4 ms·

How is this characterization helpful? Zack didn't force anyone to join their platform. They provide stuff for free to users who join by their own choice. If any

How is this characterization helpful? Zack didn't force anyone to join their platform. They provide stuff for free to users who join by their own choice. If anything, it is the fault of the general population who don't know what's good for them. They don't care about your invisible hero's writing RFCs, not Zack.

onion2k 6y ago
Zack didn't force anyone to join their platform. They provide stuff for free to users who join by their own choice. Every time Facebook buys a social media company that is pretty much what he's doing. People on WhatApp, Insta, ConnectU etc did not join Facebook and yet they still ended up on Facebook.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  Since you don't even need a facebook account to use Whatsapp, in what way are Whatsapp users forced to end up on Facebook?
  - wetpaws 6y ago
    You do need one on Oculus.
  - onion2k 6y ago
    WhatsApp shares your phone number, device information, and details of your WhatsApp usage with Facebook. A WhatsApp user isn't "on Facebook" in the sense that they have automatically get a public profile, sure, but they are on Facebook in the sense that lots of information about them end up in Facebook databases. (See "What information does WhatsApp share with the Facebook Companies?" on https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/how-we-work-with-the-facebook-companies https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/how-we...)
- Double_a_92 6y ago
  So? What does that have to do with the free web? Those companies where not forced to acceppt Facebooks deal. Anyone is still free to start a new social network or other web service. This has nothing to do with the web, and if anything it's a general antitrust case.
krageon 6y ago
> didn't force anyone This is a bad-faith argument used by ethically dubious people to justify their shady business practices. Perhaps that's you, or perhaps you've spent too long listening to them. In any case, it's not an argument to take seriously and certainly not one that merits in-depth discussion.
- Double_a_92 6y ago
  If that was really the case, than it's a thing that antitrust laws have to sort out... How does that relate to the web technology wise? Everyone is still free to offer their own services on it.
  - krageon 6y ago
    It's not reasonable to say "I can do bad things until the law says I can't", because that makes you antisocial. Perhaps you are, or you are arguing in bad faith. In any case I don't feel like explaining to you why you need to be a good person. Nobody reading that is going to learn anything new and you won't either.
    - Double_a_92 6y ago
      I just never understand what the solution is. How is the web less free, just because there is one huge social network that people like to use? Yeah we got a classic monopoly there, that just happens to use the internet for it's business... so legally break it up if you don't like it. I can't ethically blame companies for trying to grow wherever they can. And I especially can't see the connection to the internet as a technology. It's like saying roads are not free, because there are only 2-3 car brands driving on it. If that's a problem, it's not about the roads.
      - JohnBooty 6y ago
        How is the web less free, just because there is one huge social network that people like to use? It's not directly because of FB. We are on the verge of a single company -- Google -- assuming de facto sole control of what used to be the "open web" as its last viable competitor, Mozilla, fades away. This is possible because, generally speaking, nobody cares about the open web. Even most of us in the tech industry no longer care. That is where Facebook comes in. We no longer care because companies like Apple and Facebook have successfully shifted us into the "app mindset" in which the open web is irrelevant. I care deeply about the open web, but I'm a minority. I would love to understand the downvotes on this comment.
vincnetas 6y ago
Yes, they didn't forced you to use facebook, but try to explain to anyone now why you have no presence on social network and people start looking strange at you. Landlord asking four your FB account, your employer asking for your linkedin or border-guard asking to show your latest posts. And yes no one forced you to use FB, but life gets more and more inconvenient if you don't use them. Hell, bought oculus when it was FB free, and try to use it without FB.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  In which circles is this the case? I know personally many people who don't have any "posts" in any meaningful way or quantity, and a number of ones that don't have any presence on social networks. Then there are a lot of other people who technically have presense there, but just in a way that they have an account - not in a way of using it or logging into it. It is also strange to hear that if you have a landlord who is weird by asking for facebook account - that the assumption is that it's Mark Zuckerberg's fault? Shouldn't you blame the landlord for that?
m4r35n357 6y ago
Of course he didn't force anyone, he didn't even consult them. He did it himself.
abdullahkhalids 6y ago
Blaming agents, that are making locally optimal decisions due to the incentives present in the game, for the system being stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium is a very boring critique. Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. In this particular case, the incentives are as follows. Initially, facebook set up the game so that the condition of every agent, as well as the global equilibrium improved if people used facebook. Later on, facebook changed things around, so that the global equilibrium became suboptimal.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  > Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. Another thing that's boring is false equvalences. There are tons of other "highways", ie platforms that allow for communication like facebook does. People don't choose them.
  - abdullahkhalids 6y ago
    Network effects around facebook mean it is far more expensive for people's social lives to use those highways.
    - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
      If by "expensive" you mean having to make 2 more clicks for some action, or installing 5 apps instead of one - then I argue that it's not that important to people to use those other highways in the first place. That's just not a high price to pay for anyone who cares about not being on facebook. If they are not willing to pay it, it is an indication that they just don't care. It seems that tech people have a hard time to realize this: most people are fine with facebook, knowing all its evils. And of course the other platforms, they should keep improving and bringing those number of clicks down, and polishing up the UI, etc. But I just mean that they are already up there in terms of usability, at least in the same league. PS. Heck, people can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes listening about and 5 clicks installing adblock/ublock... I suppose that's Zuckerberg's fault too. /s
freeflight 6y ago
Facebook also tracks and profiles non-users [0]. And while I did join WhatsApp by my own choice, I did not chose for Facebook to buy it up to get my data that way. [0] https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/17/facebook_admits_to_tracking_non_users/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/17/facebook_admits_to_tr...

onion2k 6y ago

Zack didn't force anyone to join their platform. They provide stuff for free to users who join by their own choice. Every time Facebook buys a social media company that is pretty much what he's doing. People on WhatApp, Insta, ConnectU etc did not join Facebook and yet they still ended up on Facebook.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
Since you don't even need a facebook account to use Whatsapp, in what way are Whatsapp users forced to end up on Facebook?
- wetpaws 6y ago
  You do need one on Oculus.
- onion2k 6y ago
  WhatsApp shares your phone number, device information, and details of your WhatsApp usage with Facebook. A WhatsApp user isn't "on Facebook" in the sense that they have automatically get a public profile, sure, but they are on Facebook in the sense that lots of information about them end up in Facebook databases. (See "What information does WhatsApp share with the Facebook Companies?" on https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/how-we-work-with-the-facebook-companies https://faq.whatsapp.com/general/security-and-privacy/how-we...)
Double_a_92 6y ago
So? What does that have to do with the free web? Those companies where not forced to acceppt Facebooks deal. Anyone is still free to start a new social network or other web service. This has nothing to do with the web, and if anything it's a general antitrust case.

krageon 6y ago

> didn't force anyone This is a bad-faith argument used by ethically dubious people to justify their shady business practices. Perhaps that's you, or perhaps you've spent too long listening to them. In any case, it's not an argument to take seriously and certainly not one that merits in-depth discussion.

Double_a_92 6y ago
If that was really the case, than it's a thing that antitrust laws have to sort out... How does that relate to the web technology wise? Everyone is still free to offer their own services on it.
- krageon 6y ago
  It's not reasonable to say "I can do bad things until the law says I can't", because that makes you antisocial. Perhaps you are, or you are arguing in bad faith. In any case I don't feel like explaining to you why you need to be a good person. Nobody reading that is going to learn anything new and you won't either.
  - Double_a_92 6y ago
    I just never understand what the solution is. How is the web less free, just because there is one huge social network that people like to use? Yeah we got a classic monopoly there, that just happens to use the internet for it's business... so legally break it up if you don't like it. I can't ethically blame companies for trying to grow wherever they can. And I especially can't see the connection to the internet as a technology. It's like saying roads are not free, because there are only 2-3 car brands driving on it. If that's a problem, it's not about the roads.
    - JohnBooty 6y ago
      How is the web less free, just because there is one huge social network that people like to use? It's not directly because of FB. We are on the verge of a single company -- Google -- assuming de facto sole control of what used to be the "open web" as its last viable competitor, Mozilla, fades away. This is possible because, generally speaking, nobody cares about the open web. Even most of us in the tech industry no longer care. That is where Facebook comes in. We no longer care because companies like Apple and Facebook have successfully shifted us into the "app mindset" in which the open web is irrelevant. I care deeply about the open web, but I'm a minority. I would love to understand the downvotes on this comment.

vincnetas 6y ago

Yes, they didn't forced you to use facebook, but try to explain to anyone now why you have no presence on social network and people start looking strange at you. Landlord asking four your FB account, your employer asking for your linkedin or border-guard asking to show your latest posts. And yes no one forced you to use FB, but life gets more and more inconvenient if you don't use them. Hell, bought oculus when it was FB free, and try to use it without FB.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
In which circles is this the case? I know personally many people who don't have any "posts" in any meaningful way or quantity, and a number of ones that don't have any presence on social networks. Then there are a lot of other people who technically have presense there, but just in a way that they have an account - not in a way of using it or logging into it. It is also strange to hear that if you have a landlord who is weird by asking for facebook account - that the assumption is that it's Mark Zuckerberg's fault? Shouldn't you blame the landlord for that?

m4r35n357 6y ago

Of course he didn't force anyone, he didn't even consult them. He did it himself.

abdullahkhalids 6y ago

Blaming agents, that are making locally optimal decisions due to the incentives present in the game, for the system being stuck in a suboptimal Nash equilibrium is a very boring critique. Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. In this particular case, the incentives are as follows. Initially, facebook set up the game so that the condition of every agent, as well as the global equilibrium improved if people used facebook. Later on, facebook changed things around, so that the global equilibrium became suboptimal.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
> Almost, as boring as asking why people get stuck in traffic, when effectively there is only one highway in the region connecting two important points. Another thing that's boring is false equvalences. There are tons of other "highways", ie platforms that allow for communication like facebook does. People don't choose them.
- abdullahkhalids 6y ago
  Network effects around facebook mean it is far more expensive for people's social lives to use those highways.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    If by "expensive" you mean having to make 2 more clicks for some action, or installing 5 apps instead of one - then I argue that it's not that important to people to use those other highways in the first place. That's just not a high price to pay for anyone who cares about not being on facebook. If they are not willing to pay it, it is an indication that they just don't care. It seems that tech people have a hard time to realize this: most people are fine with facebook, knowing all its evils. And of course the other platforms, they should keep improving and bringing those number of clicks down, and polishing up the UI, etc. But I just mean that they are already up there in terms of usability, at least in the same league. PS. Heck, people can't even be bothered to spend 5 minutes listening about and 5 clicks installing adblock/ublock... I suppose that's Zuckerberg's fault too. /s

freeflight 6y ago

Facebook also tracks and profiles non-users [0]. And while I did join WhatsApp by my own choice, I did not chose for Facebook to buy it up to get my data that way. [0] https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/17/facebook_admits_to_tracking_non_users/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/04/17/facebook_admits_to_tr...