4 ms·

I don't want to make assumptions about your specific use of Facebook, but how many possible connections have "you" (a typical FB user) missed because of time sp

by alex_c 16y ago

I don't want to make assumptions about your specific use of Facebook, but how many possible connections have "you" (a typical FB user) missed because of time spent on Facebook instead of doing other stuff? I won't deny that Facebook can make certain connections easier - of course it can, that's what it's designed to do. But how large is the net positive effect? Think about the difference search engines can make to finding information. Without the web and search engines, how can you find information on a topic? You have to go to a local library - hit or miss on what information you'll find, especially for something obscure, or find some magazines or a book on the topic, or maybe find an expert who's willing to explain it to you. Think of the difference social networks can make for keeping in touch with people. Without social networks, you have to remember to send them an email to see what's up, maybe pick up the phone now and then and give someone a call, meet up at a pub now and then, send a card for Christmas. Now, to me both are incredibly convenient services, but by FAR only one can be described as world-changing.

dasil003 16y ago
You're conflating search engines with all human knowledge contained on the Internet, even though there are many search engines and many alternate ways of finding information on the Internet (not to mention how much of the best information isn't on the Internet). Then from the other side you equate a social network to a phone call or email, completely ignoring the astonishing fact that Facebook has signed up a double-digit percentage of the entire world population in a single social network. Or how common it is on Facebook to find people you may never have seen again otherwise. Or the fact that you can maintain passive contact with networks an order of magnitude greater than what is possible via traditional social channels. And I say this as someone who doesn't particularly value any of that. I log into Facebook maybe twice a month, and I don't particularly admire their mission. However when it comes to your closing statement, I'm in agreement, except with the inverse proposition.
- alex_c 16y ago
  >You're conflating search engines with all human knowledge contained on the Internet, even though there are many search engines and many alternate ways of finding information on the Internet (not to mention how much of the best information isn't on the Internet). I am, because all the information on the Internet is useless if you can't find it. >completely ignoring the astonishing fact that Facebook has signed up a double-digit percentage of the entire world population in a single social network. Everyone in the world IS a single social network, barring several small isolated tribes here and there. The phone network is a single social network. Email is a single social network. Facebook formalizes and makes access to this network easier, but to a lesser extent than Google makes access to the world's information easier. >the fact that you can maintain passive contact with networks an order of magnitude greater than what is possible via traditional social channels. That is a fair point, and I'm certainly not denying that Facebook is useful, but I stand by my assertion. If you could somehow quantify and compare the difference made to society by search engines vs. social networks, search engines have a far larger impact. Let me put it another way: Google is to the printing press as Facebook is to ??? Yes, Google is nothing without the rest of the Internet, but so is Facebook, so I'm content to run with that comparison even if it's not perfect.
jerf 16y ago
"but how many possible connections have "you" (a typical FB user) missed because of time spent on Facebook instead of doing other stuff?" Uh, "zero"? Maybe some people compulsively stare at Facebook for hours at a time and decide against going out tonight to click "refresh" instead, and I suppose there's always a marginal effect, but most people just stuff Facebook in their downtime or other extra time, from what I can see. Obsessives will obsess anyhow so even that's probably not a problem. And then of course you stack this up against the real connections renewed that would have expired and your argument is just not credible.
- philwelch 16y ago
  In fact, Facebook if anything encourages you to go out tonight, or to do something interesting with your life rather than just sitting on Facebook, because you see your friends going out and doing interesting things and then posting pictures or talking about it on Facebook. (Assuming, of course, that you have interesting friends.)
- alex_c 16y ago
  I ask because I honestly don't know. I have friends who fall under both usage scenarios, but these are just anecdotes and/or extremes. I haven't seen any actual data on the effects of Facebook, either positive or negative.

by alex_c 16y ago

dasil003 16y ago

You're conflating search engines with all human knowledge contained on the Internet, even though there are many search engines and many alternate ways of finding information on the Internet (not to mention how much of the best information isn't on the Internet). Then from the other side you equate a social network to a phone call or email, completely ignoring the astonishing fact that Facebook has signed up a double-digit percentage of the entire world population in a single social network. Or how common it is on Facebook to find people you may never have seen again otherwise. Or the fact that you can maintain passive contact with networks an order of magnitude greater than what is possible via traditional social channels. And I say this as someone who doesn't particularly value any of that. I log into Facebook maybe twice a month, and I don't particularly admire their mission. However when it comes to your closing statement, I'm in agreement, except with the inverse proposition.

alex_c 16y ago
>You're conflating search engines with all human knowledge contained on the Internet, even though there are many search engines and many alternate ways of finding information on the Internet (not to mention how much of the best information isn't on the Internet). I am, because all the information on the Internet is useless if you can't find it. >completely ignoring the astonishing fact that Facebook has signed up a double-digit percentage of the entire world population in a single social network. Everyone in the world IS a single social network, barring several small isolated tribes here and there. The phone network is a single social network. Email is a single social network. Facebook formalizes and makes access to this network easier, but to a lesser extent than Google makes access to the world's information easier. >the fact that you can maintain passive contact with networks an order of magnitude greater than what is possible via traditional social channels. That is a fair point, and I'm certainly not denying that Facebook is useful, but I stand by my assertion. If you could somehow quantify and compare the difference made to society by search engines vs. social networks, search engines have a far larger impact. Let me put it another way: Google is to the printing press as Facebook is to ??? Yes, Google is nothing without the rest of the Internet, but so is Facebook, so I'm content to run with that comparison even if it's not perfect.

jerf 16y ago

"but how many possible connections have "you" (a typical FB user) missed because of time spent on Facebook instead of doing other stuff?" Uh, "zero"? Maybe some people compulsively stare at Facebook for hours at a time and decide against going out tonight to click "refresh" instead, and I suppose there's always a marginal effect, but most people just stuff Facebook in their downtime or other extra time, from what I can see. Obsessives will obsess anyhow so even that's probably not a problem. And then of course you stack this up against the real connections renewed that would have expired and your argument is just not credible.

philwelch 16y ago
In fact, Facebook if anything encourages you to go out tonight, or to do something interesting with your life rather than just sitting on Facebook, because you see your friends going out and doing interesting things and then posting pictures or talking about it on Facebook. (Assuming, of course, that you have interesting friends.)
alex_c 16y ago
I ask because I honestly don't know. I have friends who fall under both usage scenarios, but these are just anecdotes and/or extremes. I haven't seen any actual data on the effects of Facebook, either positive or negative.