4 ms·

I don't understand what vital function facbeook serves that people could not use other fallback tools like e-mail to deal with their issues in its absence until

I don't understand what vital function facbeook serves that people could not use other fallback tools like e-mail to deal with their issues in its absence until something else pops up. Ad dollars would go to other local media sources that facebook is essentially killing.

monkeywork 7y ago
I agree with you that other sites and tools would eventually pick up the slack but if you honestly can't see the disruption it would cause both citizens, businesses, event organizers, etc then you're not qualified to be in the discussion.
ben_w 7y ago
Everyone here knows how those alternatives work, but we’re unusual. I think (I’m not a chemist) it’s like being on a chemistry forum expressing surprise about a ban on <generic drug example> when it’s “easy” to make the stuff at home. We’re blocking JavaScript as a security precaution when normal people often still use 123456 as their password. I still think banning Facebook would be a net win, but it’s not zero cost.
- anoncake 7y ago
  > Everyone here knows how those alternatives work, but we’re unusual. I think you underestimate the average user. Most do know how e-mail, forums and instant messengers work. Those that don't will learn.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > Those that don't will learn. Sure. What’s the cost of learning? I have many examples of even smart people not knowing what tech can do. I’m still regularly blowing people’s minds with the AR mode in Google Translate, and the tech behind that is 8.5 years old now. This isn’t even a new phenomena — back when I was a kid all the adults joked about needing someone under the age of 14 to work the VCR and stop digital clocks flashing 12:00 forever. The jokes didn’t stop until VCRs stopped being a thing.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      Not that high. People may not know what tech can do but they do know that tech can do the things Facebook does. Using separate services may be less convenient than something like Facebook (or would be if Facebook's UX wasn't horrible) but it isn't really harder. If Facebook gets replaced by another monolith, using it won't even be more inconvenient.

monkeywork 7y ago

I agree with you that other sites and tools would eventually pick up the slack but if you honestly can't see the disruption it would cause both citizens, businesses, event organizers, etc then you're not qualified to be in the discussion.

ben_w 7y ago

Everyone here knows how those alternatives work, but we’re unusual. I think (I’m not a chemist) it’s like being on a chemistry forum expressing surprise about a ban on <generic drug example> when it’s “easy” to make the stuff at home. We’re blocking JavaScript as a security precaution when normal people often still use 123456 as their password. I still think banning Facebook would be a net win, but it’s not zero cost.

anoncake 7y ago
> Everyone here knows how those alternatives work, but we’re unusual. I think you underestimate the average user. Most do know how e-mail, forums and instant messengers work. Those that don't will learn.
- ben_w 7y ago
  > Those that don't will learn. Sure. What’s the cost of learning? I have many examples of even smart people not knowing what tech can do. I’m still regularly blowing people’s minds with the AR mode in Google Translate, and the tech behind that is 8.5 years old now. This isn’t even a new phenomena — back when I was a kid all the adults joked about needing someone under the age of 14 to work the VCR and stop digital clocks flashing 12:00 forever. The jokes didn’t stop until VCRs stopped being a thing.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    Not that high. People may not know what tech can do but they do know that tech can do the things Facebook does. Using separate services may be less convenient than something like Facebook (or would be if Facebook's UX wasn't horrible) but it isn't really harder. If Facebook gets replaced by another monolith, using it won't even be more inconvenient.