4 ms·
Just be mindful that HN (or any outlet these days) will never teach you the positive value of FB for the common person. FB is indeed evil in this case, but be c
by kodablah 8y ago
Just be mindful that HN (or any outlet these days) will never teach you the positive value of FB for the common person. FB is indeed evil in this case, but be careful not to blindly make over-generalizations with unnecessary correlations. FB, like most, can be good and evil. You don't have to accept the deluge of low quality, substanceless FB op eds the same way you do articles with more objective content. We have the ability to have more nuanced opinions about companies than all good or all evil.
- peteretep 8y agoMy point is more that I've found HN's negativity to be more realistic than my natural optimism, over and over again.
- kodablah 8y agoSure, just saying don't let the local sentiment change you. I personally have found the opposite once outside the echo chamber, granted like HN, I am naturally pessimistic/skeptical. I've found common-person use of tech and common tech business to be nowhere near as negative.
- tremon 8y agoI've also found the common-person use and valuation of tech to be nowhere near as informed as HN's.
- kodablah 8y agoA bliss users enjoy, as we might in areas we're less knowledgeable in. They see a forest, we see trees; doesn't discount their happiness.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y agoHow is that relevant? Yes, uninformed people aren't worried by the problems they don't know about. That doesn't make the problems any less problematic.
- kodablah 8y agoMore like uninformed people don't consider them problems, or at least not problems outweighing the benefits. There are several things that make "problems" more or less problematic, one of which being hyper-focus on negatives, which is why it's relevant.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago> More like uninformed people don't consider them problems, or at least not problems outweighing the benefits. Which still doesn't change anything about them being (serious) problems. It just means that people who don't have a clue don't have a clue. > There are several things that make "problems" more or less problematic, one of which being hyper-focus on negatives, which is why it's relevant. No, whether anyone is paying attention to a problem has zero influence on how big a problem it is.
- blub 8y agoFacebook has about a decade of privacy fuck-ups, manipulation and dark patterns behind it. Sure, they're not 100% evil, heck Hitler was a pretty swell guy with his close friends too, but at this point they should be guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. The deluge of anti-fb comments is the public finally having enough of their crap, so you should get used to it.
- kodablah 8y ago> The deluge of anti-fb comments is the public finally having enough of their crap This is the trap I'm talking about. Instead of "public" what you mean are "commenters" and "writers". Assuming that is an accurate representation of the public is folly. As has become clear so many times recently, and is especially visible in election results, the loud public and the general public are often not of the same mind.
- blub 8y agoThe silent public is irrelevant, because they won't vote on whether facebook gets crushing fines, broken up, etc. They'll just use whatever is easiest and tickles their fancy.