4 ms·

Seriously? While I can think of quite a few companies that have even less utility (Twitter, Netflix, Juicero, etc. etc.) but living without FB is not only imag

by Fins 8y ago

Seriously? While I can think of quite a few companies that have even less utility (Twitter, Netflix, Juicero, etc. etc.) but living without FB is not only imaginable, it's quite beneficial.

bertil 8y ago
I don’t think that FB itself is necessary, but many services rely on the ability to have a cheap identity verification. Let’s take three examples. Dating apps now almost all depend on you connecting either - a social media account, almost universally Facebook in the West; - credit card information. Not everyone is comfortable with that one. If a user doesn’t connect, most services implement some soft-gating to prevent abuses of trust. Uber, for instance, let an established user order a ride without having to input a bank card when their previous card was expired. A large part of political communication relies on having a reliable proxy for an identity for campaigns. It doesn’t have to be perfect but it can’t have 50% of Russian sock-puppets. Even if Facebook Identity has been disputed, it remains far more reliable than, say, Twitter in that regard. You might not use any of those services personally but you rely on people who do. A society where people can’t find a partner because dating conventions are broken; where everyone has to own a car; where democracy is at the mercy of press barons -- that would be problematic. My point was less that Facebook was the best identity, or irreplaceable (which is certainly not true; more than any other message, Mark Z. repeats all the time that Facebook will be replaced sooner rather than later). Google offers one that I think has strong software support, but less social proof. My point was that most people are unaware of the impact of having that option of a “Trust API”, even imperfect. You didn’t seem to. Some people would prefer to have a government-operated identity or a bank-based one; those are actively developed in Nordic countries. I have used both and I’m in awe of what they unlock. Some people (quite common on HN) hate the idea of depending on either and would prefer to rely on a system that they built or on have a choice of private solutions around a cluster of standards. OAuth is the best example of that vision. I’d love to see something more mature emerge (if anything so that not every website relies on the broken password authentication). But once again: even if the software works, I think the main benefit is less from token exchange and more from authenticity. I’m not sure that a cluster of service can guarantee that.
- Fins 8y ago
  As I've mentioned, I do find Twitter even less "useful" than FB (and possibly even worse for the society at large), but while Dorsey come across as just a clueless, out of touch hipster, Zuckerberg comes across as not quite human automaton that performs experiments on humans. And FB is more valuable company, so that might be why they get picked on more. But I am still not convinced that FB provides any service that is actually valuable, let alone good for society as a whole. I think it could well be argued that even under press barons et al democracy worked better than it has been lately. But then the cynic in me says that even robber barons had more decency in them than Zuck, Dorsey and their ilk. Do we even need that cheap identity verification especially as provided by social networks whose incentives are aligned completely orthogonal to societal good? As anecdata, I actually met my wife on a dating site with no benefit of any FB authentication (or credit card, for that matter). What would FB connection do there? So no, I've never connected anything with any FB account, and I do not see that I am missing anything that I would find the least bit useful. Obviously, HN tends to look for technological solutions for problems (or even in absence of problems) but farming out "trust API" to a commercial entity that aims to maximise engagement seems to be a prime example of a (bad) solution in search of a problem.

by Fins 8y ago

Seriously? While I can think of quite a few companies that have even less utility (Twitter, Netflix, Juicero, etc. etc.) but living without FB is not only imaginable, it's quite beneficial.

bertil 8y ago

I don’t think that FB itself is necessary, but many services rely on the ability to have a cheap identity verification. Let’s take three examples. Dating apps now almost all depend on you connecting either - a social media account, almost universally Facebook in the West; - credit card information. Not everyone is comfortable with that one. If a user doesn’t connect, most services implement some soft-gating to prevent abuses of trust. Uber, for instance, let an established user order a ride without having to input a bank card when their previous card was expired. A large part of political communication relies on having a reliable proxy for an identity for campaigns. It doesn’t have to be perfect but it can’t have 50% of Russian sock-puppets. Even if Facebook Identity has been disputed, it remains far more reliable than, say, Twitter in that regard. You might not use any of those services personally but you rely on people who do. A society where people can’t find a partner because dating conventions are broken; where everyone has to own a car; where democracy is at the mercy of press barons -- that would be problematic. My point was less that Facebook was the best identity, or irreplaceable (which is certainly not true; more than any other message, Mark Z. repeats all the time that Facebook will be replaced sooner rather than later). Google offers one that I think has strong software support, but less social proof. My point was that most people are unaware of the impact of having that option of a “Trust API”, even imperfect. You didn’t seem to. Some people would prefer to have a government-operated identity or a bank-based one; those are actively developed in Nordic countries. I have used both and I’m in awe of what they unlock. Some people (quite common on HN) hate the idea of depending on either and would prefer to rely on a system that they built or on have a choice of private solutions around a cluster of standards. OAuth is the best example of that vision. I’d love to see something more mature emerge (if anything so that not every website relies on the broken password authentication). But once again: even if the software works, I think the main benefit is less from token exchange and more from authenticity. I’m not sure that a cluster of service can guarantee that.

Fins 8y ago
As I've mentioned, I do find Twitter even less "useful" than FB (and possibly even worse for the society at large), but while Dorsey come across as just a clueless, out of touch hipster, Zuckerberg comes across as not quite human automaton that performs experiments on humans. And FB is more valuable company, so that might be why they get picked on more. But I am still not convinced that FB provides any service that is actually valuable, let alone good for society as a whole. I think it could well be argued that even under press barons et al democracy worked better than it has been lately. But then the cynic in me says that even robber barons had more decency in them than Zuck, Dorsey and their ilk. Do we even need that cheap identity verification especially as provided by social networks whose incentives are aligned completely orthogonal to societal good? As anecdata, I actually met my wife on a dating site with no benefit of any FB authentication (or credit card, for that matter). What would FB connection do there? So no, I've never connected anything with any FB account, and I do not see that I am missing anything that I would find the least bit useful. Obviously, HN tends to look for technological solutions for problems (or even in absence of problems) but farming out "trust API" to a commercial entity that aims to maximise engagement seems to be a prime example of a (bad) solution in search of a problem.