8 ms·

Facebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, st

Facebook is definitely not a "critical network". It is a privately owned network operated by a corporation, it is not "critical" or even necessary, in fact, studies suggest increased use of Facebook correlates with poor mental health. Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook.

raxxorrax 7y ago
I agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants. They just have the masses of users.
- anoncake 7y ago
  You agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
  - riskable 7y ago
    As a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather). If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      The world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with. But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  And if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Right. This entire argument is semantics on the word 'critical'. FB is a "should probably be using" for publishers or ecommerce companies, but FB is not a critical component. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Odd. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB not to be a critical component because it makes a good premise for the argument of letting them do whatever they want.
      - EpicEng 7y ago
        ...I think Facebook has won
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
anoncake 7y ago
> Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook. Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us. Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional. Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Well, I have just compared them. If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Well, I have just compared them. Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet. > If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
      - cameronbrown 7y ago
        Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made. The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.

raxxorrax 7y ago

I agree in principle, but as a news publisher, you practically have to use Facebook to stay relevant. Same goes for Google to a lesser degree. All the laws like the EUs article 13 were tools in the fight between publishers and the internet giants. They just have the masses of users.

anoncake 7y ago
You agree in principle that nobody needs Facebook while acknowledging that somebody needs Facebook?
- riskable 7y ago
  As a business you need a way to engage with potential or existing customers. Yesterday that "way" was to pay newspapers, the Yellow Pages, etc to place ads. Then it moved to banner ads on various websites and today they use Facebook and Google (and other publishers/communities where people gather). If both Facebook and Google were to disappear business would just use whatever replaces them. The companies aren't essential. The service they provide is. The good news is that service can be provided by basically any business. It's just a problem concentration/monopoly that they're the current focus.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The world does not need Facebook. If Facebook went away, people would use another service to find and communicate with businesses. Businesses would use another service to be found and be communicated with. But today, people need Facebook because businesses (and other people) use Facebook and businesses need Facebook because people use Facebook. Facebook is completely replaceable for society, but that doesn't make it less critical for many individuals.
EpicEng 7y ago
And if FB went away tomorrow the companies would find another way. It's not like they weren't successful before FB came around. FB is only "critical" for as long as it exists in it's current form... which makes it not at all critical to begin with.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Right. This entire argument is semantics on the word 'critical'. FB is a "should probably be using" for publishers or ecommerce companies, but FB is not a critical component. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB to be a critical component simply because it makes a good premise for the argument of shutting FB down.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Odd. Reading this thread makes me think that some want FB not to be a critical component because it makes a good premise for the argument of letting them do whatever they want.
    - EpicEng 7y ago
      ...I think Facebook has won

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

anoncake 7y ago

> Certainly, nobody needs access to Facebook. Nobody needs electricity either. The Amish get by without and I wouldn't be surprised if they had better mental health than us. Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional.

root_axis 7y ago
> Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional. Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critical national infrastructure that underpins literally every economic activity in the country lol.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Well, I have just compared them. If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. Also, claiming that electricity is "critical" is delusional because agriculture is even more important.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Well, I have just compared them. Brilliant retort. Next you'll compare Twitter to health insurance I bet. > If you're incapable of understanding the comparison, please don't embarrass yourself and stop shouting. I understand the comparison just fine, what's embarrassing is the absurdity of the comparison. The burden of proof is on you to explain why a fundamental lynchpin of our economy for 150 years is comparable in necessity to a single social media website.
    - cameronbrown 7y ago
      Just like electricity, Facebook is an enabler of business, just on a higher level. That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made. The reason I think it is important is that FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech.