5 ms·

Tend to agree. I'm no fan of either Facebook or Zuckerberg. My attempts to leave it all behind have thus far proven unsuccessful, and the fact that FB owns both

Tend to agree. I'm no fan of either Facebook or Zuckerberg. My attempts to leave it all behind have thus far proven unsuccessful, and the fact that FB owns both WhatsApp and Instagram doesn't help. Still, I'm almost shocked by how viscerally unsympathetic I feel towards these shareholders. I genuinely believe their stewardship would be worse for both Facebook and its users: they'd mismanage Facebook into the ground and, along the way, would utterly compromise users in increasingly desperate attempts to turn things around.

nullc 8y ago
If they burn facebook to the ground this may be better in the long run both for the users and for society at large.
- confiscate 8y ago
  I disagree. That would feel like going back to the year 1999
  - gameswithgo 8y ago
    are you for real? i don’t understand why anyone has trouble leaving. there has been a huge brain drain it isn’t a good place now.
    - torqueTorrent 8y ago
      >> don’t understand why anyone has trouble leaving I also find it puzzling. Then again, as with cults or other bottom feeding fads and the increasingly ubiquitous, various and sundry addictive mires and dark patterns, to avoid the trouble in leaving, it is best not to enroll in the first place.
    - bartread 8y ago
      Sure: most social activities are arranged on either Facebook or WhatsApp. I tried going without but it's quite inconvenient.
  - cylinder 8y ago
    What's wrong with that?
  - torqueTorrent 8y ago
    Two-thousand zero zero, party over oops, out of time.
  - avinium 8y ago
    > That would feel like going back to the year 1999 That would be absolutely glorious.
    - tehlike 8y ago
      I agree. Going back in time wouldnt be too bad. I miss the first days of twitter where i would have discussions with other engs on tech, or days where fewer but higher quality content was the norm. We probably need a better filter. I stopped using fb years ago, same for twitter. No regrets
    - Kurtz79 8y ago
      I enjoyed the first years of the Internet as well, but as fun and exciting the early web, IRC ad Usenet forums were, there was no Google Maps, no Wikipedia, no next-day shipping of almost everything, no Youtube... many things I could live without today as I did at the time, but overall I think they have a decent utility. What the Internet has lost in terms of mystique and pioneering freedom, it has gained in terms of utility and convenience, IMHO. The main reason I would like to go back to 1999 would be because I would be 20 years younger :)
      - avinium 8y ago
        > What the Internet has lost in terms of mystique and pioneering freedom, it has gained in terms of utility and convenience, IMHO. Maybe I've got a bad case of the "back in my day", but I feel more and more that "mystique" is what makes life worth living. Watching a lot of movies from the 60s-90s recently, it's striking how much more effort we needed to put into everyday life back then. Want to meet a friend? Call their number, hope they're home and arrange a time. Want to watch a movie? Drive to the video store and hope they've got what you want. Out of food? You're driving to the nearest restaurant, no Uber Eats. Want to find out the median rainfall in Fiji? You're waiting for the library to open and digging through a stacks of musty old books. Nowadays, everything's instantaneous - you want something, you get it. We've lowered the bar for almost everything. If consumption and enjoyment no longer require any effort, doesn't that devalue the entire experience? What does that mean for life in general? Don't you think that humility comes from knowing the effort required to know or acquire things?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Facebook isn't the internet. There is more to it than just one social media service.
- m-p-3 8y ago
  I think if that happened, something even worse than Facebook would take over. The social media Pandora box as been already opened, it's not going to get better unless there is a sustained and orchestrated effort to rein in social medias and how they deal with personal info.
  - justaguyhere 8y ago
    That is kinda hard to predict. All those efforts by various people to create a decentralized social networks might finally find traction, if FB crashes. At least we can hope. I suppose it could go either way
    - woah 8y ago
      Problem with decentralized social networks is there’s no money to pay designers and developers and so the software is primitive. The ICO model is the closest anyone’s come to a funding story, and that has its own problems.
      - rightbyte 8y ago
        Why is there a need for changing software? What are all the FB devs doing all day really except ads tuning. I want a feed of freinds writing everyday bullshit and that just got worse by time untill I no longer use Facebook. It's like chat apps like MSN Messenger that stayed the same for years with no problems what so ever.
  - mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
    There are several of those in the form of alternate networks, (Minds.com, Mastodon, etc) which could very well rise to prominence if Facebook were to fall. The issues with corporate social media are now well understood by large swathes of the public. The incumbents are still standing due to their powerful network effects - if they lose those, the public may be a bit more discerning in where they head next.
    - pferde 8y ago
- quanticle 8y ago
  Not necessarily. If they start making increasingly scummy deals (even more so than what Facebook is currently doing) to sell user data in return for quick profits, then things could get far far worse as Facebook burns to the ground. Mark Zuckerberg, as bad as he is, is not the worst case scenario.
- pjc50 8y ago
  The other option is that Facebook burns society to the ground. By accident, or at least by negligent permission; see the Rohingya for an example of what I mean.
a3n 8y ago
Isn't this and your aboves an argument against meaningful equity ownership in general? Why not take real voting rights away from all stocks, and leave it with the company/effective owner?
lokedhs 8y ago
Also, it's no secret that Zuckerberg has preferred stock, and anyone deciding to invest in FB goes in with their eyes open knowing that they will have no say in how the company is run. It is indeed really difficult to sympathise with the shareholders.
- dwd 8y ago
  Agreed, and if you don't like how the company is being run - sell your stock. Generally speaking, this idea we have these days that activist shareholders can come in and dictate how a company is run is insane.
  - rdlecler1 8y ago
    Second this motion. These shareholders are not family holding shares in a family business. If they’re not voting by selling their stock then can we really say they’re fed up?
  - zaccus 8y ago
    It's not insane, and it's not a new idea. That's always been a right you have as a shareholder in a public company. And you don't vote by selling your stock, you vote via proxy ballots. Which too many individual investors don't do.
    - dwd 8y ago
      Yes, you get a vote which is a simple yes/no on whatever is brought to a vote - but you don't get to say what is voted on.

nullc 8y ago

If they burn facebook to the ground this may be better in the long run both for the users and for society at large.

confiscate 8y ago
I disagree. That would feel like going back to the year 1999
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  are you for real? i don’t understand why anyone has trouble leaving. there has been a huge brain drain it isn’t a good place now.
  - torqueTorrent 8y ago
    >> don’t understand why anyone has trouble leaving I also find it puzzling. Then again, as with cults or other bottom feeding fads and the increasingly ubiquitous, various and sundry addictive mires and dark patterns, to avoid the trouble in leaving, it is best not to enroll in the first place.
  - bartread 8y ago
    Sure: most social activities are arranged on either Facebook or WhatsApp. I tried going without but it's quite inconvenient.
- cylinder 8y ago
  What's wrong with that?
- torqueTorrent 8y ago
  Two-thousand zero zero, party over oops, out of time.
- avinium 8y ago
  > That would feel like going back to the year 1999 That would be absolutely glorious.
  - tehlike 8y ago
    I agree. Going back in time wouldnt be too bad. I miss the first days of twitter where i would have discussions with other engs on tech, or days where fewer but higher quality content was the norm. We probably need a better filter. I stopped using fb years ago, same for twitter. No regrets
  - Kurtz79 8y ago
    I enjoyed the first years of the Internet as well, but as fun and exciting the early web, IRC ad Usenet forums were, there was no Google Maps, no Wikipedia, no next-day shipping of almost everything, no Youtube... many things I could live without today as I did at the time, but overall I think they have a decent utility. What the Internet has lost in terms of mystique and pioneering freedom, it has gained in terms of utility and convenience, IMHO. The main reason I would like to go back to 1999 would be because I would be 20 years younger :)
    - avinium 8y ago
      > What the Internet has lost in terms of mystique and pioneering freedom, it has gained in terms of utility and convenience, IMHO. Maybe I've got a bad case of the "back in my day", but I feel more and more that "mystique" is what makes life worth living. Watching a lot of movies from the 60s-90s recently, it's striking how much more effort we needed to put into everyday life back then. Want to meet a friend? Call their number, hope they're home and arrange a time. Want to watch a movie? Drive to the video store and hope they've got what you want. Out of food? You're driving to the nearest restaurant, no Uber Eats. Want to find out the median rainfall in Fiji? You're waiting for the library to open and digging through a stacks of musty old books. Nowadays, everything's instantaneous - you want something, you get it. We've lowered the bar for almost everything. If consumption and enjoyment no longer require any effort, doesn't that devalue the entire experience? What does that mean for life in general? Don't you think that humility comes from knowing the effort required to know or acquire things?
- ionised 8y ago
  Facebook isn't the internet. There is more to it than just one social media service.
m-p-3 8y ago
I think if that happened, something even worse than Facebook would take over. The social media Pandora box as been already opened, it's not going to get better unless there is a sustained and orchestrated effort to rein in social medias and how they deal with personal info.
- justaguyhere 8y ago
  That is kinda hard to predict. All those efforts by various people to create a decentralized social networks might finally find traction, if FB crashes. At least we can hope. I suppose it could go either way
  - woah 8y ago
    Problem with decentralized social networks is there’s no money to pay designers and developers and so the software is primitive. The ICO model is the closest anyone’s come to a funding story, and that has its own problems.
    - rightbyte 8y ago
      Why is there a need for changing software? What are all the FB devs doing all day really except ads tuning. I want a feed of freinds writing everyday bullshit and that just got worse by time untill I no longer use Facebook. It's like chat apps like MSN Messenger that stayed the same for years with no problems what so ever.
- mandelbrotwurst 8y ago
  There are several of those in the form of alternate networks, (Minds.com, Mastodon, etc) which could very well rise to prominence if Facebook were to fall. The issues with corporate social media are now well understood by large swathes of the public. The incumbents are still standing due to their powerful network effects - if they lose those, the public may be a bit more discerning in where they head next.
  - pferde 8y ago
quanticle 8y ago
Not necessarily. If they start making increasingly scummy deals (even more so than what Facebook is currently doing) to sell user data in return for quick profits, then things could get far far worse as Facebook burns to the ground. Mark Zuckerberg, as bad as he is, is not the worst case scenario.
pjc50 8y ago
The other option is that Facebook burns society to the ground. By accident, or at least by negligent permission; see the Rohingya for an example of what I mean.

a3n 8y ago

Isn't this and your aboves an argument against meaningful equity ownership in general? Why not take real voting rights away from all stocks, and leave it with the company/effective owner?

lokedhs 8y ago

Also, it's no secret that Zuckerberg has preferred stock, and anyone deciding to invest in FB goes in with their eyes open knowing that they will have no say in how the company is run. It is indeed really difficult to sympathise with the shareholders.

dwd 8y ago
Agreed, and if you don't like how the company is being run - sell your stock. Generally speaking, this idea we have these days that activist shareholders can come in and dictate how a company is run is insane.
- rdlecler1 8y ago
  Second this motion. These shareholders are not family holding shares in a family business. If they’re not voting by selling their stock then can we really say they’re fed up?
- zaccus 8y ago
  It's not insane, and it's not a new idea. That's always been a right you have as a shareholder in a public company. And you don't vote by selling your stock, you vote via proxy ballots. Which too many individual investors don't do.
  - dwd 8y ago
    Yes, you get a vote which is a simple yes/no on whatever is brought to a vote - but you don't get to say what is voted on.