4 ms·

Tyrants in power are going to find ways to get information on people they dislike. It already happened before personal computers and internet existed. The goal

Tyrants in power are going to find ways to get information on people they dislike. It already happened before personal computers and internet existed. The goal is to not put tyrants into power. That's a political problem. Facebook is useful for social purposes and I'm saying this as the least social person you could find. It makes connecting with people easy and that's good.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
When a system collapses when the goal is to just not have something bad happen, then it becomes a question of not if but when the system will collapse. Robust systems are those that are tolerant of negative outcomes instead of just hoping they'll never happen. Two points specifically on Facebook: 1 - The extensive profiling and datamining of Facebook is not necessary for their core service. Third parties can of course always datamine what people voluntarily put out there on their own (https://www.snoopsnoo.com/ https://www.snoopsnoo.com/ is a great example of a very primitive platform exploiting what users say on reddit - even that is disconcerting), but much of the nastier stuff that Facebook does is first party only - cross matching devices/fingerprints, tracking non-registered 'users' through various means, quantifying response to various categories of information, and so on. 2 - I would think it's becoming increasingly clear that people connecting easily is not necessarily as good as it seemed like it should have been. Instead of becoming a more diverse, varied, and embracing world - people have instead just sought out people that confirm their own biases and we're becoming more segregated into our own bubbles than ever before. And as people surround themselves only with those with the same biases of themselves they rapidly slide further down the path to radicalism in their own biases. Lastly it's also creating systems of groupthink as individuals fear that expressing views outside the social standard of their group could result in social expulsion. In times past your friends were whoever you ended up being thrown together with. And it resulted in relationships that would never form today, often to great result. And even this 'great connectivity' of society has had a paradoxical effect as depression and loneliness are at record levels. Clearly there's far greater implications to 'connecting with people easily' than the kneejerk reaction to such a marketing point.
- lukaslalinsky 8y ago
  I agree that Facebook should be regulated in some way. It should not turn into a private intelligence agency, which seems to be where it was going. Despite people here disliking GDPR, I think it's a good step towards making sure companies don't try to abuse personal data. I think more regulations like this will come in the future, that will restrict companies, but not necessarily try to shut them down. I disagree about your second point though. I mean, I understand it and I'm aware that what you are saying is true for a big chunk of people, but that doesn't decrease the usefulness for the rest of the population. I'm in various support groups and I see random people helping other people with real-life problems, not just comments or likes. I see people finding partners for outdoor activities. I see close friends and families meeting again after not seeing each other for a while, as a reaction to some post on their new feed. All anecdotal, of course, but I see a lot of positive impact on people.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    There's not much to disagree with on the second point unless you think the data are just spurious correlations, which evidence is increasingly indicating that they are not. Society has a whole has seen a major net negative effect from social media. This does not mean that social media should not exist, or even that it should be regulated. But rather that appeals to it being a good thing (in net effect) are questionable at best, and most likely just completely wrong.
    - xapata 8y ago
      > social media We've had pamphlets for hundreds of years. I suppose they did cause some revolutions, which killed people. So, net negative?
- xapata 8y ago
  I'd define a system's robustness as the tolerance for systemic shocks. Even a highly robust system, dynamically stable and self-correcting, is just waiting for a big shock, which is inevitable. What you really want is a system that benefits from shocks, using the noise to improve itself. Still, a big enough shock and it'll fall apart. The internet ain't going away. Your points aren't specific to Facebook. Between your phone and your credit cards, companies have a pretty good idea of what you do on a daily basis.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

When a system collapses when the goal is to just not have something bad happen, then it becomes a question of not if but when the system will collapse. Robust systems are those that are tolerant of negative outcomes instead of just hoping they'll never happen. Two points specifically on Facebook: 1 - The extensive profiling and datamining of Facebook is not necessary for their core service. Third parties can of course always datamine what people voluntarily put out there on their own (https://www.snoopsnoo.com/ https://www.snoopsnoo.com/ is a great example of a very primitive platform exploiting what users say on reddit - even that is disconcerting), but much of the nastier stuff that Facebook does is first party only - cross matching devices/fingerprints, tracking non-registered 'users' through various means, quantifying response to various categories of information, and so on. 2 - I would think it's becoming increasingly clear that people connecting easily is not necessarily as good as it seemed like it should have been. Instead of becoming a more diverse, varied, and embracing world - people have instead just sought out people that confirm their own biases and we're becoming more segregated into our own bubbles than ever before. And as people surround themselves only with those with the same biases of themselves they rapidly slide further down the path to radicalism in their own biases. Lastly it's also creating systems of groupthink as individuals fear that expressing views outside the social standard of their group could result in social expulsion. In times past your friends were whoever you ended up being thrown together with. And it resulted in relationships that would never form today, often to great result. And even this 'great connectivity' of society has had a paradoxical effect as depression and loneliness are at record levels. Clearly there's far greater implications to 'connecting with people easily' than the kneejerk reaction to such a marketing point.

lukaslalinsky 8y ago
I agree that Facebook should be regulated in some way. It should not turn into a private intelligence agency, which seems to be where it was going. Despite people here disliking GDPR, I think it's a good step towards making sure companies don't try to abuse personal data. I think more regulations like this will come in the future, that will restrict companies, but not necessarily try to shut them down. I disagree about your second point though. I mean, I understand it and I'm aware that what you are saying is true for a big chunk of people, but that doesn't decrease the usefulness for the rest of the population. I'm in various support groups and I see random people helping other people with real-life problems, not just comments or likes. I see people finding partners for outdoor activities. I see close friends and families meeting again after not seeing each other for a while, as a reaction to some post on their new feed. All anecdotal, of course, but I see a lot of positive impact on people.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  There's not much to disagree with on the second point unless you think the data are just spurious correlations, which evidence is increasingly indicating that they are not. Society has a whole has seen a major net negative effect from social media. This does not mean that social media should not exist, or even that it should be regulated. But rather that appeals to it being a good thing (in net effect) are questionable at best, and most likely just completely wrong.
  - xapata 8y ago
    > social media We've had pamphlets for hundreds of years. I suppose they did cause some revolutions, which killed people. So, net negative?
xapata 8y ago
I'd define a system's robustness as the tolerance for systemic shocks. Even a highly robust system, dynamically stable and self-correcting, is just waiting for a big shock, which is inevitable. What you really want is a system that benefits from shocks, using the noise to improve itself. Still, a big enough shock and it'll fall apart. The internet ain't going away. Your points aren't specific to Facebook. Between your phone and your credit cards, companies have a pretty good idea of what you do on a daily basis.