4 ms·

No company on earth is interested in making their users happy, they're just interested in making money. This is some silly moral purity test where a company has

No company on earth is interested in making their users happy, they're just interested in making money. This is some silly moral purity test where a company has to have pure intentions in order to do good. Our society works because people have the space & incentive to do good regardless of their intentions, and many Facebook users seem happy to use the service and find value in it regardless of whatever sinister intentions you might speculate of Facebook.

rglullis 6y ago
Though not direct, there should be alignment between what a business creates and offers and consumers' (society's) satisfaction. "Users seem happy", the same can be said about smokers and tobacco. The issue is not even with the smoking per se. If tobacco companies were simply processing the plant and giving users what people have done for hundreds (thousands?) of years, it would be fine by me. The problem of Big Tobacco is in developing the mechanisms where they stopped satisfying consumer demand and artificially creating it. Facebook (not just them, you can include actually all of Big Media) is doing the same thing to people. I'd be ashamed to work on FB, or Fox or CNN just the same way I would if I were working on Philip & Morris
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  I have to disagree that they're the same. You're right in saying that "user's seem happy" is not the only metric, but it's quite a stretch to go from "Facebook doesn't optimize for holistic well-being" to "Facebook is as addictive & harmful as Big Tobacco". It's certainly something I believe reasonable people can disagree on and I don't think it's appropriate to shame people for working at Facebook. It's a little off-topic but honestly the idea that Facebook is somehow the the cause of all these modern problems is pretty tenuous to me. Most Facebook users don't go crazy & belligerent from use, the effects are not at all like the consistent & universal harm of nicotine and cigarette smoke. It suggests to me that Facebook might exacerbate existing problems, but it is not the straightforwardly harmful product that people claim it is.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    You are missing the point. It's not a matter of being "as harmful" as tobacco companies. It's a matter of having a business that thrives by exploiting people's regulatory mechanisms to get them to do something that goes against their self-interest and well-being. They don't have to be "the cause of all modern problems" to be frowned upon. Just the fact that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution is enough for me to want to get rid of it and to think poorly of anyone that wants to work there.
    - fb_throwaway123 6y ago
      > get them to do something that goes against their self-interest and well-being. This is where I stop agreeing with you. It is an established scientific fact that smoking is harmful to anyone doing it. Why are you confident that social media is also harmful or goes against people's self-interest? People choose to use it; they connect with people they know on it. Is there some study I'm missing that shows social media causes clinical depression or some other adverse affect? editing: rereading what you wrote and it sounds like your issue is not that FB is harmful but that it is purposely addictive/getting people to do something they wouldn't otherwise. Hmm...when people talk about addiction like alcoholism, gambling, drug use etc. it's always connected to adverse affects -- like overdose, job-loss, divorce etc. The addiction interferes with a person's ability carry out their normal responsibilities. People are not becoming homeless because of Facebook addition. You could make a similar argument about caffeine which causes chemical addiction to change people's behavior but is widely accepted. BTW how do you feel about World of Warcraft addiction?
      - rglullis 6y ago
        AFAIK, no coffee producer competes on the basis of having the coffee beans with the most efficient caffeine delivery rates or gets a premium for being more addicting than strain A or B. Starbucks' stock price is not affected by how addicted to caffeine they get their users to become. If the consumer base decided to switch 100% to decaf coffee, they would still have a profitable business just the same. WoW addiction? Bad for sure, but Blizzard does not make more money in direct correlation with the time that the people spend playing, do they? Does a 3h/day gamer makes only half the revenue of a 6h/day gamer? I guess not.

rglullis 6y ago

Though not direct, there should be alignment between what a business creates and offers and consumers' (society's) satisfaction. "Users seem happy", the same can be said about smokers and tobacco. The issue is not even with the smoking per se. If tobacco companies were simply processing the plant and giving users what people have done for hundreds (thousands?) of years, it would be fine by me. The problem of Big Tobacco is in developing the mechanisms where they stopped satisfying consumer demand and artificially creating it. Facebook (not just them, you can include actually all of Big Media) is doing the same thing to people. I'd be ashamed to work on FB, or Fox or CNN just the same way I would if I were working on Philip & Morris

themacguffinman 6y ago
I have to disagree that they're the same. You're right in saying that "user's seem happy" is not the only metric, but it's quite a stretch to go from "Facebook doesn't optimize for holistic well-being" to "Facebook is as addictive & harmful as Big Tobacco". It's certainly something I believe reasonable people can disagree on and I don't think it's appropriate to shame people for working at Facebook. It's a little off-topic but honestly the idea that Facebook is somehow the the cause of all these modern problems is pretty tenuous to me. Most Facebook users don't go crazy & belligerent from use, the effects are not at all like the consistent & universal harm of nicotine and cigarette smoke. It suggests to me that Facebook might exacerbate existing problems, but it is not the straightforwardly harmful product that people claim it is.
- rglullis 6y ago
  You are missing the point. It's not a matter of being "as harmful" as tobacco companies. It's a matter of having a business that thrives by exploiting people's regulatory mechanisms to get them to do something that goes against their self-interest and well-being. They don't have to be "the cause of all modern problems" to be frowned upon. Just the fact that they are part of the problem and not part of the solution is enough for me to want to get rid of it and to think poorly of anyone that wants to work there.
  - fb_throwaway123 6y ago
    > get them to do something that goes against their self-interest and well-being. This is where I stop agreeing with you. It is an established scientific fact that smoking is harmful to anyone doing it. Why are you confident that social media is also harmful or goes against people's self-interest? People choose to use it; they connect with people they know on it. Is there some study I'm missing that shows social media causes clinical depression or some other adverse affect? editing: rereading what you wrote and it sounds like your issue is not that FB is harmful but that it is purposely addictive/getting people to do something they wouldn't otherwise. Hmm...when people talk about addiction like alcoholism, gambling, drug use etc. it's always connected to adverse affects -- like overdose, job-loss, divorce etc. The addiction interferes with a person's ability carry out their normal responsibilities. People are not becoming homeless because of Facebook addition. You could make a similar argument about caffeine which causes chemical addiction to change people's behavior but is widely accepted. BTW how do you feel about World of Warcraft addiction?
    - rglullis 6y ago
      AFAIK, no coffee producer competes on the basis of having the coffee beans with the most efficient caffeine delivery rates or gets a premium for being more addicting than strain A or B. Starbucks' stock price is not affected by how addicted to caffeine they get their users to become. If the consumer base decided to switch 100% to decaf coffee, they would still have a profitable business just the same. WoW addiction? Bad for sure, but Blizzard does not make more money in direct correlation with the time that the people spend playing, do they? Does a 3h/day gamer makes only half the revenue of a 6h/day gamer? I guess not.