4 ms·

>You don’t need Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of that other crap. You didn't need Microsoft products in the 90s. Except you did if you wanted to do s

>You don’t need Facebook or Instagram or Twitter or any of that other crap. You didn't need Microsoft products in the 90s. Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. That's why they were targeted by antitrust regulation. Exactly the same situation here, except Facebook and co have much more control over their product and can directly influence public opinion, not just software.

whatshisface 8y ago
>Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely?
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? If you're a company looking to advertise your product or service: the largest audience in the world.
- macintux 8y ago
  > What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? Accidental discovery of things important to you. I'm no fan of Facebook, but shortly after I signed up I found out that my sister, who was fighting cancer, was in the hospital again. I went to see her, and we had the best 1:1 talk we'd ever had. She passed away a few months later. Yes, in an ideal world I would have been in proactive contact with everyone and might have found out independently of Facebook, but maybe not: she was only there for a couple of days. Anyway, there is something to be said for a central clearinghouse of information relevant to your interests, your family, your friends. There are many problems with social media, but there are many positives as well.
- criddell 8y ago
  Lots of people in the entertainment business are expected to be able to promote stuff via their social media channels. For example, if two actors are up for a role and one has a hundred followers and the other has a million, the more followed actor may have an edge. On a more personal level, you might not see your nephew's piano recital.
  - choko 8y ago
    Lots of people don't use social media and don't miss their nephew's piano recitals. You have many other options for communicating with friends and family that aren't social media. That means the true value of social media is as a channel for advertising?
    - criddell 8y ago
      Why call somebody on the phone when you can write them a letter? > the true value of social media is as a channel for advertising? That's probably too narrow. The value for me would be as a channel of communication.
      - choko 8y ago
        Social media isn't faster or more efficient than email though. In fact it might be slower due to the amount of clutter and ads encountered when using facebook. The comparison between phones and post doesn't really hold up.
        Mononokay 8y ago
        > Social media isn't faster or more efficient than email though. What reality are you living in that Twitter is slower than email?
        choko 8y ago
        Same one as you. I can email my entire family just as easily as I could tweet them and with fewer restrictions. Since you have directed this in an uncivil course: In what reality do you live where "email is to twitter as postal mail is to telephone" is a true statement?
        criddell 8y ago
        It depends on how technically savvy you are. You may be able to post a video to your server and have a script automatically email all your relatives. Less technical people will record a video, choose the share action to post it online, then all the people that are following will see it in their feed.
- OrderlyTiamat 8y ago
  You're missing out on networking, an important part in getting business.
bepotts 8y ago
This is a dumb comparison and too many people make this argument. You couldn't use any technology without paying the Microsoft tax. There were no smartphones, no internet-of-things, and the internet was just getting started. Everything you did had to be done on the desktop. That is no longer the case. You don't want to use Google? Type in www.bing.com. You don't want to use Facebook? Use Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, or whatever. Don't like Android? Buy an iPhone. Microsoft's monopoly isn't analogous to Facebook and Google. Being a monopoly is not a problem - being a monopoly in such a way that harms the end user is; within the United States at least. Nobody is being harmed by Google and Facebook being popular.
- gambler 8y ago
  >You couldn't use any technology without paying the Microsoft tax. You could use Mac or Linux. Except you wouldn't be able to interoperate with everyone else. This is precisely the situation with Facebook/Twitter. >You don't want to use Google? Type in www.bing.com. Their monopoly isn't on the user side, but on the provider side. If you want your web content to be discoverable, you have to play by Google's rules. If they announce that all websites have to add dancing elephants to their pages to be discoverable, most of the web will soon have dancing elephants. This kind of power can easily be used to discourage competition by creating high barrier of entry for indexing.
  - bepotts 8y ago
    > You could use Mac or Linux. Except you wouldn't be able to interoperate with everyone else. This is precisely the situation with Facebook/Twitter. Still, to this day, Microsoft owns over 80% of the desktop market. Microsoft's dominance weaned not because they lost the desktop market but because the desktop stopped being the place where all the content was. This why Microsoft cares more about services and Azure instead of just pimping Windows. > Their monopoly isn't on the user side, but on the provider side. If you want your web content to be discoverable, you have to play by Google's rules. And if Google does something egregious, or uses their monopoly in a manner that prevents anyone from challenging it, then let's break up Google. But Google hasn't done anything like that, so your hypothetical is meaningless. US antitrust doesn't exist to prevent monopolies or "promote competition" like the EU - it exists to prevent inefficient monopolies from using their monopoly to prevent a more efficient alternative from existing. Google and Facebook, regardless of what people think about their influence, are offer damn good products. You might not like them, "elites" might not like their influence, but they aren't using their monopolies to harm their competitors. They just offer very important services that are high quality. That is everyone's problem with them. It's completely transparent and US regulators are smart to ignore this.

whatshisface 8y ago

>Except you did if you wanted to do serious work. What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely?

AlexandrB 8y ago
> What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? If you're a company looking to advertise your product or service: the largest audience in the world.
macintux 8y ago
> What am I missing out on by avoiding social media entirely? Accidental discovery of things important to you. I'm no fan of Facebook, but shortly after I signed up I found out that my sister, who was fighting cancer, was in the hospital again. I went to see her, and we had the best 1:1 talk we'd ever had. She passed away a few months later. Yes, in an ideal world I would have been in proactive contact with everyone and might have found out independently of Facebook, but maybe not: she was only there for a couple of days. Anyway, there is something to be said for a central clearinghouse of information relevant to your interests, your family, your friends. There are many problems with social media, but there are many positives as well.
criddell 8y ago
Lots of people in the entertainment business are expected to be able to promote stuff via their social media channels. For example, if two actors are up for a role and one has a hundred followers and the other has a million, the more followed actor may have an edge. On a more personal level, you might not see your nephew's piano recital.
- choko 8y ago
  Lots of people don't use social media and don't miss their nephew's piano recitals. You have many other options for communicating with friends and family that aren't social media. That means the true value of social media is as a channel for advertising?
  - criddell 8y ago
    Why call somebody on the phone when you can write them a letter? > the true value of social media is as a channel for advertising? That's probably too narrow. The value for me would be as a channel of communication.
    - choko 8y ago
      Social media isn't faster or more efficient than email though. In fact it might be slower due to the amount of clutter and ads encountered when using facebook. The comparison between phones and post doesn't really hold up.
      - Mononokay 8y ago
        > Social media isn't faster or more efficient than email though. What reality are you living in that Twitter is slower than email?
        choko 8y ago
        Same one as you. I can email my entire family just as easily as I could tweet them and with fewer restrictions. Since you have directed this in an uncivil course: In what reality do you live where "email is to twitter as postal mail is to telephone" is a true statement?
      - criddell 8y ago
        It depends on how technically savvy you are. You may be able to post a video to your server and have a script automatically email all your relatives. Less technical people will record a video, choose the share action to post it online, then all the people that are following will see it in their feed.
OrderlyTiamat 8y ago
You're missing out on networking, an important part in getting business.

bepotts 8y ago

This is a dumb comparison and too many people make this argument. You couldn't use any technology without paying the Microsoft tax. There were no smartphones, no internet-of-things, and the internet was just getting started. Everything you did had to be done on the desktop. That is no longer the case. You don't want to use Google? Type in www.bing.com. You don't want to use Facebook? Use Twitter, WhatsApp, Snapchat, or whatever. Don't like Android? Buy an iPhone. Microsoft's monopoly isn't analogous to Facebook and Google. Being a monopoly is not a problem - being a monopoly in such a way that harms the end user is; within the United States at least. Nobody is being harmed by Google and Facebook being popular.

gambler 8y ago
>You couldn't use any technology without paying the Microsoft tax. You could use Mac or Linux. Except you wouldn't be able to interoperate with everyone else. This is precisely the situation with Facebook/Twitter. >You don't want to use Google? Type in www.bing.com. Their monopoly isn't on the user side, but on the provider side. If you want your web content to be discoverable, you have to play by Google's rules. If they announce that all websites have to add dancing elephants to their pages to be discoverable, most of the web will soon have dancing elephants. This kind of power can easily be used to discourage competition by creating high barrier of entry for indexing.
- bepotts 8y ago
  > You could use Mac or Linux. Except you wouldn't be able to interoperate with everyone else. This is precisely the situation with Facebook/Twitter. Still, to this day, Microsoft owns over 80% of the desktop market. Microsoft's dominance weaned not because they lost the desktop market but because the desktop stopped being the place where all the content was. This why Microsoft cares more about services and Azure instead of just pimping Windows. > Their monopoly isn't on the user side, but on the provider side. If you want your web content to be discoverable, you have to play by Google's rules. And if Google does something egregious, or uses their monopoly in a manner that prevents anyone from challenging it, then let's break up Google. But Google hasn't done anything like that, so your hypothetical is meaningless. US antitrust doesn't exist to prevent monopolies or "promote competition" like the EU - it exists to prevent inefficient monopolies from using their monopoly to prevent a more efficient alternative from existing. Google and Facebook, regardless of what people think about their influence, are offer damn good products. You might not like them, "elites" might not like their influence, but they aren't using their monopolies to harm their competitors. They just offer very important services that are high quality. That is everyone's problem with them. It's completely transparent and US regulators are smart to ignore this.