4 ms·

And yours is a broad generalization, too, about the impact Facebook has on society. You cheer all the good and mention none of the negative consequences of this

And yours is a broad generalization, too, about the impact Facebook has on society. You cheer all the good and mention none of the negative consequences of this model. Google also makes much about the internet less frustrating and easier for novices, but I also understand what is being given up in that compromise. I'm not even saying the "open" experience is not often without frustration. It absolutely is. Part of Facebook's success is connecting the frustrating parts about the internet and making it usable for normal people. But it's not like Facebook achieved some amazing technological advancement, nor is connecting the communication mechanisms of the world something that cannot be done without harvesting all of our personal data.

joe_the_user 8y ago
I don't think that "broad generalization" fairly characterizes the gp. They are saying they observe a lot of benefit in Facebook - if you read the post, that's all they say. Maybe Facebook also produces a lot of ill. Any claim about the final impact of Facebook is claim to be able to sum up the good and the evil FB does and get a definite value. That's a pretty challenging argument.
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
  Perhaps, but that person is responding to another about the impact Facebook has on society, good or bad, and that person only highlights the good essentially. I do think it's important to remember that Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication -- voice or text -- across geographical borders. The internet forms the basis of this core technology and Facebook simply made it easier to use. It's not like if Facebook goes away we're going to go back to SMS and expensive international phone calls. This method of communication was going to happen regardless. And there are clearly alternatives that exist today with different funding models.
  - volundr- 8y ago
    You say, "Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication," but you're kind of glossing over the immense complexity of building systems to support private and public communication (for free), and prevent an incredible variety and volume of abusive traffic. Can you name a single alternative at their scale with a business plan that is viable long term and not state run or state supported?
    - dosbre 8y ago
      I am using e-mail since about 2000's. Passing throught MSN video calls; early Google Talk; then came Skype; even Whatsapp; finaly but not last Hangout. All "for free" +plus no-ads.
      - adventured 8y ago
        > e-mail since about 2000's Provided by some company via a paid service or ads. Most commonly an ISP monopoly or oligopoly, or a large service monopoly, in nearly all nations. Even if you run your own email server, it's not free, you're paying for the network access to do it. > MSN video calls Subsidized by an operating system monopoly. > Google Talk Subsidized by a search monopoly. > Skype Which was never able stand on its own profitable two feet. It was subsidized first by investor money, then by an auction monopoly, then by an operating system monopoly. > Whatsapp Subsidized by a social monopoly. > All "for free" +plus no-ads. Nope. All paid for with monopolies and or ads.
  - joe_the_user 8y ago
    "Perhaps, but that person is responding to another about the impact Facebook has on society, good or bad, and that person only highlights the good essentially." But that's the structure of any logical argument. If someone says X is only A, I will describe how I see plenty of B in X, which by itself doesn't say there is not plenty of A in X too. IE, One person makes a generalization, another points to an exception or several exceptions. I do think it's important to remember that Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication -- voice or text -- across geographical borders. Indeed, Facebook pretty much only amalgamates blogs, chat, forums and such. But given it's only making technological steps of some small-to-medium degrees, if the love isn't justified, then neither should the hate be justified? Currently, Facebook gets both.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      > ... then neither should the hate be justified? The hate is because they collect so much data, and share and sell it so carelessly. Google collects at least as much data, for sure. But as far as I know, they just monetize it through their ad services, and don't actually provide it to others.
      - bryan_w 8y ago
        Facebook doesn't sell data either. They monetize it just the same as google
        justtopost 8y ago
        That has been shown over a dozen times to be false.
        fjbarrett 8y ago
        Just 3 days ago, an investigation into Facebook data sales started. The NYTimes posted an article about it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/facebook-data-deals-investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/facebook-data-...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lmm 8y ago
> I'm not even saying the "open" experience is not often without frustration. It absolutely is. Part of Facebook's success is connecting the frustrating parts about the internet and making it usable for normal people. But it's not like Facebook achieved some amazing technological advancement Facebook did a lot of difficult things (if they weren't difficult others would have done them sooner) whose end result is that humans around the world get a lot of benefit. Focusing on whether Facebook's advances were "technological" is beside the point. (If anything packaging the technology in such a way that people can actually use it can easily be more of an "amazing advancement" than making the technology in the first place). > nor is connecting the communication mechanisms of the world something that cannot be done without harvesting all of our personal data. I'm not convinced. Making communication usable may well require an interface that adapts to the individual user. Again, ultimately, if it's so easy to do it better then why hasn't anyone else managed it?

joe_the_user 8y ago

I don't think that "broad generalization" fairly characterizes the gp. They are saying they observe a lot of benefit in Facebook - if you read the post, that's all they say. Maybe Facebook also produces a lot of ill. Any claim about the final impact of Facebook is claim to be able to sum up the good and the evil FB does and get a definite value. That's a pretty challenging argument.

eeeeeeeeeeeee 8y ago
Perhaps, but that person is responding to another about the impact Facebook has on society, good or bad, and that person only highlights the good essentially. I do think it's important to remember that Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication -- voice or text -- across geographical borders. The internet forms the basis of this core technology and Facebook simply made it easier to use. It's not like if Facebook goes away we're going to go back to SMS and expensive international phone calls. This method of communication was going to happen regardless. And there are clearly alternatives that exist today with different funding models.
- volundr- 8y ago
  You say, "Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication," but you're kind of glossing over the immense complexity of building systems to support private and public communication (for free), and prevent an incredible variety and volume of abusive traffic. Can you name a single alternative at their scale with a business plan that is viable long term and not state run or state supported?
  - dosbre 8y ago
    I am using e-mail since about 2000's. Passing throught MSN video calls; early Google Talk; then came Skype; even Whatsapp; finaly but not last Hangout. All "for free" +plus no-ads.
    - adventured 8y ago
      > e-mail since about 2000's Provided by some company via a paid service or ads. Most commonly an ISP monopoly or oligopoly, or a large service monopoly, in nearly all nations. Even if you run your own email server, it's not free, you're paying for the network access to do it. > MSN video calls Subsidized by an operating system monopoly. > Google Talk Subsidized by a search monopoly. > Skype Which was never able stand on its own profitable two feet. It was subsidized first by investor money, then by an auction monopoly, then by an operating system monopoly. > Whatsapp Subsidized by a social monopoly. > All "for free" +plus no-ads. Nope. All paid for with monopolies and or ads.
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  "Perhaps, but that person is responding to another about the impact Facebook has on society, good or bad, and that person only highlights the good essentially." But that's the structure of any logical argument. If someone says X is only A, I will describe how I see plenty of B in X, which by itself doesn't say there is not plenty of A in X too. IE, One person makes a generalization, another points to an exception or several exceptions. I do think it's important to remember that Facebook is really doing nothing technologically amazing to allow that communication -- voice or text -- across geographical borders. Indeed, Facebook pretty much only amalgamates blogs, chat, forums and such. But given it's only making technological steps of some small-to-medium degrees, if the love isn't justified, then neither should the hate be justified? Currently, Facebook gets both.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    > ... then neither should the hate be justified? The hate is because they collect so much data, and share and sell it so carelessly. Google collects at least as much data, for sure. But as far as I know, they just monetize it through their ad services, and don't actually provide it to others.
    - bryan_w 8y ago
      Facebook doesn't sell data either. They monetize it just the same as google
      - justtopost 8y ago
        That has been shown over a dozen times to be false.
      - fjbarrett 8y ago
        Just 3 days ago, an investigation into Facebook data sales started. The NYTimes posted an article about it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/facebook-data-deals-investigation https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/technology/facebook-data-...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

lmm 8y ago

> I'm not even saying the "open" experience is not often without frustration. It absolutely is. Part of Facebook's success is connecting the frustrating parts about the internet and making it usable for normal people. But it's not like Facebook achieved some amazing technological advancement Facebook did a lot of difficult things (if they weren't difficult others would have done them sooner) whose end result is that humans around the world get a lot of benefit. Focusing on whether Facebook's advances were "technological" is beside the point. (If anything packaging the technology in such a way that people can actually use it can easily be more of an "amazing advancement" than making the technology in the first place). > nor is connecting the communication mechanisms of the world something that cannot be done without harvesting all of our personal data. I'm not convinced. Making communication usable may well require an interface that adapts to the individual user. Again, ultimately, if it's so easy to do it better then why hasn't anyone else managed it?