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-clicks-shifting-to-paid "For the ad-heavy non-local SERPs that we work in, paid ads are likely now earning nearly the same percentage of clicks as organic results — a staggering change"

hueving 9y ago

>cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I'm not convinced. On the surface the connectivity seems good but I've seen it poison so many people into bubble-thinking that I think it's doing far more damage than good.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
The mistake you, and most others that come to this conclusion, make is that bubble thinking existed long before FB and will exist long after FB. Hell the idea that you can interact with people outside of the hundred of so people that live in your small town is relatively new idea in most of the US. The difference now is that outsiders can observe the tribal thinking. Sure it's sad the Internet didn't deliver on the revolution of the 90s interms of bringing us all together; however, I think the idea of being connected to people is only going to increase in importance as the global workforce becomes more and more mobile and bonds become decoupled from geography. I don't think it'll be Facebook (at least in the model that exists today), but it's difficult to deny the massive demand for that kind of product that has been the fire driving the company forward.
- hueving 9y ago
  This isn't true though, Facebook has special filters to remain friends with people and just block any posts from them. This means there is no negative feedback loop when you're posting trash because everyone who disagrees will eventually unfollow you. In real life, social interactions expose you to people with different viewpoints and social decorum forces you to listen/engage for at least some modicum of time. You couldn't selectively ignore people when they were talking to you. If you behave like an asshole, people who disagree eventually stop interacting with you and you quickly notice that (negative feedback).
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    That's a major assertion without much back it up. I have no data either, but anecdotally I'd say you're probably wrong. I grew up in small town america, you don't get exposed to different view points, and if you do the common action is to just deal with the friends you have; there's not much else (this is why the bubbling on social media happens so readily; it's what people are already doing). Also I hesitate to assign people "unfriending" as a negative feedback loop. You get no notification you've been unfriended, and there's no mechanism to indicate why the action took place. If anything it might be reaffirming? I'd also posit you're underestimating the value of a network of weak connections. This is especially true under the idea that most people will work some place different than where they grew up; reconnecting with friends that drift toward the same hub is a powerful tool.

denzil_correa 9y ago

You can read up on some research on Facebook Ad transparency [0]. Do you see any part of these concerns addressed? [0] https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/03/07/investigating-ad-transparency-mechanisms-in-social-media-a-case-study-of-facebooks-explanations/ https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/03/07/investigating-ad-transpa...

tomc1985 9y ago

It's difficult to be positive when you know that FB is doing everything it can to save its crown jewels. HN's supposed saltiness will likely dissipate when FB starts carving out its data policies.

JoshMnem 9y ago

> regardless of your stance on the site you cant deny it does a lot of good for a lot of people I think it's reasonable to deny that Facebook does net good in the world. Facebook doesn't do any better than open-technology alternatives could offer, and it actively stifles alternatives.