14 ms·

Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet

258 points by theBashShell 8y ago

chris_wot 8y ago
That's a bold thing to write... on Twitter.
- hirundo 8y ago
  Maybe that's related to Twitter starting as a Rails project, so in the eyes of this particular tweeter, it may at least get an asterisk.
- bvinc 8y ago
  You're downvoted. Maybe because of your snarky tone, but I think you have a point. Twitter is a cesspool with all of the same problems as Facebook.
  - detaro 8y ago
    It has problems, certainly, but not all the same. A bunch that don't apply: * Twitter has always been easier to avoid (more people/groups/places expect you to have a Facebook account if you want to know about stuff) * real-name policy * Anything related to payment, due to not selling anything to end users, e.g. the recent story about charges caused by kids https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-internal-facebook-documents-following-our-legal-action/ https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-... On the other hand, Twitter is more public, which brings issues not so much on Facebook.
personlurking 8y ago
Top reply: >What do you think of Facebook-owned products? IG started out like a mobile Flickr in the early days, a place for personal creativity and documentation, but now has become an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote. I wonder about the psychological impact on people. His response: >Plenty of studies have confirmed that Instagram is having a terrible effect on the psychology of many people. Also, Instagram gave us The Influencer. That's gotta be up there in the top 10 of worst gifts to the world. TIL that apparently IG used to be a mobile Flickr. But even if that line of thought advanced, would it not have still turned into "an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote" personal creativity and documentation?
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  Sorta, it had filters you could add to pictures iirc was the biggest thing going for IG. I can't recall if those came from the getgo or after the fact it looked like Flickr.
  - girlsOFotoshop 8y ago
    Very accurate, but most of all, Instagram is where the girls are. The filters Instagram supplied to the common end-user brought girls in by the truckload. All of the people that recommended Instagram to me, begore it was well known, before they were acquired by Facebook, all of the people that pushed Instagram by word of mouth were girls, and almost without fail, photogenic girls, or there somewhat less-so friends. This class of girls also went to Snapchat, but for obviously different reasons, in particular, as a pseudo-forward security toy (sexting via app). Something they presumed to be, mostly “secure enough” for the moment. This split, of forward security contrasted against accessible cookie-cutter photoshop filters that place many images on a sentimental pedistal or permit the ability glamourize one-handed, were what precipitated the viral runaway growth hack the differentiated each from other varieties of photo sharing, like flickr.
  - twizzlerz 8y ago
    Very accurate, but most of all, Instagram is where the girls are. The filters Instagram supplied to the common end-user brought girls in by the truckload. All of the people that recommended Instagram to me, begore it was well known, before they were acquired by Facebook, all of the people that pushed Instagram by word of mouth were girls, and almost without fail, photogenic girls, or there somewhat less-so friends. This class of girls also went to Snapchat, but for obviously different reasons, in particular, as a pseudo-forward security toy (sexting via app). Something they presumed to be, mostly “secure enough” for the moment. This split, of forward security contrasted against accessible cookie-cutter photoshop filters that place many images on a sentimental pedistal or permit the ability glamourize one-handed, were what precipitated the viral runaway growth hack the differentiated each from other varieties of photo sharing, like flickr.
  - derivatives 8y ago
neves 8y ago
A modest declaration. FB, and some of its properties, is worser than this.
Reedx 8y ago
I'd be curious to hear what people think are the top 3, because I feel like Twitter and Instagram are strong contenders. Or if indeed Twitter belongs in the top spot.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Google is the worst by far. Page rank has horribly distorted the content and structure. It affects the way people write and think e.g. I have to reuse my title in post for google ranking! I have to include these keywords! I can’t link because I want to keep my “juice”. I’d guess a majority of all content on the internet is fake, created to manipulate page rankings. And that’s just the beginning, people believe a 30 second video needs to be stretched to at least 10 minutes because that’s want YouTube wants to rank in search. Amp? At least many of Facebooks worst features are locked inside their own garden. The page rank effect follows me into real life! I get emails every day, and even periodic phone calls from people trying to pay me to put their content on my site just so they can get back links.
  - wallawe 8y ago
    In what world is this not the case? One without a search engine at all? Any world where a search engine exists, people are going to try to do what ranks best. I would argue the world is better with a search engine (and these side effects) than without one.
    - WillPostForFood 8y ago
      Your page ranks not because it is inherently good content, but by how many people link to it and how they link to it (link text). So it creates externalities.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I'd rate it a grab bag of google, twitter, and InstaFaceSnap. If you forced me to choose just one that was the absolute worst, I'd probably choose Google. Google is definitely the "patient zero" or the "Typhoid Mary".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
athenot 8y ago
Facebook hijacked friendships/acquaintances and made us talk to each other in a different way that we would have in person. That's my primary beef against them. As for the internet, they've consistently closed off integrations so as to become a closed platform that benefits from the internet but does not give back: - APIs closed - Integrations with other services: closed - Hyperlinks to posts: hard to find for sharing and bookmarking. They've become the new AOL (the kid on the block that doesn't play with others unless they have a toy he wants to steal from them). Having said this, the closed platform may end up being a blessing in disguise, making it easier to cut off facebook from habits altogether.
vinceguidry 8y ago
Before Facebook, if I lost someone's contact information, and drifted outside of their social circle for a long enough time, chances were I would never ever see or speak to that person again. Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation on an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000 for a proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have someone who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn how to use something like IRC. Social networking was an enormous pain in the ass. Facebook was the first platform that actually worked for people. Every subsequent social network took their cues from Facebook, it was a veritable sea change in the state of the Internet. The problem here isn't Facebook, you'd be having these growing pains with any useful social networking technology platform. It's the unintended consequences of Facebook's universal accessibility. Anybody can use Facebook, and so everybody will. It's the story of technology all over again. Technology is invented, we have a honeymoon phase, then the real marriage begins. We're in the "just had a baby, now we need to get it to a year old so we can all relax" phase. It'll get better.
- sephoric 8y ago
  I think the "have everyone learn how to use something like IRC" solution would have been a lot more feasible if the technology behind it (servers and clients) didn't stagnate and cater only to technophiles. Most of the concepts of Facebook were around already in UNIX, such as having your own mailbox in your own user account and being able to check it for new mail, wherever it was sent from. Imagine something like AOL in 1995 except instead of real-time chat and single-person email, it also had the few features of Facebook. They weren't missing the technology, they were just missing the imagination and the realization that connecting groups over longer term (followable status updates) was higher priority than connecting individuals over a longer term (email) or connecting groups in the immediate term (chat).
- wronnng 8y ago
  Facebook was NOT the first platform that actually worked for people.
- sbarre 8y ago
  While this may all be true, how do we prevent Facebook from becoming a "factory town"? As more and more of our seemingly public discourse moves online, we are congregating in very much non-public spaces that have their own motives that are often at odds with the public good. I know Facebook, Twitter and co. need to make money somehow, that's fine, but there's more to this.. How do we reconcile US-based for-profit corporations becoming the stewards of public discourse for an ever-growing part of the world's population?
rafiki6 8y ago
So he's talking about the Web not the Internet. Counter argument, the web was never that great to begin with and maybe let's stop pretending that some large companies we all don't like for whatever reason are responsible? Social media is opt-in. It is not a requirement to use the Internet and communicate effectively with it. If you hate it so much, start a new web. But then you quickly realize the Web is what it is due much more to economics associated with it than anything else.
- Artemis2 8y ago
  Unfortunately, with trackers such as the Like button embedded in every web page and shadow profiles, social media is definitely not opt-in.
deaps 8y ago
You know - my wife and I were talking about Facebook the other day and the role it plays in 'the way society acts' these days. We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This causes the comments on those posts on your feed to mostly be filled with people whose feelings align with your own. I think that's dangerous, maybe mainly because the general population doesn't realize this. Everyone, no matter how 'distorted' their views are - feels vindicated in those views. Every time I feel like removing my Facebook, I just take a few steps back and only use it to stay in touch with family and/or friends that I have moved away from - which soon morphs back into the constant checking for new posts and then reading those comments, which tend to align and solidify my own feelings. I think the world would be a better place without Facebook - and I also think the world would be worse off in some regards without it. In either event, if Facebook vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't complain.
- justapassenger 8y ago
  Bubbles are real, but not only on Facebook. People will watch TV stations that have content that aligns with their world view. They'll read news papers that do the same. Listen to people who say things they like. This isn't strictly Facebook issue.
  - FB_goaway 8y ago
    news and news feeds align with and are pestilently allied with FB
- traek 8y ago
  > We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This causes the comments on those posts on your feed to mostly be filled with people whose feelings align with your own. This is pretty well-trodden territory, cf. 'filter bubbles'.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  I think about this a lot; the inverse might be slightly true in terms of who we should be connecting to, or maybe it's about the frequency of new and diverse connections and how those introductions are done? Even before Facebook I think most people generally kept within their group of like-minded people. It has gotten worse now because we are very much divided physically by where we live, what jobs people hold, where kids go to school, etc. I used to believe in the original Facebook mission -- connecting the world. I've worked remotely my entire life so I've had the opportunity to work with people all over the world from different cultures and backgrounds. It's given me a great perspective on humanity that I think a lot of people could benefit from, especially the ones that are in small towns (like I was) and don't venture out much beyond their borders in their life. But the internet allowed those connections to take place for me, not Facebook. We don't need Facebook to do any of these things, we just need to embrace the power of the internet. Facebook brought together a lot of people from very different groups with very different opinions about the world and just slammed them together in an informal way, an awkward way. I have uncles that I find to be abhorrent and I had no interest in connecting to them before Facebook in any way, but Facebook thinks because we have genetic connection, that must mean we want to have a social connection, right? And they push those connections extremely hard. I hate being "one of those people" but I deactivated my FB account early this month and it will be deleted in early February. I've definitely felt better without it, even though I know I'm missing some things. But if anything, it's encouraged me to be more proactive in reaching out to the people I actually want to keep up-to-date with, either via text message or real life meetings. It has also pushed me to blog more, and I appreciate that it's on a site I control and own, not for Facebook to manipulate and de-prioritize.
kop316 8y ago
I guess it depends on metrics. It feel like Facebook/Google showed everybody else the gold mine that is sucking up as much user data as possible and fusing that data with other companies. That is probably the #1 worst thing about the internet and its effect on regular life today. However, with work at it, I think it is possible to leave both the Facebook/Google bubble. If that is #1, #2 is definitely what Twitter has done to distort the news cycle and cause "social media" storms. Twitter seems to make it much easier for that to happen, and worse, you will never get the full story from Twitter. And the worst part? you don't even have to have a Twitter account to be subject to that.
vernie 8y ago
And this is coming from the creator of Rails.
monksy 8y ago
I don't understand the hero worship that goes on with DHH. He seems to make some blunt, uninformed and lacking arguments and people take it as gospel. (His offhand tweet is on the front page of hacker news). Is facebook the worse? It's bad, and there have been many things it's done badly. I would say there are far worse actors on the internet. (I.e. mpaa, agressive marketers etc) People have been screaming from the rooftops during the whole time. Many of the worse-case predictions have come true (considering the info leak/cambridge etc). However they're far from the only one doing that. They've really brought on the walled garden there. That imo has been the worse. It's no surprise that you're getting all these negative effects when there is no competition. Thankfully they haven't taken the full-on paid censor. We're lacking in rights about our data and ways to stand up to this.
unique-template 8y ago
The worst thing to have ever happened is the monetization of clicks. It's killed journalism. And by proxy it's created echo chambers where people only seek validation of their existing beliefs.
- rock_hard 8y ago
  This was a issue way before clicks got invented though...it’s basic human nature
ham_sandwich 8y ago
In what sense did Facebook ‘happen’? People chose to join; they weren’t forced to. Facebook qua social network is a valuable tool for many people. Now you can perhaps make the case that their effort to monetize was an unethical bait-and-switch. Get people on the service, then keep them engaged via promotion of provocative and unhealthy behaviors, which ultimately fuels an advertising money-printing machine the likes of which we’ve never seen before, save Google.
paulsutter 8y ago
I laughed out loud when I saw (twitter.com) at the end of the title
- trqx 8y ago
  I have to admit it is a bit funny but I didn't laugh. This is me trying to read the message: https://tmp.shroom.party/twitter.ogv https://tmp.shroom.party/twitter.ogv
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  Declared worst thing in the world...on the 2nd worst thing in the world.
  - pricees 8y ago
    I was going to say this but figured it would be downvoted, post-haste.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Twitter is also in the running: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI
  - zestyping 8y ago
    This talk is fantastic. I hope everyone watches it. I wonder how much better the world would be if Twitter itself posted this video or something like it, every year, once a year. It might be amazing.
- eximius 8y ago
  Ah, but the success of Facebook inspired and led to Twitter. So, while Twitter has perhaps done more harm, Facebook is responsible.
- flanbiscuit 8y ago
  yeah, came here to reply "... said unironically via twitter"
mhd 8y ago
My vote would be for Javascript, but that's only because I'm optimistic and think Facebook might still be torn apart.
hkon 8y ago
Would be nice with some more explanation. But I guess that is part of what is lacking on social media.
vasilipupkin 8y ago
this guy is obsessed with Facebook, while justifying his presence on Twitter which has the exact same business model, with various excuses. He is a troll trying to generate clicks and visibility. That's all. If he really was serious about hating the free social network / paid for by targeted advertising model, he would have gotten off Twitter. But he has a lot of followers there and it's an effective marketing tool for him.
- AlexandrB 8y ago
  Twitter is terrible, but at least it's honest. There's no pretence of privacy through vague "controls". If Facebook just said: "Anything you post to Facebook is public, except PMs", it would be a lot more palatable. Instead it's a bait-and-switch, where Facebook lets you think some information is private, but uses it for its own purposes as if it's public. Edit: Also consider that Twitter doesn't enforce a real-name policy. This means you can often maintain your own anonymity/privacy on Twitter simply by not using your real name.
didip 8y ago
The only generic platform I need to keep up with friends and family is WhatsApp. I wish WhatsApp IPO’d instead of selling out to FB. Good for consumers. Founders would have made more money too.
kodablah 8y ago
I know, and cars are the worst thing to ever happen to the planet, synthesizers are the worst thing to ever happen to music, etc. Worst thing to happen to pundits? The inability to recognize the value of something to the common person beyond the negatives they focus upon.
- everdev 8y ago
  Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to the desire for short term gains that produce long term problems (ex. from your comment: cars). Products can have both utility and be a danger. It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is worse. When the internal combustion engine was criticised as the worst invention of all time, it wasn't because people thought it wasn't useful, it was because it was insanely useful and incredibly bad for the environment. In fact, there's little need to criticise things that aren't useful as very few people use them.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    > It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is worse. Sure so long as it's OK to come to a different conclusion. Since utility of these things are basically unquantifiable, an objectively correct answer cannot happen. All I ask is that those closest to the tech and the current anti-big-web-tech narrative recognize that the benefits differ by user group. Too often, it's presented as an obvious fact sans rebuttal that FB is overall a negative.
    - everdev 8y ago
      Right, I think DHH's comment could better be prefaced with "For me..." Someone appearing to speak on my behalf with a position I don't agree with always bugs me too.
nkkollaw 8y ago
Second only to Twitter (which is the platform where this was published).
jasode 8y ago
The websites I constantly use every single day: google.com maps.google.com youtube.com wikipedia.org weather.gov stackoverflow.com For almost 20 years, I've been using Google for dozens of random searches every single day. Its utility to help me find information is unmatched. And Youtube -- even with the ads -- adds value to my life because of all the helpful tutorials and DIY content I can view for free. On the other hand, I've never needed to create accounts for Facebook or LinkedIn. Unlike google/wikipedia/stackoverflow, I think of Facebook as my adversary that's reckless with personal data and harming me. I assume they are developing more unethical uses of personal data but we don't know about them yet because an ex-Facebook employee hasn't publicized them. The questionable ethics starts at the top with Mark Z. I do think humanity would be served by a "real names" database by an entity we could trust to help us connect with each other. Unfortunately, that valuable info is currently held by an unethical company like Facebook. (My previous comment about this.[0]) They abuse their stewardship of the social graph which is why I adamantly avoid them. Facebook was a bad actor even before all the revelations about Russian funded political ads to hijack the election. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061
- sephoric 8y ago
  Facebook is harmful because it's reckless with your personal data, but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data, which it also abuses and sells. And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books complete with pictures and drawings, but without stealing and selling your data.
  - jasode 8y ago
    >, but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data What data from me does Google steal? I don't have a Google account. I can be anonymous at a Starbucks coffee shop and search google for "Paul Graham" and get back useful results. If they coalesce search queries on my home ip address, that's unavoidable and a tradeoff I knowingly make. >And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books In the last month, I needed to replace a side mirror of a Lexus car and also disassemble a Moen faucet. No, my library does not have the manuals to show how to do it. But youtube did have the videos uploaded by nice people. Both of those procedures had tricky steps that weren't obvious and Youtube saved me hundreds of dollars in fees from car dealerships and plumbers.
resca79 8y ago
I personally loved the first years of fb even if I never been a social network person. Now I think that company ( in terms of fb product) should focus how to be still facebook of the first years with innovations. Because right now my traction to use facebook is just read news or to follow some companies that I like.
skybrian 8y ago
DHH's comment is another example of what I call one-bit reasoning: everything is either wonderful or terrible. Facebook's features have had far-reaching effects and it's not that easy to classify them as positive or negative. Getting in touch with people is easier. Thoughtlessly sending things to all your "friends" is probably too easy, but there are also announcements you do want to read.
- Dirlewanger 8y ago
  Twitter is the prime place for hot takes like DHH's. And his making this post is only part making us aware of this issue, and more his further building his own brand as a tech influencer. All about personal incentives. Basically, the whole system's fucked.
azangru 8y ago
Facebook brought us React and GraphQL (dont't know if ReasonML is an important enough technology to count). I despise Facebook as a social network; but as a technological company, it's clearly not the worst that happened to _the Internet_.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
Where exactly is the substance of this argument? I don't disagree or agree, but this is just bare invective hurled into a world looking to agree. I don't see anything justified or rigorously argued and most of the follow up basically asks for exactly that. I'm not quite sure why, but DHH has chosen "antagonizing and negative" as his calling card. It seems to be working out, as he's the go-to guy that has enough street cred to be negative about high-growth VC fueled startups.
cmurf 8y ago
He says from Twitter, which is waving "what about me? I'm awful too!" My runner up is Youtube, now infested with piles of crap, and when finding something decent it's infested with ads. What an innovation! It's now just like cable TV!
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I still get a fair amount of value out of Youtube, personally. But yeah, you definitely have to wear some goggles to see through the noise. --- My rules for youtube: * Don't read the comments * Don't participate in the comments * Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings * Stick to music, favoured clips from shows (I do love that I can watch some old Mitchell and Webb Look), DIY/How-Tos, old lectures and interviews (Feynman's are fantastic), and the like. --- Grievances: * The aforementioned suggestions that I keep up on my extremist ideology lessons and conspiracy theories about Clinton and her child slave moon base on Mars * I now know what Peppa Pig is, kind of.
  - pbalau 8y ago
    > Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings Interesting, the suggestions I get are mostly sailing vlogs, featuring scantily clad ladies. I sarcastically wonder why...
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      Looks like I'll have to just start randomly clicking on videos like that to skew the suggestions. I have no idea why I'm getting the kinds of suggestions I am. Thankfully they're an increasing minority as I get more music these days. And Trailer Park Boys haha.
demygale 8y ago
Sure, but Ruby on Rails has to be in the top ten.
- joemi 8y ago
  Why? I get that it might not be the ideal framework, but that's a long way from being one of the worst things that's ever happened to the internet. (Or are you just trolling?)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cm2012 8y ago
I'm a Facebook advertiser. I can attest that there's lot of good products where the only cost effective and scalable way to reach your target market is through Facebook. Want to reach teachers with a time saving app? FB is the best way. Want to offer a SaaS tool to small businesses? FB is the best way to get it in front of them. Etc. FB ads don't have 0 utility for consumers. A lot of products just couldn't reach the people who want them without it.
- herbst 8y ago
  Sure this is just personal preference however Facebook always was a huge waste of money if I sold anything worth while (like my SaaS und stuff) however it worked kinda great to sell cheap China reimports and other shit like that. Not to mention that it gets more expensive and less effective every year. And all those 'bugs' where clicks count from the wrong countries and all the other horrible stuff the Facebook adverser forum is filled with.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    It's possible to lose or make money on any channel, but here's a chart of where you can target different types of audiences: https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marketingchannelchart-orig2_orig.png https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marke... FB is the only online player with any significant scale in that bottom right quadrant. And that's pretty much the ballgame for putting products in front of specific audiences.
    - herbst 8y ago
      Well I moved on with them locking my last account last year. Agreed it's not as easy to discover different platforms for different ad projects but I do definitly get a lot more for my money now. I would argue Facebook is the easiest but I doubt its the most efficient in any way. Edit:// before anyone thinks locked means I did something unethical. No they locked it because I travelled to different countries and I wasn't able to open it again. After I spend thousands of dollars on ads they didn't help.
- 8y ago
jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I don't have a Facebook account and I admire DHH, but a lot of the criticism of Facebook seems over the top. Most people don't care about similar actions done by other companies (at least not at the same level), and don't seem to take much real action to mitigate the harms they see from Facebook. I think much of the criticism is a form of signaling, rather than an expression of a real belief.
blunte 8y ago
Is Twitter the second worst? It has emphasized our decreasing attention span to the point where we now have "world leaders" communicating in short, meaningless blurbs.
swagtricker 8y ago
Clearly DHH wasn't around when AOL dumped it's user base onto a community that was previously gated by having to actually learn something about computing in order to get connected. P.S. - Get off my lawn;)
mensetmanusman 8y ago
Sensationalism. FB is a tool. Their mistake was deciding to mix politics into an app people liked for family/friend connections by trying and succeeding to increase monitization/engagement: The News Feed (I stopped using FB after the news feed started dominating my engagment in 2016)
FB_goaway 8y ago
FB is a cancer 101% ! The biggest blackhat hack ever, FB and the mentality is propitiates is a threat to the real internet. Everyone lives on thier browser because of facebook. zuckerberg is a pedo, a blackhat, and an intellectual property thief. dont go playing the prove it cite it card, its right infront of everyones face, but the convienience is blinding all the old school users. FWIW if you are under 30 you have never even seen the real internet, and that is the biggest crime, 3 cohorts of netizens think its a crime to use telnet, or FTP, or access internet functions with CLI. smash the stupidity bubble and make FB die already .
Bantros 8y ago
Posted on the second worst thing to ever happen to the internet
AdeptusAquinas 8y ago
Ironic that someone is saying this from Twitter, which is worse.
babyslothzoo 8y ago
Agreed if you expand that to social media in general.
FB_goaway 8y ago
>FB is a tool< actually kuckerborg is a tool.
sunseb 8y ago
It's funny how DHH is constantly bashing Google or Facebook, but we never hear him about Amazon (because Amazon invested in his company, Basecamp).
rland 8y ago
Facebook seems to be taking a lot of heat these days. But I wonder: what would actually "fix" the platform? As far as I can tell, the only "solution" is getting rid of Facebook. Obviously, FB doesn't agree. Short of destroying itself (and having a competitor instantly take its place), what should they do? What can they do? Proposed solutions to their various problems: - Make the timeline less addictive, to prevent people overusing it. Won't work, as soon as facebook loses its relevance another, more addictive site will take its place (reddit, instagram). In any case, they've already tried this. - Introduce moderation, to prevent abuse of the platform. They're already frantically hiring moderators--they cannot find enough people to moderate the platform. And competitors are emerging in any case (whatsapp and other messaging apps) - Stop collecting data on people. Not going to happen, since they rely on this for revenue. Asking them to do this is like asking someone to violate their survival instinct. This has to happen from some force external to Facebook. And in any case, people's data is valuable, so saying "stop collecting data" is like saying "don't pick up $100 that you find on the ground." I guess I'm trying to say that this problem is so much bigger than just Facebook. It's a problem with mankind that will prove to be more and more intractable as time goes on, regardless of who is a player and who is pointing fingers.
- padobson 8y ago
  They should stop selling advertising and charge for API access to the social graph, both users and app developers. There should be a free tier with the core functionality for users. This will realign Facebook's interests with the interests of their userbase.
  - rland 8y ago
    That would solve the problem -- but now we are back at square one, because a free competitor will emerge to replace Facebook. There are paid social networks out there. Nobody uses them.
  - thekyle 8y ago
    I don't think this is a good solution. They would be going from metaphorically "selling" user data via ads to literally selling user data.
miguelmota 8y ago
100% disagree. My older relatives use Facebook to reconnect with old pals and love sharing family pictures and conversing over messenger. It’d be difficult to find them otherwise. I’m personally not on Facebook because I cringe on what people post but to say it’s the worst thing on the internet is pretty ignorant
bedhead 8y ago
The problem is human nature, not Facebook.
theredbox 8y ago
I dont want to offend anyone but DHH turned himself from a technologist into an annoying SJW with the holier than thou attitude. Seriously that guy is big mouth about this and that but instead of contributing something meaningful he is just spewing non sense all the time.
lithander 8y ago
"Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet" -Twitter
koolhead17 8y ago
People forgot Orkut? I have made so many friends and some are still close to me. :)

258 points by theBashShell 8y ago

chris_wot 8y ago

That's a bold thing to write... on Twitter.

hirundo 8y ago
Maybe that's related to Twitter starting as a Rails project, so in the eyes of this particular tweeter, it may at least get an asterisk.
bvinc 8y ago
You're downvoted. Maybe because of your snarky tone, but I think you have a point. Twitter is a cesspool with all of the same problems as Facebook.
- detaro 8y ago
  It has problems, certainly, but not all the same. A bunch that don't apply: * Twitter has always been easier to avoid (more people/groups/places expect you to have a Facebook account if you want to know about stuff) * real-name policy * Anything related to payment, due to not selling anything to end users, e.g. the recent story about charges caused by kids https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-internal-facebook-documents-following-our-legal-action/ https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-... On the other hand, Twitter is more public, which brings issues not so much on Facebook.

personlurking 8y ago

Top reply: >What do you think of Facebook-owned products? IG started out like a mobile Flickr in the early days, a place for personal creativity and documentation, but now has become an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote. I wonder about the psychological impact on people. His response: >Plenty of studies have confirmed that Instagram is having a terrible effect on the psychology of many people. Also, Instagram gave us The Influencer. That's gotta be up there in the top 10 of worst gifts to the world. TIL that apparently IG used to be a mobile Flickr. But even if that line of thought advanced, would it not have still turned into "an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote" personal creativity and documentation?

giancarlostoro 8y ago
Sorta, it had filters you could add to pictures iirc was the biggest thing going for IG. I can't recall if those came from the getgo or after the fact it looked like Flickr.
- girlsOFotoshop 8y ago
  Very accurate, but most of all, Instagram is where the girls are. The filters Instagram supplied to the common end-user brought girls in by the truckload. All of the people that recommended Instagram to me, begore it was well known, before they were acquired by Facebook, all of the people that pushed Instagram by word of mouth were girls, and almost without fail, photogenic girls, or there somewhat less-so friends. This class of girls also went to Snapchat, but for obviously different reasons, in particular, as a pseudo-forward security toy (sexting via app). Something they presumed to be, mostly “secure enough” for the moment. This split, of forward security contrasted against accessible cookie-cutter photoshop filters that place many images on a sentimental pedistal or permit the ability glamourize one-handed, were what precipitated the viral runaway growth hack the differentiated each from other varieties of photo sharing, like flickr.
- twizzlerz 8y ago
  Very accurate, but most of all, Instagram is where the girls are. The filters Instagram supplied to the common end-user brought girls in by the truckload. All of the people that recommended Instagram to me, begore it was well known, before they were acquired by Facebook, all of the people that pushed Instagram by word of mouth were girls, and almost without fail, photogenic girls, or there somewhat less-so friends. This class of girls also went to Snapchat, but for obviously different reasons, in particular, as a pseudo-forward security toy (sexting via app). Something they presumed to be, mostly “secure enough” for the moment. This split, of forward security contrasted against accessible cookie-cutter photoshop filters that place many images on a sentimental pedistal or permit the ability glamourize one-handed, were what precipitated the viral runaway growth hack the differentiated each from other varieties of photo sharing, like flickr.
- derivatives 8y ago

neves 8y ago

A modest declaration. FB, and some of its properties, is worser than this.

Reedx 8y ago

I'd be curious to hear what people think are the top 3, because I feel like Twitter and Instagram are strong contenders. Or if indeed Twitter belongs in the top spot.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Google is the worst by far. Page rank has horribly distorted the content and structure. It affects the way people write and think e.g. I have to reuse my title in post for google ranking! I have to include these keywords! I can’t link because I want to keep my “juice”. I’d guess a majority of all content on the internet is fake, created to manipulate page rankings. And that’s just the beginning, people believe a 30 second video needs to be stretched to at least 10 minutes because that’s want YouTube wants to rank in search. Amp? At least many of Facebooks worst features are locked inside their own garden. The page rank effect follows me into real life! I get emails every day, and even periodic phone calls from people trying to pay me to put their content on my site just so they can get back links.
- wallawe 8y ago
  In what world is this not the case? One without a search engine at all? Any world where a search engine exists, people are going to try to do what ranks best. I would argue the world is better with a search engine (and these side effects) than without one.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    Your page ranks not because it is inherently good content, but by how many people link to it and how they link to it (link text). So it creates externalities.
bilbo0s 8y ago
I'd rate it a grab bag of google, twitter, and InstaFaceSnap. If you forced me to choose just one that was the absolute worst, I'd probably choose Google. Google is definitely the "patient zero" or the "Typhoid Mary".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

athenot 8y ago

Facebook hijacked friendships/acquaintances and made us talk to each other in a different way that we would have in person. That's my primary beef against them. As for the internet, they've consistently closed off integrations so as to become a closed platform that benefits from the internet but does not give back: - APIs closed - Integrations with other services: closed - Hyperlinks to posts: hard to find for sharing and bookmarking. They've become the new AOL (the kid on the block that doesn't play with others unless they have a toy he wants to steal from them). Having said this, the closed platform may end up being a blessing in disguise, making it easier to cut off facebook from habits altogether.

vinceguidry 8y ago

Before Facebook, if I lost someone's contact information, and drifted outside of their social circle for a long enough time, chances were I would never ever see or speak to that person again. Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation on an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000 for a proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have someone who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn how to use something like IRC. Social networking was an enormous pain in the ass. Facebook was the first platform that actually worked for people. Every subsequent social network took their cues from Facebook, it was a veritable sea change in the state of the Internet. The problem here isn't Facebook, you'd be having these growing pains with any useful social networking technology platform. It's the unintended consequences of Facebook's universal accessibility. Anybody can use Facebook, and so everybody will. It's the story of technology all over again. Technology is invented, we have a honeymoon phase, then the real marriage begins. We're in the "just had a baby, now we need to get it to a year old so we can all relax" phase. It'll get better.

sephoric 8y ago
I think the "have everyone learn how to use something like IRC" solution would have been a lot more feasible if the technology behind it (servers and clients) didn't stagnate and cater only to technophiles. Most of the concepts of Facebook were around already in UNIX, such as having your own mailbox in your own user account and being able to check it for new mail, wherever it was sent from. Imagine something like AOL in 1995 except instead of real-time chat and single-person email, it also had the few features of Facebook. They weren't missing the technology, they were just missing the imagination and the realization that connecting groups over longer term (followable status updates) was higher priority than connecting individuals over a longer term (email) or connecting groups in the immediate term (chat).
wronnng 8y ago
Facebook was NOT the first platform that actually worked for people.
sbarre 8y ago
While this may all be true, how do we prevent Facebook from becoming a "factory town"? As more and more of our seemingly public discourse moves online, we are congregating in very much non-public spaces that have their own motives that are often at odds with the public good. I know Facebook, Twitter and co. need to make money somehow, that's fine, but there's more to this.. How do we reconcile US-based for-profit corporations becoming the stewards of public discourse for an ever-growing part of the world's population?

rafiki6 8y ago

So he's talking about the Web not the Internet. Counter argument, the web was never that great to begin with and maybe let's stop pretending that some large companies we all don't like for whatever reason are responsible? Social media is opt-in. It is not a requirement to use the Internet and communicate effectively with it. If you hate it so much, start a new web. But then you quickly realize the Web is what it is due much more to economics associated with it than anything else.

Artemis2 8y ago
Unfortunately, with trackers such as the Like button embedded in every web page and shadow profiles, social media is definitely not opt-in.

deaps 8y ago

You know - my wife and I were talking about Facebook the other day and the role it plays in 'the way society acts' these days. We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This causes the comments on those posts on your feed to mostly be filled with people whose feelings align with your own. I think that's dangerous, maybe mainly because the general population doesn't realize this. Everyone, no matter how 'distorted' their views are - feels vindicated in those views. Every time I feel like removing my Facebook, I just take a few steps back and only use it to stay in touch with family and/or friends that I have moved away from - which soon morphs back into the constant checking for new posts and then reading those comments, which tend to align and solidify my own feelings. I think the world would be a better place without Facebook - and I also think the world would be worse off in some regards without it. In either event, if Facebook vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't complain.

justapassenger 8y ago
Bubbles are real, but not only on Facebook. People will watch TV stations that have content that aligns with their world view. They'll read news papers that do the same. Listen to people who say things they like. This isn't strictly Facebook issue.
- FB_goaway 8y ago
  news and news feeds align with and are pestilently allied with FB
traek 8y ago
> We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This causes the comments on those posts on your feed to mostly be filled with people whose feelings align with your own. This is pretty well-trodden territory, cf. 'filter bubbles'.
eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
I think about this a lot; the inverse might be slightly true in terms of who we should be connecting to, or maybe it's about the frequency of new and diverse connections and how those introductions are done? Even before Facebook I think most people generally kept within their group of like-minded people. It has gotten worse now because we are very much divided physically by where we live, what jobs people hold, where kids go to school, etc. I used to believe in the original Facebook mission -- connecting the world. I've worked remotely my entire life so I've had the opportunity to work with people all over the world from different cultures and backgrounds. It's given me a great perspective on humanity that I think a lot of people could benefit from, especially the ones that are in small towns (like I was) and don't venture out much beyond their borders in their life. But the internet allowed those connections to take place for me, not Facebook. We don't need Facebook to do any of these things, we just need to embrace the power of the internet. Facebook brought together a lot of people from very different groups with very different opinions about the world and just slammed them together in an informal way, an awkward way. I have uncles that I find to be abhorrent and I had no interest in connecting to them before Facebook in any way, but Facebook thinks because we have genetic connection, that must mean we want to have a social connection, right? And they push those connections extremely hard. I hate being "one of those people" but I deactivated my FB account early this month and it will be deleted in early February. I've definitely felt better without it, even though I know I'm missing some things. But if anything, it's encouraged me to be more proactive in reaching out to the people I actually want to keep up-to-date with, either via text message or real life meetings. It has also pushed me to blog more, and I appreciate that it's on a site I control and own, not for Facebook to manipulate and de-prioritize.

kop316 8y ago

I guess it depends on metrics. It feel like Facebook/Google showed everybody else the gold mine that is sucking up as much user data as possible and fusing that data with other companies. That is probably the #1 worst thing about the internet and its effect on regular life today. However, with work at it, I think it is possible to leave both the Facebook/Google bubble. If that is #1, #2 is definitely what Twitter has done to distort the news cycle and cause "social media" storms. Twitter seems to make it much easier for that to happen, and worse, you will never get the full story from Twitter. And the worst part? you don't even have to have a Twitter account to be subject to that.

vernie 8y ago

And this is coming from the creator of Rails.

monksy 8y ago

I don't understand the hero worship that goes on with DHH. He seems to make some blunt, uninformed and lacking arguments and people take it as gospel. (His offhand tweet is on the front page of hacker news). Is facebook the worse? It's bad, and there have been many things it's done badly. I would say there are far worse actors on the internet. (I.e. mpaa, agressive marketers etc) People have been screaming from the rooftops during the whole time. Many of the worse-case predictions have come true (considering the info leak/cambridge etc). However they're far from the only one doing that. They've really brought on the walled garden there. That imo has been the worse. It's no surprise that you're getting all these negative effects when there is no competition. Thankfully they haven't taken the full-on paid censor. We're lacking in rights about our data and ways to stand up to this.

unique-template 8y ago

The worst thing to have ever happened is the monetization of clicks. It's killed journalism. And by proxy it's created echo chambers where people only seek validation of their existing beliefs.

rock_hard 8y ago
This was a issue way before clicks got invented though...it’s basic human nature

ham_sandwich 8y ago

In what sense did Facebook ‘happen’? People chose to join; they weren’t forced to. Facebook qua social network is a valuable tool for many people. Now you can perhaps make the case that their effort to monetize was an unethical bait-and-switch. Get people on the service, then keep them engaged via promotion of provocative and unhealthy behaviors, which ultimately fuels an advertising money-printing machine the likes of which we’ve never seen before, save Google.

paulsutter 8y ago

I laughed out loud when I saw (twitter.com) at the end of the title

trqx 8y ago
I have to admit it is a bit funny but I didn't laugh. This is me trying to read the message: https://tmp.shroom.party/twitter.ogv https://tmp.shroom.party/twitter.ogv
Dirlewanger 8y ago
Declared worst thing in the world...on the 2nd worst thing in the world.
- pricees 8y ago
  I was going to say this but figured it would be downvoted, post-haste.
stcredzero 8y ago
Twitter is also in the running: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI
- zestyping 8y ago
  This talk is fantastic. I hope everyone watches it. I wonder how much better the world would be if Twitter itself posted this video or something like it, every year, once a year. It might be amazing.
eximius 8y ago
Ah, but the success of Facebook inspired and led to Twitter. So, while Twitter has perhaps done more harm, Facebook is responsible.
flanbiscuit 8y ago
yeah, came here to reply "... said unironically via twitter"

mhd 8y ago

My vote would be for Javascript, but that's only because I'm optimistic and think Facebook might still be torn apart.

hkon 8y ago

Would be nice with some more explanation. But I guess that is part of what is lacking on social media.

vasilipupkin 8y ago

this guy is obsessed with Facebook, while justifying his presence on Twitter which has the exact same business model, with various excuses. He is a troll trying to generate clicks and visibility. That's all. If he really was serious about hating the free social network / paid for by targeted advertising model, he would have gotten off Twitter. But he has a lot of followers there and it's an effective marketing tool for him.

AlexandrB 8y ago
Twitter is terrible, but at least it's honest. There's no pretence of privacy through vague "controls". If Facebook just said: "Anything you post to Facebook is public, except PMs", it would be a lot more palatable. Instead it's a bait-and-switch, where Facebook lets you think some information is private, but uses it for its own purposes as if it's public. Edit: Also consider that Twitter doesn't enforce a real-name policy. This means you can often maintain your own anonymity/privacy on Twitter simply by not using your real name.

didip 8y ago

The only generic platform I need to keep up with friends and family is WhatsApp. I wish WhatsApp IPO’d instead of selling out to FB. Good for consumers. Founders would have made more money too.

kodablah 8y ago

I know, and cars are the worst thing to ever happen to the planet, synthesizers are the worst thing to ever happen to music, etc. Worst thing to happen to pundits? The inability to recognize the value of something to the common person beyond the negatives they focus upon.

everdev 8y ago
Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to the desire for short term gains that produce long term problems (ex. from your comment: cars). Products can have both utility and be a danger. It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is worse. When the internal combustion engine was criticised as the worst invention of all time, it wasn't because people thought it wasn't useful, it was because it was insanely useful and incredibly bad for the environment. In fact, there's little need to criticise things that aren't useful as very few people use them.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is worse. Sure so long as it's OK to come to a different conclusion. Since utility of these things are basically unquantifiable, an objectively correct answer cannot happen. All I ask is that those closest to the tech and the current anti-big-web-tech narrative recognize that the benefits differ by user group. Too often, it's presented as an obvious fact sans rebuttal that FB is overall a negative.
  - everdev 8y ago
    Right, I think DHH's comment could better be prefaced with "For me..." Someone appearing to speak on my behalf with a position I don't agree with always bugs me too.

nkkollaw 8y ago

Second only to Twitter (which is the platform where this was published).

jasode 8y ago

The websites I constantly use every single day: google.com maps.google.com youtube.com wikipedia.org weather.gov stackoverflow.com For almost 20 years, I've been using Google for dozens of random searches every single day. Its utility to help me find information is unmatched. And Youtube -- even with the ads -- adds value to my life because of all the helpful tutorials and DIY content I can view for free. On the other hand, I've never needed to create accounts for Facebook or LinkedIn. Unlike google/wikipedia/stackoverflow, I think of Facebook as my adversary that's reckless with personal data and harming me. I assume they are developing more unethical uses of personal data but we don't know about them yet because an ex-Facebook employee hasn't publicized them. The questionable ethics starts at the top with Mark Z. I do think humanity would be served by a "real names" database by an entity we could trust to help us connect with each other. Unfortunately, that valuable info is currently held by an unethical company like Facebook. (My previous comment about this.[0]) They abuse their stewardship of the social graph which is why I adamantly avoid them. Facebook was a bad actor even before all the revelations about Russian funded political ads to hijack the election. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061

sephoric 8y ago
Facebook is harmful because it's reckless with your personal data, but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data, which it also abuses and sells. And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books complete with pictures and drawings, but without stealing and selling your data.
- jasode 8y ago
  >, but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data What data from me does Google steal? I don't have a Google account. I can be anonymous at a Starbucks coffee shop and search google for "Paul Graham" and get back useful results. If they coalesce search queries on my home ip address, that's unavoidable and a tradeoff I knowingly make. >And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books In the last month, I needed to replace a side mirror of a Lexus car and also disassemble a Moen faucet. No, my library does not have the manuals to show how to do it. But youtube did have the videos uploaded by nice people. Both of those procedures had tricky steps that weren't obvious and Youtube saved me hundreds of dollars in fees from car dealerships and plumbers.

resca79 8y ago

I personally loved the first years of fb even if I never been a social network person. Now I think that company ( in terms of fb product) should focus how to be still facebook of the first years with innovations. Because right now my traction to use facebook is just read news or to follow some companies that I like.

skybrian 8y ago

DHH's comment is another example of what I call one-bit reasoning: everything is either wonderful or terrible. Facebook's features have had far-reaching effects and it's not that easy to classify them as positive or negative. Getting in touch with people is easier. Thoughtlessly sending things to all your "friends" is probably too easy, but there are also announcements you do want to read.

Dirlewanger 8y ago
Twitter is the prime place for hot takes like DHH's. And his making this post is only part making us aware of this issue, and more his further building his own brand as a tech influencer. All about personal incentives. Basically, the whole system's fucked.

azangru 8y ago

Facebook brought us React and GraphQL (dont't know if ReasonML is an important enough technology to count). I despise Facebook as a social network; but as a technological company, it's clearly not the worst that happened to _the Internet_.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

Where exactly is the substance of this argument? I don't disagree or agree, but this is just bare invective hurled into a world looking to agree. I don't see anything justified or rigorously argued and most of the follow up basically asks for exactly that. I'm not quite sure why, but DHH has chosen "antagonizing and negative" as his calling card. It seems to be working out, as he's the go-to guy that has enough street cred to be negative about high-growth VC fueled startups.

cmurf 8y ago

He says from Twitter, which is waving "what about me? I'm awful too!" My runner up is Youtube, now infested with piles of crap, and when finding something decent it's infested with ads. What an innovation! It's now just like cable TV!

52-6F-62 8y ago
I still get a fair amount of value out of Youtube, personally. But yeah, you definitely have to wear some goggles to see through the noise. --- My rules for youtube: * Don't read the comments * Don't participate in the comments * Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings * Stick to music, favoured clips from shows (I do love that I can watch some old Mitchell and Webb Look), DIY/How-Tos, old lectures and interviews (Feynman's are fantastic), and the like. --- Grievances: * The aforementioned suggestions that I keep up on my extremist ideology lessons and conspiracy theories about Clinton and her child slave moon base on Mars * I now know what Peppa Pig is, kind of.
- pbalau 8y ago
  > Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings Interesting, the suggestions I get are mostly sailing vlogs, featuring scantily clad ladies. I sarcastically wonder why...
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Looks like I'll have to just start randomly clicking on videos like that to skew the suggestions. I have no idea why I'm getting the kinds of suggestions I am. Thankfully they're an increasing minority as I get more music these days. And Trailer Park Boys haha.

demygale 8y ago

Sure, but Ruby on Rails has to be in the top ten.

joemi 8y ago
Why? I get that it might not be the ideal framework, but that's a long way from being one of the worst things that's ever happened to the internet. (Or are you just trolling?)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cm2012 8y ago

I'm a Facebook advertiser. I can attest that there's lot of good products where the only cost effective and scalable way to reach your target market is through Facebook. Want to reach teachers with a time saving app? FB is the best way. Want to offer a SaaS tool to small businesses? FB is the best way to get it in front of them. Etc. FB ads don't have 0 utility for consumers. A lot of products just couldn't reach the people who want them without it.

herbst 8y ago
Sure this is just personal preference however Facebook always was a huge waste of money if I sold anything worth while (like my SaaS und stuff) however it worked kinda great to sell cheap China reimports and other shit like that. Not to mention that it gets more expensive and less effective every year. And all those 'bugs' where clicks count from the wrong countries and all the other horrible stuff the Facebook adverser forum is filled with.
- cm2012 8y ago
  It's possible to lose or make money on any channel, but here's a chart of where you can target different types of audiences: https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marketingchannelchart-orig2_orig.png https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marke... FB is the only online player with any significant scale in that bottom right quadrant. And that's pretty much the ballgame for putting products in front of specific audiences.
  - herbst 8y ago
    Well I moved on with them locking my last account last year. Agreed it's not as easy to discover different platforms for different ad projects but I do definitly get a lot more for my money now. I would argue Facebook is the easiest but I doubt its the most efficient in any way. Edit:// before anyone thinks locked means I did something unethical. No they locked it because I travelled to different countries and I wasn't able to open it again. After I spend thousands of dollars on ads they didn't help.
8y ago

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

I don't have a Facebook account and I admire DHH, but a lot of the criticism of Facebook seems over the top. Most people don't care about similar actions done by other companies (at least not at the same level), and don't seem to take much real action to mitigate the harms they see from Facebook. I think much of the criticism is a form of signaling, rather than an expression of a real belief.

blunte 8y ago

Is Twitter the second worst? It has emphasized our decreasing attention span to the point where we now have "world leaders" communicating in short, meaningless blurbs.

swagtricker 8y ago

Clearly DHH wasn't around when AOL dumped it's user base onto a community that was previously gated by having to actually learn something about computing in order to get connected. P.S. - Get off my lawn;)

mensetmanusman 8y ago

Sensationalism. FB is a tool. Their mistake was deciding to mix politics into an app people liked for family/friend connections by trying and succeeding to increase monitization/engagement: The News Feed (I stopped using FB after the news feed started dominating my engagment in 2016)

FB_goaway 8y ago

FB is a cancer 101% ! The biggest blackhat hack ever, FB and the mentality is propitiates is a threat to the real internet. Everyone lives on thier browser because of facebook. zuckerberg is a pedo, a blackhat, and an intellectual property thief. dont go playing the prove it cite it card, its right infront of everyones face, but the convienience is blinding all the old school users. FWIW if you are under 30 you have never even seen the real internet, and that is the biggest crime, 3 cohorts of netizens think its a crime to use telnet, or FTP, or access internet functions with CLI. smash the stupidity bubble and make FB die already .

Bantros 8y ago

Posted on the second worst thing to ever happen to the internet

AdeptusAquinas 8y ago

Ironic that someone is saying this from Twitter, which is worse.

babyslothzoo 8y ago

Agreed if you expand that to social media in general.

FB_goaway 8y ago

>FB is a tool< actually kuckerborg is a tool.

sunseb 8y ago

It's funny how DHH is constantly bashing Google or Facebook, but we never hear him about Amazon (because Amazon invested in his company, Basecamp).

rland 8y ago

Facebook seems to be taking a lot of heat these days. But I wonder: what would actually "fix" the platform? As far as I can tell, the only "solution" is getting rid of Facebook. Obviously, FB doesn't agree. Short of destroying itself (and having a competitor instantly take its place), what should they do? What can they do? Proposed solutions to their various problems: - Make the timeline less addictive, to prevent people overusing it. Won't work, as soon as facebook loses its relevance another, more addictive site will take its place (reddit, instagram). In any case, they've already tried this. - Introduce moderation, to prevent abuse of the platform. They're already frantically hiring moderators--they cannot find enough people to moderate the platform. And competitors are emerging in any case (whatsapp and other messaging apps) - Stop collecting data on people. Not going to happen, since they rely on this for revenue. Asking them to do this is like asking someone to violate their survival instinct. This has to happen from some force external to Facebook. And in any case, people's data is valuable, so saying "stop collecting data" is like saying "don't pick up $100 that you find on the ground." I guess I'm trying to say that this problem is so much bigger than just Facebook. It's a problem with mankind that will prove to be more and more intractable as time goes on, regardless of who is a player and who is pointing fingers.

padobson 8y ago
They should stop selling advertising and charge for API access to the social graph, both users and app developers. There should be a free tier with the core functionality for users. This will realign Facebook's interests with the interests of their userbase.
- rland 8y ago
  That would solve the problem -- but now we are back at square one, because a free competitor will emerge to replace Facebook. There are paid social networks out there. Nobody uses them.
- thekyle 8y ago
  I don't think this is a good solution. They would be going from metaphorically "selling" user data via ads to literally selling user data.

miguelmota 8y ago

100% disagree. My older relatives use Facebook to reconnect with old pals and love sharing family pictures and conversing over messenger. It’d be difficult to find them otherwise. I’m personally not on Facebook because I cringe on what people post but to say it’s the worst thing on the internet is pretty ignorant

bedhead 8y ago

The problem is human nature, not Facebook.

theredbox 8y ago

I dont want to offend anyone but DHH turned himself from a technologist into an annoying SJW with the holier than thou attitude. Seriously that guy is big mouth about this and that but instead of contributing something meaningful he is just spewing non sense all the time.

lithander 8y ago

"Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet" -Twitter

koolhead17 8y ago

People forgot Orkut? I have made so many friends and some are still close to me. :)