6 ms·

Maybe Americans figured out it's not that much fun to post when you have to consider that your mom, your aunt, your employer, your future employers, law enforce

Maybe Americans figured out it's not that much fun to post when you have to consider that your mom, your aunt, your employer, your future employers, law enforcement, the TSA, the NSA and foreign governments are going to read it. Long live pseudonyms.

notacoward 8y ago
Is it really about what they write, or about what they read? People were putting out information that all of the parties you mention could read long before Facebook existed. I still remember "NSA food" on Usenet. Those privacy concerns, while valid, have never become foremost in most people's thoughts, even among technorati. Out there among the Great Unwashed, I suspect the issue is more about the value they get from reading. People read a lot more than they write, after all. People were already getting tired of watching all their friends' highlight reels. Then since the last election there have been far more fights in comments, and the feeling of being manipulated, and people pretty naturally start to wonder whether this is time well spent. I'm not dismissing your concern, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the OP. Barely makes a dent, really.
- feocco 8y ago
  Agreed. I'm far more concerned about how I behave at the local pub.
- monetus 8y ago
  I suspect for most people you are right, but it isn't like we can measure and quantify either disincentive. I know the chilling effect of the widened pool of viewers is real. I also know the quality of the feed is generally terrible. What keeps me there is the quality of the groups (mostly people I don't know) and the somewhat reliable means of contact. I don't know anyone who keeps a phone number for more than a few years, but very few change social networks frequently.
- beat 8y ago
  I love Facebook - or perhaps, I'm addicted to it - and have been for many years. I recently quit using it temporarily for a variety of reasons, and realized a few ugly things. First, it amplifies my own tendency to be argumentative. "Someone is wrong on the Internet!" seems more true on FB than anywhere else. Second, when I did go back, I realized I was just endlessly scrolling - a behavior the UI encourages - looking for anything interesting in the sea of memes, selfies, and nonsense. Now, I allow myself back on only from a computer at home. I've removed it from my phone. It's still bad, but it's less bad. It saddens me, because I do like keeping up with old friends and new (it's especially great to see people that I lost contact with decades ago, and to keep up with the lives of my sisters and nieces and nephews some). In the place of all that FB time, I've developed a love affair with my Kindle. I carry a paperwhite with me, and also the Kindle app on my phone, so I have two books going at once. It's so much better for my mind! Today's two books: Strange Stars: How Science Fiction and Fantasy Transformed Popular Music, by Jason Heller, and The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker. So yeah, the "value they get from reading" matters a lot. And Facebook has poor value relative to the addictive qualities and bad social habits they design into it. When I came back after my hiatus, FB put me through a quiz, and in an open answer section, I said flat out that the addictive nature was a serious problem. A little hook is good, but not too much! I think I said they should be selling candy, not heroin.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Second, when I did go back, I realized I was just endlessly scrolling - a behavior the UI encourages - looking for anything interesting in the sea of memes, selfies, and nonsense. You pull down... something spins... sometimes you get a reward. Can it really be pure coincidence that Facebook and one-armed bandits have exactly the same UI?
  - notacoward 8y ago
    There's a model/theory out there about many of the problems in modern society coming down to our all being trapped in low-energy low-reward activities like watching TV or surfing the internet. They're just rewarding enough that we keep doing them, but also just taxing enough that they sap the energy we need to do or explore etc. I think there's some truth to it, though I wouldn't oversell the idea. Facebook is clearly in the low-effort category. It's designed to be. That doesn't mean it should be shunned entirely - we all need to relax somehow - but it does mean it should be managed. For some people that means limiting time. For others it means increasing the reward side of the equation, which might paradoxically mean more engagement. I have a friend who's a moderator for a very large and active group there. She has made lots of friends that way, and it makes her happy. Good for her. For still others, a complete separation might indeed be the right answer. The important thing is that no size fits all. Kids need to be taught how to make these decisions for themselves, and in the better school systems they often are. Given the newness of technology, I think a lot of adults also need such education, and sadly won't get it.
cryptozeus 8y ago
I think this is the core point. Surely drove me away from Facebook
johns 8y ago
Don’t forget advertisers!
shrimp_emoji 8y ago
There was this old and ostensibly authoritative page that was describing hacker culture. The author said that true hackers don't hide behind pseudonyms because they should be proud enough of what they do that they can put their real names behind it. It lost me there. Not only am I not proud of my social track record through the ages, but the idea of "privacy is dead" online identification is quaint, naive, and/or intolerable to me. For better or worse, there's a sharp, strategic/emotional partitioning of how I interact with or present myself to strangers, friends, family, employers, and law enforcement, and the chilling effect applied to my behavior from all angles is very limiting. LONG live pseudonyms. : D
- beenBoutIT 8y ago
  There's no shortage of ways of looking past pseudonyms and identifying authors.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    If that were true, a great many more people would be locked up, or disappeared, across the world. Pseudonyms have been essential long before the internet, long before electricity. They should not be looked down upon. Nor should they be a privilege. It is cute when a celeb adopts a "stage name". We don't really consider that hiding, but politicians use stage names too. When you want to actually research a person, say to find out if they have a criminal background, cute "stage names" become barriers to legitimate research. If the wealthy and powerful get to use pseudonyms, everyone gets to use pseudonyms.
    - noobermin 8y ago
      Any devoted individual with sufficient will and power can track you down. Even with a little less power, will can do it. We rely on the fatigue of adversaries and limits on their time and resources. Any sufficiently motivated entity can find out who you are.
      - sandworm101 8y ago
throwaway5250 8y ago
Indeed, but not just pseudonyms, as over a surprisingly short time, you'll almost certainly uniquely identify yourself. You really need to be using and rotating "burner" usernames on a quite regular basis. Unfortunately, some sites forbid this to varying degrees. HN perma-banned my primary IP address because I was rotating several times per year. As is their right. But savvy people will generally stay in lurk mode as a result. Maybe that's the future: Most posts by bots, most humans reading only.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

notacoward 8y ago

Is it really about what they write, or about what they read? People were putting out information that all of the parties you mention could read long before Facebook existed. I still remember "NSA food" on Usenet. Those privacy concerns, while valid, have never become foremost in most people's thoughts, even among technorati. Out there among the Great Unwashed, I suspect the issue is more about the value they get from reading. People read a lot more than they write, after all. People were already getting tired of watching all their friends' highlight reels. Then since the last election there have been far more fights in comments, and the feeling of being manipulated, and people pretty naturally start to wonder whether this is time well spent. I'm not dismissing your concern, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the OP. Barely makes a dent, really.

feocco 8y ago
Agreed. I'm far more concerned about how I behave at the local pub.
monetus 8y ago
I suspect for most people you are right, but it isn't like we can measure and quantify either disincentive. I know the chilling effect of the widened pool of viewers is real. I also know the quality of the feed is generally terrible. What keeps me there is the quality of the groups (mostly people I don't know) and the somewhat reliable means of contact. I don't know anyone who keeps a phone number for more than a few years, but very few change social networks frequently.
beat 8y ago
I love Facebook - or perhaps, I'm addicted to it - and have been for many years. I recently quit using it temporarily for a variety of reasons, and realized a few ugly things. First, it amplifies my own tendency to be argumentative. "Someone is wrong on the Internet!" seems more true on FB than anywhere else. Second, when I did go back, I realized I was just endlessly scrolling - a behavior the UI encourages - looking for anything interesting in the sea of memes, selfies, and nonsense. Now, I allow myself back on only from a computer at home. I've removed it from my phone. It's still bad, but it's less bad. It saddens me, because I do like keeping up with old friends and new (it's especially great to see people that I lost contact with decades ago, and to keep up with the lives of my sisters and nieces and nephews some). In the place of all that FB time, I've developed a love affair with my Kindle. I carry a paperwhite with me, and also the Kindle app on my phone, so I have two books going at once. It's so much better for my mind! Today's two books: Strange Stars: How Science Fiction and Fantasy Transformed Popular Music, by Jason Heller, and The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker. So yeah, the "value they get from reading" matters a lot. And Facebook has poor value relative to the addictive qualities and bad social habits they design into it. When I came back after my hiatus, FB put me through a quiz, and in an open answer section, I said flat out that the addictive nature was a serious problem. A little hook is good, but not too much! I think I said they should be selling candy, not heroin.
- gaius 8y ago
  Second, when I did go back, I realized I was just endlessly scrolling - a behavior the UI encourages - looking for anything interesting in the sea of memes, selfies, and nonsense. You pull down... something spins... sometimes you get a reward. Can it really be pure coincidence that Facebook and one-armed bandits have exactly the same UI?
- notacoward 8y ago
  There's a model/theory out there about many of the problems in modern society coming down to our all being trapped in low-energy low-reward activities like watching TV or surfing the internet. They're just rewarding enough that we keep doing them, but also just taxing enough that they sap the energy we need to do or explore etc. I think there's some truth to it, though I wouldn't oversell the idea. Facebook is clearly in the low-effort category. It's designed to be. That doesn't mean it should be shunned entirely - we all need to relax somehow - but it does mean it should be managed. For some people that means limiting time. For others it means increasing the reward side of the equation, which might paradoxically mean more engagement. I have a friend who's a moderator for a very large and active group there. She has made lots of friends that way, and it makes her happy. Good for her. For still others, a complete separation might indeed be the right answer. The important thing is that no size fits all. Kids need to be taught how to make these decisions for themselves, and in the better school systems they often are. Given the newness of technology, I think a lot of adults also need such education, and sadly won't get it.

cryptozeus 8y ago

I think this is the core point. Surely drove me away from Facebook

johns 8y ago

Don’t forget advertisers!

shrimp_emoji 8y ago

There was this old and ostensibly authoritative page that was describing hacker culture. The author said that true hackers don't hide behind pseudonyms because they should be proud enough of what they do that they can put their real names behind it. It lost me there. Not only am I not proud of my social track record through the ages, but the idea of "privacy is dead" online identification is quaint, naive, and/or intolerable to me. For better or worse, there's a sharp, strategic/emotional partitioning of how I interact with or present myself to strangers, friends, family, employers, and law enforcement, and the chilling effect applied to my behavior from all angles is very limiting. LONG live pseudonyms. : D

beenBoutIT 8y ago
There's no shortage of ways of looking past pseudonyms and identifying authors.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  If that were true, a great many more people would be locked up, or disappeared, across the world. Pseudonyms have been essential long before the internet, long before electricity. They should not be looked down upon. Nor should they be a privilege. It is cute when a celeb adopts a "stage name". We don't really consider that hiding, but politicians use stage names too. When you want to actually research a person, say to find out if they have a criminal background, cute "stage names" become barriers to legitimate research. If the wealthy and powerful get to use pseudonyms, everyone gets to use pseudonyms.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Any devoted individual with sufficient will and power can track you down. Even with a little less power, will can do it. We rely on the fatigue of adversaries and limits on their time and resources. Any sufficiently motivated entity can find out who you are.
    - sandworm101 8y ago

throwaway5250 8y ago

Indeed, but not just pseudonyms, as over a surprisingly short time, you'll almost certainly uniquely identify yourself. You really need to be using and rotating "burner" usernames on a quite regular basis. Unfortunately, some sites forbid this to varying degrees. HN perma-banned my primary IP address because I was rotating several times per year. As is their right. But savvy people will generally stay in lurk mode as a result. Maybe that's the future: Most posts by bots, most humans reading only.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]