6 ms·

Every single comment in this thread as I'm writing this is some version of "wouldn't it be great if facebook left". I don't use facebook, but I can't fathom the

Every single comment in this thread as I'm writing this is some version of "wouldn't it be great if facebook left". I don't use facebook, but I can't fathom the arrogance of wanting to destroy something that billions of people use, of thinking you know better then all these people how they should spend their time.

the_hoser 6y ago
This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. Good point, but that's true for many things. Including beer[1] and cars[2], come to think of it. We live in a society, and anything that our fellow humans do has effects on us. I'm not saying that just because lots of people drink beer, drive cars and use facebook, these things can't be critized, but it still seems arrogant to cheer for the destruction of something so many people use. > They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you. I don't really have an answer to this other then saying that I don't see the problem with it. We are all gathering data about each other all the time. And there's a lot of software that does this at scale, like a search engine. [1] Prohibition was mainly justified with the problems alcoholics caused for others, not their own suffering. [2] Probably the first example of a radical monopoly, lots of concern about crime and a breakdown of trust.
  - the_hoser 6y ago
    You're using whataboutism on a colossal scale to argue against the attack on a single bad actor. It's not possible to address all bad actors simultaneously. Some bad actors will be sorted out quicker than others. The order in which they get sorted out is not intended to be fair.
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      I'm not using whataboutism, not on "a colossal scale", not on any scale. Whataboutism is to evade the question whether there's something wrong by pointing to other things. I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. Individuals and corporations gather data on people they have no direct relationship with all the time. It's not whataboutism to point out that something is completely ordinary.
      - the_hoser 6y ago
        Fair enough. But I'd also like to point out that just because something is normal, doesn't make it right. If you think that it's okay for corporations to collect information on non-users in the way that Facebook does, then I can only say that I strongly disagree with you.
      - philipov 6y ago
        > I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. And I don't see anything wrong with wanting to destroy massive international conglomerates that see nothing wrong with bullying regulators into letting them do whatever they want.
jfengel 6y ago
That's driven, in part, by the way it seems to be an empty threat. It would cost Facebook billions, and equally-good alternatives would pop up instantly -- alternatives willing to follow the rules. The only loss would be Facebook's network power -- the fact that all of your friends are already on it. It has no real technological advantage, just being the good-enough solution. The loss of connectivity between Europe's Facebook-alternative and others would be real, but probably temporary. Conceivably, the winner could even out-innovate Facebook and take its place as the default social network. There's more than a little schadenfreude about a loss to a badly-behaved company that offers no user-facing innovation over competitors. The loss to Facebook is large and the loss to Europeans is small. So that generates an unsurprising amount of sarcastic replies.
maxerickson 6y ago
Tell that to Facebook. They are the ones that optimize for ad revenue and engagement rather than user satisfaction.
_qulr 6y ago
I'm a regular Twitter user, but I wish that Twitter would shut down. The problem is that in many cases you have to use Facebook and/or Twitter, precisely because they're social networks. If the people in important social groups gather there, you have to be there too, or you're shut out from opportunities and socializing. It feels like, everyone is there only because everyone else is there. And the only solution to that problem is to make it impossible for everyone to be there.
- sushid 6y ago
  How do you even rationalize such a comment? Are you addicted to Twitter? Why do you have to be there? Wouldn't there just be a replacement for Twitter or Facebook if they disappeared overnight? I use Messenger/IG/Tiktok but I do fine without Twitter and Facebook. I certainly don't wish any of them gone. I just don't use the ones I don't enjoy using.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Why do you have to be there? For software developers it's become the de facto professional network, at least in my area. If you want to get a job, or if you want to promote your product, it's difficult not to be on Twitter. I actually quit Twitter for 4 years, and I think that hurt my career.
    - sushid 6y ago
      Sure, but what do you think would happen without Twitter? It'd be another social network like Twitter. Or it'd be split up and you'd have to manage Twitter-replacement A and B.
      - _qulr 6y ago
        I don't think we can take for granted that another social network with hundreds of millions or billions of user can just easily arise. Many social networks have tried and failed. Also, we were perhaps very naive about the corrosive social and political effects of massive social networks back in the early days of Facebook and Twitter. Hopefully we would look more critically at them and not make the same mistakes again. IMO it would be much better to have multiple smaller social networks rather than a small number of global networks. Is there any good reason to throw together everyone in one big madhouse — tech, politics, sports, entertainment, commerce — and have a completely "open" forum where anyone in the world can reply and argue with anyone else, on any subject? I feel that was a giant mistake.

the_hoser 6y ago

This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you.

amadeuspagel 6y ago
> This isn't like a brand of beer or car that you don't like going under. Facebook has deep effects on all of us, even if we never use it. Good point, but that's true for many things. Including beer[1] and cars[2], come to think of it. We live in a society, and anything that our fellow humans do has effects on us. I'm not saying that just because lots of people drink beer, drive cars and use facebook, these things can't be critized, but it still seems arrogant to cheer for the destruction of something so many people use. > They don't wait for you to create an account to start gathering data about you. I don't really have an answer to this other then saying that I don't see the problem with it. We are all gathering data about each other all the time. And there's a lot of software that does this at scale, like a search engine. [1] Prohibition was mainly justified with the problems alcoholics caused for others, not their own suffering. [2] Probably the first example of a radical monopoly, lots of concern about crime and a breakdown of trust.
- the_hoser 6y ago
  You're using whataboutism on a colossal scale to argue against the attack on a single bad actor. It's not possible to address all bad actors simultaneously. Some bad actors will be sorted out quicker than others. The order in which they get sorted out is not intended to be fair.
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    I'm not using whataboutism, not on "a colossal scale", not on any scale. Whataboutism is to evade the question whether there's something wrong by pointing to other things. I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. Individuals and corporations gather data on people they have no direct relationship with all the time. It's not whataboutism to point out that something is completely ordinary.
    - the_hoser 6y ago
      Fair enough. But I'd also like to point out that just because something is normal, doesn't make it right. If you think that it's okay for corporations to collect information on non-users in the way that Facebook does, then I can only say that I strongly disagree with you.
    - philipov 6y ago
      > I've said quite clearly that I don't see anything wrong with gathering data on non-users. And I don't see anything wrong with wanting to destroy massive international conglomerates that see nothing wrong with bullying regulators into letting them do whatever they want.

jfengel 6y ago

That's driven, in part, by the way it seems to be an empty threat. It would cost Facebook billions, and equally-good alternatives would pop up instantly -- alternatives willing to follow the rules. The only loss would be Facebook's network power -- the fact that all of your friends are already on it. It has no real technological advantage, just being the good-enough solution. The loss of connectivity between Europe's Facebook-alternative and others would be real, but probably temporary. Conceivably, the winner could even out-innovate Facebook and take its place as the default social network. There's more than a little schadenfreude about a loss to a badly-behaved company that offers no user-facing innovation over competitors. The loss to Facebook is large and the loss to Europeans is small. So that generates an unsurprising amount of sarcastic replies.

maxerickson 6y ago

Tell that to Facebook. They are the ones that optimize for ad revenue and engagement rather than user satisfaction.

_qulr 6y ago

I'm a regular Twitter user, but I wish that Twitter would shut down. The problem is that in many cases you have to use Facebook and/or Twitter, precisely because they're social networks. If the people in important social groups gather there, you have to be there too, or you're shut out from opportunities and socializing. It feels like, everyone is there only because everyone else is there. And the only solution to that problem is to make it impossible for everyone to be there.

sushid 6y ago
How do you even rationalize such a comment? Are you addicted to Twitter? Why do you have to be there? Wouldn't there just be a replacement for Twitter or Facebook if they disappeared overnight? I use Messenger/IG/Tiktok but I do fine without Twitter and Facebook. I certainly don't wish any of them gone. I just don't use the ones I don't enjoy using.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Why do you have to be there? For software developers it's become the de facto professional network, at least in my area. If you want to get a job, or if you want to promote your product, it's difficult not to be on Twitter. I actually quit Twitter for 4 years, and I think that hurt my career.
  - sushid 6y ago
    Sure, but what do you think would happen without Twitter? It'd be another social network like Twitter. Or it'd be split up and you'd have to manage Twitter-replacement A and B.
    - _qulr 6y ago
      I don't think we can take for granted that another social network with hundreds of millions or billions of user can just easily arise. Many social networks have tried and failed. Also, we were perhaps very naive about the corrosive social and political effects of massive social networks back in the early days of Facebook and Twitter. Hopefully we would look more critically at them and not make the same mistakes again. IMO it would be much better to have multiple smaller social networks rather than a small number of global networks. Is there any good reason to throw together everyone in one big madhouse — tech, politics, sports, entertainment, commerce — and have a completely "open" forum where anyone in the world can reply and argue with anyone else, on any subject? I feel that was a giant mistake.