8 ms·

If you want to know why people use Facebook it is for all of the positive it brings, rather than the negative which is portrayed consistently on HN. Check out t

If you want to know why people use Facebook it is for all of the positive it brings, rather than the negative which is portrayed consistently on HN. Check out this FB page where FB accumulates stories that show FB making a meaningful and positive impact on people’s lives. https://wwww.facebook.com/CommunityVoices/ https://wwww.facebook.com/CommunityVoices/

50656E6973 7y ago
One can always cherry pick good or bad elements of FB use, but the vast majority of users and the average use case would not have anything to do on the Community Voices page. Most people use facebook to satisfy vices such as outrage addiction, vanity, and jealousy/noseyness. Even cable news runs an uplifting story every now and then, but for the most part simply magnifies and profits from the worst in society.
- mrep 7y ago
  Hacker news ain't that different. Pretty much every article I see here that mentions Facebook or any other company is full of outrage. Just 2 days ago there was an article on the Facebook fine [0] and half the people were demanding that Facebook should have been dismantled and the executives should have gone to jail. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490
cribbles 7y ago
Why are your only comments on this site rebutting negative stories about Facebook? As a follow-up question, what are your thoughts on this longitudinal study from 2017[1], which found that "the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being", such that any form of engagement with Facebook was negatively correlated with a wide range of self-reported mental, emotional, and physical health indicators? Does the Facebook PR page you linked contradict that somehow? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386
- dymk 7y ago
  The study you linked does nothing to imply a causal relationship. Do you think it’s a good strategy to try to undermine somebody’s position by “just asking questions” about why they hold an unpopular opinion on HN? Why not address their position directly rather than just sic a downvote mob on them? Disclaimer because you’ll undoubtably go through my comment history: I used to work at Facebook.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    >Disclaimer because you’ll undoubtably go through my comment history I have never understood why this is considered to be bad form. Going through someone's comment history often provides useful context and is often one of the quickest ways to try and find out if they are discussing something in bad faith or not. Plus it can often just be interesting. To try and assert that it is impolite for people to read what you have chosen to post on a public forum, purely because it happens to be from a previous discussion, is to attempt to enforce a social stigma on base curiosity. Luckily it has about as much sway as farting into a thunderstorm, but why try it in the first place? Nobody would take an author seriously if they tried to insist that people reviewing their new book aren't allowed to read the old ones and I feel the same logic applies here.
    - dymk 7y ago
      "Just asking questions" in the form of "So, why are your comments all <about this>" isn't impolite; it's engaging in bad-faith tactics to silence a point of view, and an implication that the user is a shill. It's not even a reasonable accusation; the comments from the user supposedly supporting facebook is actually just three fairly thought out, nuanced comments.
      - inflatableDodo 7y ago
        Looking through, seeing as you are now amusingly encouraging me to analyse another person's post history; Only 3 posts, posted over the course of a year, all only in support of facebook. I wouldn't confidently mark the account as subtle astroturfing, could be an extremely lazy but also seemingly enthusiasic facebook fan, but it raises an eyebrow now you draw my attention to it. I mean, shilling does exist. As to your closing point, the existence of some nuance to an argument doesn't have any real bearing on the possibility of a given account indulging in shilling. It may be unreasonable, but if it is, it is not because of that.
neiman 7y ago
Will you be happy with Darth Vader as your ruler if he'd bring you occasional cake? I'm not saying that Facebook is Darth Vader. I am saying you're logic is flawed. What you wrote is not a serious discussion.
- IshKebab 7y ago
  He didn't have any "logic"...?
  - neiman 7y ago
    He didn't, it's kind of whataboutism.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  I think a better comparison would be if Vader supported Pride week on his planets and promoted gender neutral toilets for his employees. Something that's morally right not just nice like cake. Regarding Facebook, I enjoy using it, its better than Twitter for less toxicity.
  - neiman 7y ago
    So you'd be supporting Darth Vader is he "supported Pride week on his planets and promoted gender neutral toilets for his employees"? Wow, it's clear we're not on the same page.
pluma 7y ago
"The nazis weren't all that bad. They gave us the Autobahn and Hitler was a vegetarian."

50656E6973 7y ago

One can always cherry pick good or bad elements of FB use, but the vast majority of users and the average use case would not have anything to do on the Community Voices page. Most people use facebook to satisfy vices such as outrage addiction, vanity, and jealousy/noseyness. Even cable news runs an uplifting story every now and then, but for the most part simply magnifies and profits from the worst in society.

mrep 7y ago
Hacker news ain't that different. Pretty much every article I see here that mentions Facebook or any other company is full of outrage. Just 2 days ago there was an article on the Facebook fine [0] and half the people were demanding that Facebook should have been dismantled and the executives should have gone to jail. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19759490

cribbles 7y ago

Why are your only comments on this site rebutting negative stories about Facebook? As a follow-up question, what are your thoughts on this longitudinal study from 2017[1], which found that "the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being", such that any form of engagement with Facebook was negatively correlated with a wide range of self-reported mental, emotional, and physical health indicators? Does the Facebook PR page you linked contradict that somehow? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386

dymk 7y ago
The study you linked does nothing to imply a causal relationship. Do you think it’s a good strategy to try to undermine somebody’s position by “just asking questions” about why they hold an unpopular opinion on HN? Why not address their position directly rather than just sic a downvote mob on them? Disclaimer because you’ll undoubtably go through my comment history: I used to work at Facebook.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  >Disclaimer because you’ll undoubtably go through my comment history I have never understood why this is considered to be bad form. Going through someone's comment history often provides useful context and is often one of the quickest ways to try and find out if they are discussing something in bad faith or not. Plus it can often just be interesting. To try and assert that it is impolite for people to read what you have chosen to post on a public forum, purely because it happens to be from a previous discussion, is to attempt to enforce a social stigma on base curiosity. Luckily it has about as much sway as farting into a thunderstorm, but why try it in the first place? Nobody would take an author seriously if they tried to insist that people reviewing their new book aren't allowed to read the old ones and I feel the same logic applies here.
  - dymk 7y ago
    "Just asking questions" in the form of "So, why are your comments all <about this>" isn't impolite; it's engaging in bad-faith tactics to silence a point of view, and an implication that the user is a shill. It's not even a reasonable accusation; the comments from the user supposedly supporting facebook is actually just three fairly thought out, nuanced comments.
    - inflatableDodo 7y ago
      Looking through, seeing as you are now amusingly encouraging me to analyse another person's post history; Only 3 posts, posted over the course of a year, all only in support of facebook. I wouldn't confidently mark the account as subtle astroturfing, could be an extremely lazy but also seemingly enthusiasic facebook fan, but it raises an eyebrow now you draw my attention to it. I mean, shilling does exist. As to your closing point, the existence of some nuance to an argument doesn't have any real bearing on the possibility of a given account indulging in shilling. It may be unreasonable, but if it is, it is not because of that.

neiman 7y ago

Will you be happy with Darth Vader as your ruler if he'd bring you occasional cake? I'm not saying that Facebook is Darth Vader. I am saying you're logic is flawed. What you wrote is not a serious discussion.

IshKebab 7y ago
He didn't have any "logic"...?
- neiman 7y ago
  He didn't, it's kind of whataboutism.
thinkingemote 7y ago
I think a better comparison would be if Vader supported Pride week on his planets and promoted gender neutral toilets for his employees. Something that's morally right not just nice like cake. Regarding Facebook, I enjoy using it, its better than Twitter for less toxicity.
- neiman 7y ago
  So you'd be supporting Darth Vader is he "supported Pride week on his planets and promoted gender neutral toilets for his employees"? Wow, it's clear we're not on the same page.

pluma 7y ago

"The nazis weren't all that bad. They gave us the Autobahn and Hitler was a vegetarian."