9 ms·

> Claiming nobody needs Facebook is just delusional. Claiming that Facebook is comparable to ELECTRICITY is delusional. Facebook is a website, it is not critic

> 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.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made.. "Some kind of comparison" can be made between literally any two things; that is not in dispute. When I say "they cannot be compared" I don't mean that they are literally incomparable, I mean that the comparison is wildly inapt because the two things are so fundamentally different in terms of value, scale and necessity. > FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. FB is not a public square, it's a publishing platform exclusively owned and funded by a corporation. Just because Facebook is popular doesn't mean it's a public square. Don't misunderstand, I definitely believe that Facebook needs to be regulated (primarily around privacy, tracking, and user-data rights), but not on the basis that people need to use or are entitled to use Facebook; this is demonstrably false. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. > a major driver of social trend So is HBO; just because a company wields powerful social influence doesn't mean we need to regulate their platform. > Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech. So let them die? Facebook is a business and if they make bad business decisions they should feel the consequences. What's the problem?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - anoncake 7y ago
    The comparison is obvious but I'll spell it out for you. You claimed that nobody needs Facebook, providing the reasons: 1. Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation. This argument just doesn't make sense. 2. Facebook is not necessary because it's correlated with worse mental health. Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation. 3. Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care? 4. Another way to understand your post is that Facebook is not necessary (in general, not for every single human) because it tends to worsen mental health. That would mean that if (strict) Amish have better mental health than us, electricity is not critical. But it is.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      > Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly. > Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation. You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not. > Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care? Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It is "critical" in the sense that it is at this point it controls a large share of the "commons" where political speech takes place, and shutting down the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political debate could very easily result in real world violence, which is what free speech is supposed to avoid.
- riskable 7y ago
  If you think shutting down Facebook would result in people being unable to communicate and assemble you obviously haven't studied history or even been around on the Internet very long. Within seconds of Facebook shutting down millions of people will have already migrated to something else that serves the same purpose. Then ten years later people will be saying things like, "Remember Facebook?" "Facebook?! Pfft! I remember MySpace!"
  - anoncake 7y ago
    An individual does not have the choice of communicating via Facebook or shutting it down, only between communicating with someone on Facebook and not communicating with them on a platform they don't use.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      Or you could use another method of communication. You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. The unstated suggestion that lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to effective communication in our society is untrue. Just because the only contact you have for an individual is Facebook doesn't mean you're entitled to use Facebook. My only line of contact to my ex is her xbox-live account, does that mean I am entitled to XBLA or would you deign to allow Microsoft to ban people from the network it owns.
      - anoncake 7y ago
        > Or you could use another method of communication. No. If you cannot use another method of communication you cannot use another method of communication. Even if you dislike the obvious consequences: Facebook, like all other monopolies, cannot remain private property, much less unregulated.

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.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > That being said, I don't believe it's as important, just that some kind of a comparison can be made.. "Some kind of comparison" can be made between literally any two things; that is not in dispute. When I say "they cannot be compared" I don't mean that they are literally incomparable, I mean that the comparison is wildly inapt because the two things are so fundamentally different in terms of value, scale and necessity. > FB and a few other websites are the new public square and are a major driver of social trends. FB is not a public square, it's a publishing platform exclusively owned and funded by a corporation. Just because Facebook is popular doesn't mean it's a public square. Don't misunderstand, I definitely believe that Facebook needs to be regulated (primarily around privacy, tracking, and user-data rights), but not on the basis that people need to use or are entitled to use Facebook; this is demonstrably false. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. > a major driver of social trend So is HBO; just because a company wields powerful social influence doesn't mean we need to regulate their platform. > Curation of this platform could be what kills them, if some people realise they can only speak corporate-friendly speech. So let them die? Facebook is a business and if they make bad business decisions they should feel the consequences. What's the problem?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- anoncake 7y ago
  The comparison is obvious but I'll spell it out for you. You claimed that nobody needs Facebook, providing the reasons: 1. Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation. This argument just doesn't make sense. 2. Facebook is not necessary because it's correlated with worse mental health. Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation. 3. Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care? 4. Another way to understand your post is that Facebook is not necessary (in general, not for every single human) because it tends to worsen mental health. That would mean that if (strict) Amish have better mental health than us, electricity is not critical. But it is.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    > Facebook is not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation I didn't say it's not necessary because it's owned by a private corporation, I described its private ownership status to emphasize the fact that Facebook is private property that users don't pay for, not something that anyone is entitled to use. I'll accept that my wording did not communicate that idea clearly. > Even if we assume that there is indeed a correlation and it's Facebook that tends to cause bad mental health, it does not mean that Facebook is bad for the mental health of everyone in every situation. You are correct. My point is to illustrate the commonly accepted understanding within our society that time spent on social media is generally considered unproductive and correlates (not necessarily causes) mental health problems; your reasoning is akin to suggesting that Fortnite is a necessity because its the most popular online game in the world. It's not. > Or do you have higher standards for "need"? If by "need" you mean that it's impossible to live without Facebook: Same for electricity. If you just mean that it doesn't cross your personal threshold of what constitutes "need", then you're of course right, but why should anyone care? Sigh. So you really are going to make me explain why "electricity" is a need but "Facebook" isn't. I'll use the same example I used down thread. If you were to shut down the electrical grid tomorrow, hundreds of thousands would be dead within 24 hours, if you were to shut off Facebook tomorrow, it would be a moderate inconvenience to a lot of people but everyone would survive and most would move on within a month. That's why one is a "need" (electricity) and the other isn't (social media website).

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

It is "critical" in the sense that it is at this point it controls a large share of the "commons" where political speech takes place, and shutting down the ability of people to meaningfully participate in the political debate could very easily result in real world violence, which is what free speech is supposed to avoid.

riskable 7y ago
If you think shutting down Facebook would result in people being unable to communicate and assemble you obviously haven't studied history or even been around on the Internet very long. Within seconds of Facebook shutting down millions of people will have already migrated to something else that serves the same purpose. Then ten years later people will be saying things like, "Remember Facebook?" "Facebook?! Pfft! I remember MySpace!"
- anoncake 7y ago
  An individual does not have the choice of communicating via Facebook or shutting it down, only between communicating with someone on Facebook and not communicating with them on a platform they don't use.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    Or you could use another method of communication. You are not entitled to the Facebook communication channel or any other privately owned channel. The unstated suggestion that lacking access to Facebook is a fundamental barrier to effective communication in our society is untrue. Just because the only contact you have for an individual is Facebook doesn't mean you're entitled to use Facebook. My only line of contact to my ex is her xbox-live account, does that mean I am entitled to XBLA or would you deign to allow Microsoft to ban people from the network it owns.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Or you could use another method of communication. No. If you cannot use another method of communication you cannot use another method of communication. Even if you dislike the obvious consequences: Facebook, like all other monopolies, cannot remain private property, much less unregulated.