3 ms·

No, you should not delete Facebook. Not because it's not a good response to recent events, but because it's like fighting climate change with conserving energy

No, you should not delete Facebook. Not because it's not a good response to recent events, but because it's like fighting climate change with conserving energy at home; primarily a token gesture that will change little (mainly due to not enough people ever doing it). If you actually feel strongly about this, do something about it. I have been setting up a Diaspora* pod for my friends (and exploring the similar https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/ https://www.scuttlebutt.nz/), have been trying to be active on Minds.com (social media is one place crypto may actually make sense, but the community is tiny and highly toxic as is), supporting the idea of a paid-model for FB, and generally thinking about this. Facebook is a powerful tool that is best used to do these more productive things to help create a viable alternative - leaving Facebook is not going to change anything. I also own the domain name hnsocial.club , and have been wanting to try and setup a Diaspora/Scuttlebutt pod to try and get the HN community to embrace it so the network effects of a large community being on such a platform are felt. I don't have much time for this (I am a PhD student at Stanford), but if you think this might be a good idea get in touch to collaborate!

simonbarker87 9y ago
Not sure where your idea that fighting climate change by conserving energy at home is token gesture. In the UK 4,000 GWh/day are used for heating during winter, about half of that will be domestic and so moving to something like Passivhaus would be a big step forward in both domestic energy bill reduction and green house gas emissions. To put that 4,000 GWh/day in context the UK hovers around 1,000 GWh/day for electricity and 1,500 GWh/day for transportation.
- andreyk 9y ago
  It is a token gesture because there is little chance of it being done by enough people to make a difference. I base this off the documentary Before the Flood, in which DiCaprio says that in the early 2000s the big tactic was to promote home energy conservation but it amounts to very little and it has been realized that other more involved strategies are needed. This is stated explicitly early on, and it seems very plausible to me
  - simonbarker87 9y ago
    I prefer the approach promoted by David Mackay: a combined strategy of energy use reductions in all sectors combined with diverse renewables and nuclear power sources. I agree that silly measures like turning off electrical items in stand by mode is like trying to loose weight by trimmeng your toe nails (you are technically lighter but not in anyway that matters) but to say the domestic energy reductions is pointless is a cop out to make people feel better about not trying.
ponderatul 9y ago
"but because it's like fighting climate change with conserving energy at home; primarily a token gesture that will change nothing." It's funny how you don't see second or third order effects coming from this slight change in behaviour.
- andreyk 9y ago
  Let's not get snarky and overgeneralize. Okay, maybe my wording was too strong. But I still find it plausible to think little will be changed by this due to not enough people ever making the effort.

simonbarker87 9y ago

Not sure where your idea that fighting climate change by conserving energy at home is token gesture. In the UK 4,000 GWh/day are used for heating during winter, about half of that will be domestic and so moving to something like Passivhaus would be a big step forward in both domestic energy bill reduction and green house gas emissions. To put that 4,000 GWh/day in context the UK hovers around 1,000 GWh/day for electricity and 1,500 GWh/day for transportation.

andreyk 9y ago
It is a token gesture because there is little chance of it being done by enough people to make a difference. I base this off the documentary Before the Flood, in which DiCaprio says that in the early 2000s the big tactic was to promote home energy conservation but it amounts to very little and it has been realized that other more involved strategies are needed. This is stated explicitly early on, and it seems very plausible to me
- simonbarker87 9y ago
  I prefer the approach promoted by David Mackay: a combined strategy of energy use reductions in all sectors combined with diverse renewables and nuclear power sources. I agree that silly measures like turning off electrical items in stand by mode is like trying to loose weight by trimmeng your toe nails (you are technically lighter but not in anyway that matters) but to say the domestic energy reductions is pointless is a cop out to make people feel better about not trying.

ponderatul 9y ago

"but because it's like fighting climate change with conserving energy at home; primarily a token gesture that will change nothing." It's funny how you don't see second or third order effects coming from this slight change in behaviour.

andreyk 9y ago
Let's not get snarky and overgeneralize. Okay, maybe my wording was too strong. But I still find it plausible to think little will be changed by this due to not enough people ever making the effort.