2 ms·
Nobody feels any personal kinship with "community" of billions of fellow Facebook users That's kind of disingenuous, no? I'm sure this fits some dictionary def
by dfxm12 9y ago
Nobody feels any personal kinship with "community" of billions of fellow Facebook users
That's kind of disingenuous, no? I'm sure this fits some dictionary definition of "community", but it is quite different from the context the rest of the article is using. That's like comparing my kinship to a human across the world I've never met because we're humans vs my kinship to my gaming group, whom I meet with weekly.
These two "communities" are very different, and yeah, even in my offline gaming group, we are beholden to the gaming store (and to a lesser extent, the companies who make the games we play) who set rules, in a similar way to the way Facebook users are beholden to Facebook. I don't think this is unreasonable, as they are providing a service. I also don't certainly feel like a loser for playing by these rules, even if the gaming store, or Facebook, is winning (I guess by profiting more? or asserting their rules? I'm not really clear on what the author's premise is here).
- acobster 9y agoThe premise is that FB is the target of lots of recent scrutiny about how they've exposed your data and that of many, many other FB users, even turning a blind eye to companies collecting that data in violation of FB's own terms of service. While being beholden to standard terms-of-service arrangements are to be expected, it's very different from your gaming example where you've paid someone for a product and must simply abode by certain community guidelines when interacting with other users. To FB, you are the product. If you're really not aware of this dynamic, googling "Cambridge Analytica" is a good place to start. The way FB and others have capitalized on people willingly giving up personal info so that advertisers can pay for more effective ways to manipulate its users is rather disengenuous given all the talk about "community."