5 ms·

It's increasingly clear that Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp are applications that every technologist should shun, and advocate against in their personal live

It's increasingly clear that Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp are applications that every technologist should shun, and advocate against in their personal lives and in their workplace based on the actions of the corporation that owns them.

raz32dust 7y ago
Ok, so you're a "technologist" I guess. What is your solution?
- munk-a 7y ago
  Maybe just send your buddies an email every once in a while? Before the modern era we got by on letters and phone calls.
  - standardUser 7y ago
    And maybe just ride a horse when you wan to go visit your grandmother, who by the way is dying of smallpox.
MadWombat 7y ago
I looked at other options a few times. I do not see how I can convince my whole social circle to use anything else. Especially in the absence of any feature complete alternative.
coldpie 7y ago
I deleted my FB account a while back. I still use Instagram though, I find it genuinely useful and interesting. I have never seen any political or controversial content on there, including ads. I have mixed feelings about supporting FB by using Instagram, but it feels to me like a healthier ecosystem, so I haven't stopped using it (yet).
- duhi88 7y ago
  I use the web app version of Instagram, and I see no ads whatsoever, and I spend less time on it overall.
- sedachv 7y ago
  > I have never seen any political or controversial content on there, including ads. One of the reasons I deleted my Instagram account in 2017 was that their recommendation algorithm started showing me neo-Nazi posts. I suspect this was because I followed a bunch of motorcycle and custom/vintage truck hobbyist accounts. Turns out a lot of these IG bikers and truck bros were neo-Nazis. Definitely not something I want from my hobbies.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    > recommendation algorithm started showing me neo-Nazi posts Really? That seems... unlikely. Is it possible that your bar for “Nazi” is screwed to include things someone right of center would think are just normal values? Because I’m guessing you saw BUILD THAT WALL posts and AR-15 Competition pictures and not swasticas and lynched black men.
    - sedachv 7y ago
      Sounds like you just got triggered. Sorry about that. I saw some of the symbols featured on this page: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2006/look-racist-skinhead-symbols-and-tattoos https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... And some symbols on this page: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/12/flags-and-other-symbols-used-far-right-groups-charlottesville https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/12/flags-and-oth... A lot of it was from European neo-Nazis about European issues (threats directed towards refugees, Muslims, Communists).
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Not triggered at all. Called you out on your likely “everything i don’t like is a Nazi” and you post from a literal hate group as proof. SPLC is a bad org.
tathougies 7y ago
It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? EDIT: By the lack of responses and the litany of downvotes, I'm guessing no one can actually articulate a response, but it's just bad because feel feels.
- salawat 7y ago
  No one is really arguing that it is. What people object to is the proposition that it is a tenable state of affairs to allow finances to act as a proxy for outreach via disparity in the accessibility of cash. Get your message out by all means, however, our government is too important to be left to the whims of the free market in terms of deciding who amongst us is going to be running it. There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare". If everyone were working out of the same pool, and using the same avenues for outreach, you'd have a much easier time of it regulating the current wild west of mass media outreach for political purposes, and purportedly a much more effective one-stop shop where people could actually go to become informed on what can auditable be sourced to a campaign. Least that's the drift I'm picking up.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare" I mean there are all kinds of disparities in terms of likeability and attractiveness. Certainly, those who are rich have an easy way to advertise -- by spending money -- and thus to be seen. However, some people are naturally louder than others. Some, more outgoing. Some are extroverts. Some not, etc. Our government is formed from people who are able to convince others to vote for them. This is not about ideas, or the 'best ideology'. It is ultimately about likeability, which differs already from person to person. I don't understand why money makes a difference. Anyway, as we've seen money doesn't make a difference. In the last election, it bought Clinton only a narrow margin in the popular vote despite spending twice as much. And of course it cost her the election. I don't see much indication that -- at the highest levels of office -- money makes much difference. Perhaps it can at a local level, and of course buying votes outright should be outlawed, as it is. But I do not understand the moral outrage here.
Marsymars 7y ago
The problem with getting rid of WhatsApp, for me, is that in many cases the choice is between E2E encryption and a desktop app, or SMS. As long as the app remains ad-free and E2E encrypted, it's not clear to me that WhatsApp is yet worse than plain SMS.
- htsh 7y ago
  signal? the desktop apps are available now on mac/windows/linux and are pretty good. the tougher thing for me has been the network effect and getting folks to make the jump since _everyone_ is on whatsapp.
  - Marsymars 7y ago
    Yes, Signal is my preferred messaging app. I'm saying that in many cases, due to the network effect, if I don't use WhatsApp, I'll be communicating to people via SMS.
starpilot 7y ago
But I have friends who work at those companies. They're brilliant, they post here on HN, and have families that they take care of. They are active in their local communities. Are you saying they're the bad guys? Should I distance myself from them?
- appleflaxen 7y ago
  How do you look at people who spent a career at Exxon? Do they deserve to be judged in 2020 for decisions they made 30 years before the clear effects of global warming were visible? I would argue that yes, they do.
- iamaelephant 7y ago
  Yes, absolutely.
  - Frondo 7y ago
    I would like to expand on this, because I think it's a nice quip but the answer should be more nuanced. If Facebook is generally considered harmful (i.e. to society), and if they know that it's considered harmful, and they continue to work there, putting their limited time on earth to growing, enhancing, improving a service that is harmful, then they are bad people. They can be good family people, good for their communities, but bad for society at large. Being good mothers and fathers, volunteering for neighborhood garbage cleanups, helping out in their church or mosque, that doesn't make their day job work not bad, or make them not bad for doing the harmful day job work. They can be both. I for one couldn't look my children in the eye each night and say, "I did something harmful for society today, that is what afforded you a new Switch."
    - iamaelephant 7y ago
      > the answer should be more nuanced. Not it shouldn't. We know that these companies are morally corrupt. When you sell your time to help grow these companies you are also morally corrupt. Simples.
standardUser 7y ago
"...based on the actions of the corporation that owns them" By that metric, there are several thousand other companies that are more worthy of our boycott, by virtue of literally ravaging the planet, poisoning human beings and propping up brutal dictatorships.
- appleflaxen 7y ago
  Yes, I agree.
tschellenbach 7y ago
Most complaints addressed to those 3 sites also apply to the internet as a whole.
- takeda 7y ago
  Those 3 sites are the same company. Twitter for example did the right thing and simply ban all political ads.

raz32dust 7y ago

Ok, so you're a "technologist" I guess. What is your solution?

munk-a 7y ago
Maybe just send your buddies an email every once in a while? Before the modern era we got by on letters and phone calls.
- standardUser 7y ago
  And maybe just ride a horse when you wan to go visit your grandmother, who by the way is dying of smallpox.

MadWombat 7y ago

I looked at other options a few times. I do not see how I can convince my whole social circle to use anything else. Especially in the absence of any feature complete alternative.

coldpie 7y ago

I deleted my FB account a while back. I still use Instagram though, I find it genuinely useful and interesting. I have never seen any political or controversial content on there, including ads. I have mixed feelings about supporting FB by using Instagram, but it feels to me like a healthier ecosystem, so I haven't stopped using it (yet).

duhi88 7y ago
I use the web app version of Instagram, and I see no ads whatsoever, and I spend less time on it overall.
sedachv 7y ago
> I have never seen any political or controversial content on there, including ads. One of the reasons I deleted my Instagram account in 2017 was that their recommendation algorithm started showing me neo-Nazi posts. I suspect this was because I followed a bunch of motorcycle and custom/vintage truck hobbyist accounts. Turns out a lot of these IG bikers and truck bros were neo-Nazis. Definitely not something I want from my hobbies.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  > recommendation algorithm started showing me neo-Nazi posts Really? That seems... unlikely. Is it possible that your bar for “Nazi” is screwed to include things someone right of center would think are just normal values? Because I’m guessing you saw BUILD THAT WALL posts and AR-15 Competition pictures and not swasticas and lynched black men.
  - sedachv 7y ago
    Sounds like you just got triggered. Sorry about that. I saw some of the symbols featured on this page: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2006/look-racist-skinhead-symbols-and-tattoos https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/... And some symbols on this page: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/12/flags-and-other-symbols-used-far-right-groups-charlottesville https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/12/flags-and-oth... A lot of it was from European neo-Nazis about European issues (threats directed towards refugees, Muslims, Communists).
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      Not triggered at all. Called you out on your likely “everything i don’t like is a Nazi” and you post from a literal hate group as proof. SPLC is a bad org.

tathougies 7y ago

It's not increasingly clear at all. Why is it wrong for someone running for elected office to put their message out? EDIT: By the lack of responses and the litany of downvotes, I'm guessing no one can actually articulate a response, but it's just bad because feel feels.

salawat 7y ago
No one is really arguing that it is. What people object to is the proposition that it is a tenable state of affairs to allow finances to act as a proxy for outreach via disparity in the accessibility of cash. Get your message out by all means, however, our government is too important to be left to the whims of the free market in terms of deciding who amongst us is going to be running it. There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare". If everyone were working out of the same pool, and using the same avenues for outreach, you'd have a much easier time of it regulating the current wild west of mass media outreach for political purposes, and purportedly a much more effective one-stop shop where people could actually go to become informed on what can auditable be sourced to a campaign. Least that's the drift I'm picking up.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > There cannot be an equal opportunity platform when everything degenerates to "the richest guy wins the contest for mindshare" I mean there are all kinds of disparities in terms of likeability and attractiveness. Certainly, those who are rich have an easy way to advertise -- by spending money -- and thus to be seen. However, some people are naturally louder than others. Some, more outgoing. Some are extroverts. Some not, etc. Our government is formed from people who are able to convince others to vote for them. This is not about ideas, or the 'best ideology'. It is ultimately about likeability, which differs already from person to person. I don't understand why money makes a difference. Anyway, as we've seen money doesn't make a difference. In the last election, it bought Clinton only a narrow margin in the popular vote despite spending twice as much. And of course it cost her the election. I don't see much indication that -- at the highest levels of office -- money makes much difference. Perhaps it can at a local level, and of course buying votes outright should be outlawed, as it is. But I do not understand the moral outrage here.

Marsymars 7y ago

The problem with getting rid of WhatsApp, for me, is that in many cases the choice is between E2E encryption and a desktop app, or SMS. As long as the app remains ad-free and E2E encrypted, it's not clear to me that WhatsApp is yet worse than plain SMS.

htsh 7y ago
signal? the desktop apps are available now on mac/windows/linux and are pretty good. the tougher thing for me has been the network effect and getting folks to make the jump since _everyone_ is on whatsapp.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  Yes, Signal is my preferred messaging app. I'm saying that in many cases, due to the network effect, if I don't use WhatsApp, I'll be communicating to people via SMS.

starpilot 7y ago

But I have friends who work at those companies. They're brilliant, they post here on HN, and have families that they take care of. They are active in their local communities. Are you saying they're the bad guys? Should I distance myself from them?

appleflaxen 7y ago
How do you look at people who spent a career at Exxon? Do they deserve to be judged in 2020 for decisions they made 30 years before the clear effects of global warming were visible? I would argue that yes, they do.
iamaelephant 7y ago
Yes, absolutely.
- Frondo 7y ago
  I would like to expand on this, because I think it's a nice quip but the answer should be more nuanced. If Facebook is generally considered harmful (i.e. to society), and if they know that it's considered harmful, and they continue to work there, putting their limited time on earth to growing, enhancing, improving a service that is harmful, then they are bad people. They can be good family people, good for their communities, but bad for society at large. Being good mothers and fathers, volunteering for neighborhood garbage cleanups, helping out in their church or mosque, that doesn't make their day job work not bad, or make them not bad for doing the harmful day job work. They can be both. I for one couldn't look my children in the eye each night and say, "I did something harmful for society today, that is what afforded you a new Switch."
  - iamaelephant 7y ago
    > the answer should be more nuanced. Not it shouldn't. We know that these companies are morally corrupt. When you sell your time to help grow these companies you are also morally corrupt. Simples.

standardUser 7y ago

"...based on the actions of the corporation that owns them" By that metric, there are several thousand other companies that are more worthy of our boycott, by virtue of literally ravaging the planet, poisoning human beings and propping up brutal dictatorships.

appleflaxen 7y ago
Yes, I agree.

tschellenbach 7y ago

Most complaints addressed to those 3 sites also apply to the internet as a whole.

takeda 7y ago
Those 3 sites are the same company. Twitter for example did the right thing and simply ban all political ads.