9 ms·

Let's hope it's permanent.

by drcongo 5y ago

mrstumpy 5y ago
You win for best comment
jose-cl 5y ago
here's your upvote master
hkai 5y ago
Why?
- elevenoh 5y ago
  b/c most humans are on the wrong end of fb's covert, exploitative attention-manipulation
- dessant 5y ago
  Because combined with the abysmal state of education in most places, and a general lack of government action, Facebook is an actual threat to our civilization.
  - forgetfulness 5y ago
    People unfortunately love the upsides of misinformation, or perhaps it's the format that makes it easy to build community around shared (misinformed) values, to rally in battles that rage for hours or days for a cause you deeply believe in and can follow by digesting 30-second soundbites on social midea and 30-minute videos on YouTube. People will do this wherever they can talk in a group online, not just Facebook properties. It's... pretty bad actually, I think the only tool that exists right now is censorship, because the bullshit gets created, spread, and wholeheartedly received way faster than debunking will. And censorship is a power that can't be safely entrusted to nobody.
  - hkai 5y ago
    Why? The reasons I've seen are: > it creates a risk of bad self-image for young girls It's a parent's job to educate your children. There are much worse things than Facebook out there. > it collects data Literally no harm in knowing that someone is interested in JavaScript, cats and fetish porn, and targeting ads to that user. > it's addictive So is sex, marijuana, and collecting stamps. > it helps organize protests Good.
    - jachee 5y ago
      It actively uses its algorithm to radicalize racists and conspiracy theorists, and when it discovered that's what it was doing decided to keep doing it because it was good for the bottom line: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pushes-qanon-racism-to-trump-fans-whistleblower-says-2021-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pushes-qanon-racism...
      - Qi_ 5y ago
        An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
        jachee 5y ago
        Any algorithm that can maximize engagement can be tuned to minimize radicalization and dissemination of hatred and fascism. I'd argue that it's absolutely in Facebook's self-interest to reduce their active role in promoting fascism, racism, homophobia, etc.
        forgetfulness 5y ago
        > An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest. That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem. They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
  - SirensOfTitan 5y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but often I hear FB or other tech companies like Twitter singled out re: misinformation. News media contributes to misinformation and contributes to a warped, partisan, permanently-in-catastrophe-mode population just as much as FB, Twitter, and other mediums. I doubt, if FB goes away, that any of the issues you're implying will go away or even get much better. In fact, the lack of a real look into the negative effects of consumer news product reinforces this idea that only the elite can know the truth, and the masses just have to get in line and shut up. News media proliferated nonsense from fed sources to justify the Iraq war, they gave Trump 24/7 airtime for a while because it increased ratings. They constantly forgo any real accountability for their actions, and pretend that they aren't just another addictive consumer product that warps peoples' brains.
  - kbelder 5y ago
    Eh, Twitter's worse.
- vadfa 5y ago
  Because he doesn't like the website so he thinks nobody else should be able to use it.
- drdeadringer 5y ago
  One American example quote that holds true for countries outside of America: Direct quote: "That website on Facebook." There are people who believe that "Facebook" literally equals "Internet". Facebook, Internet ... Internet, Facebook. Rinse and repeat for your alternative echo chamber regarding Google, the Microsoft Bing, &c.
jliptzin 5y ago
Of all the big tech companies Facebook is the only one where it can completely disappear overnight and my life would be completely unaffected (or possibly improved by not having to explain to people I don't use facebook, please email or text me your invitations rather than use messenger). If Google, Amazon, Netflix, Apple disappeared the story would be completely different.
- gpvos 5y ago
  Facebook is the only one of those that I regularly use. I'd like something like Google's Android to stay around. The rest I don't need.
- apexalpha 5y ago
  Weird, because over here WhatsApp is ingrained into the social fabric of your life. Couldn't imagine ever going back to texting/iMessage.
  - dmd 5y ago
    WhatsApp, like the metric system, is a “literally everywhere but the US” thing. I’ve never once seen it used in the US.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    But your friend groups would probably be able to migrate to Signal/Discord/Hangouts/etc quite quickly if WhatsApp were to disappear, no? WhatsApp has the network effect on its side by way of existing, but that could change quickly if given a push.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      Sure. But you might not get everyone back - you'd have to have an alternate method of talking to the folks to get them to switch and meet up in the same place. You'd have this if the service just slowly died (like landlines), but not if something breaks instantly - forever. I'm guessing we've all had this when games died (especially old text-based MMORPG's, for example. So many people gone).
np1810 5y ago
+1, with the recent reveal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
clydethefrog 5y ago
Unfortunately Whatsapp replaced texting for around 80 % of the world.
- neop1x 5y ago
  No problem, they still have phone numbers of those people so they can send them SMS with Signal invitation. :)
- pid-1 5y ago
  Not a fan of FB, but the main reason for WhatsApp's success was SMS sucking hairy balls.
  - snarf21 5y ago
    It didn't help that telecoms used to use SMS as an extreme profit center. I don't think WhatsApp would have taken over the way it did if SMS was always included in all plans for free. This is similar to the way "local" long distance used to be such a racket.
    - martinald 5y ago
      Most UK plans included unlimited SMS for a long time, but whatsapp still took over. The group chat functions don't really exist in SMS (maybe in MMS but they never work properly), photos (same), whatsapp desktop, you can text when you have WiFi but no 4G (or using a different sim card when travelling), etc.
armchairhacker 5y ago
> "Idk man, this seems like a tough issue. Maybe we should just give up" > "Ok." - Zuckerburg shuts down $100B company
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dominotw 5y ago
i talk to my parents in India everyday in india. Watsapp is the only game in town there.
- nicce 5y ago
  I hope that you can install other messaging apps as well?
  - stonecharioteer 5y ago
    Not OP. They _can_ but good luck trying to convince parents of that. They're not tech savvy enough to install apps themselves. They have simple questions about why Whatsapp cannot be installed in a basic Nokia phone for instance. It's not easy to convince them to use Signal or Telegram or anything else.
georgeecollins 5y ago
The problem for me is Oculus. I really love their headset and I appreciate the investment Facebook has made in that. I hate the stupid strategy tax that makes me have an FB account to use their headset, and has it go down when they have an outage. I hope they can learn from MSFT that "Facebook Everywhere" is ultimately a self defeating strategy.

Let's hope it's permanent.

mrstumpy 5y ago

You win for best comment

jose-cl 5y ago

here's your upvote master

hkai 5y ago

Why?

elevenoh 5y ago
b/c most humans are on the wrong end of fb's covert, exploitative attention-manipulation
dessant 5y ago
Because combined with the abysmal state of education in most places, and a general lack of government action, Facebook is an actual threat to our civilization.
- forgetfulness 5y ago
  People unfortunately love the upsides of misinformation, or perhaps it's the format that makes it easy to build community around shared (misinformed) values, to rally in battles that rage for hours or days for a cause you deeply believe in and can follow by digesting 30-second soundbites on social midea and 30-minute videos on YouTube. People will do this wherever they can talk in a group online, not just Facebook properties. It's... pretty bad actually, I think the only tool that exists right now is censorship, because the bullshit gets created, spread, and wholeheartedly received way faster than debunking will. And censorship is a power that can't be safely entrusted to nobody.
- hkai 5y ago
  Why? The reasons I've seen are: > it creates a risk of bad self-image for young girls It's a parent's job to educate your children. There are much worse things than Facebook out there. > it collects data Literally no harm in knowing that someone is interested in JavaScript, cats and fetish porn, and targeting ads to that user. > it's addictive So is sex, marijuana, and collecting stamps. > it helps organize protests Good.
  - jachee 5y ago
    It actively uses its algorithm to radicalize racists and conspiracy theorists, and when it discovered that's what it was doing decided to keep doing it because it was good for the bottom line: https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pushes-qanon-racism-to-trump-fans-whistleblower-says-2021-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pushes-qanon-racism...
    - Qi_ 5y ago
      An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest.
      - jachee 5y ago
        Any algorithm that can maximize engagement can be tuned to minimize radicalization and dissemination of hatred and fascism. I'd argue that it's absolutely in Facebook's self-interest to reduce their active role in promoting fascism, racism, homophobia, etc.
      - forgetfulness 5y ago
        > An alternate explanation is that the algorithm tries to promote engagement and user retention. Presumably, people susceptible to radicalization engage with the content discussed in the article. It would be unreasonable to expect Facebook to not act in its own self-interest. That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem. They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence
- SirensOfTitan 5y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but often I hear FB or other tech companies like Twitter singled out re: misinformation. News media contributes to misinformation and contributes to a warped, partisan, permanently-in-catastrophe-mode population just as much as FB, Twitter, and other mediums. I doubt, if FB goes away, that any of the issues you're implying will go away or even get much better. In fact, the lack of a real look into the negative effects of consumer news product reinforces this idea that only the elite can know the truth, and the masses just have to get in line and shut up. News media proliferated nonsense from fed sources to justify the Iraq war, they gave Trump 24/7 airtime for a while because it increased ratings. They constantly forgo any real accountability for their actions, and pretend that they aren't just another addictive consumer product that warps peoples' brains.
- kbelder 5y ago
  Eh, Twitter's worse.
vadfa 5y ago
Because he doesn't like the website so he thinks nobody else should be able to use it.
drdeadringer 5y ago
One American example quote that holds true for countries outside of America: Direct quote: "That website on Facebook." There are people who believe that "Facebook" literally equals "Internet". Facebook, Internet ... Internet, Facebook. Rinse and repeat for your alternative echo chamber regarding Google, the Microsoft Bing, &c.

jliptzin 5y ago

Of all the big tech companies Facebook is the only one where it can completely disappear overnight and my life would be completely unaffected (or possibly improved by not having to explain to people I don't use facebook, please email or text me your invitations rather than use messenger). If Google, Amazon, Netflix, Apple disappeared the story would be completely different.

gpvos 5y ago
Facebook is the only one of those that I regularly use. I'd like something like Google's Android to stay around. The rest I don't need.
apexalpha 5y ago
Weird, because over here WhatsApp is ingrained into the social fabric of your life. Couldn't imagine ever going back to texting/iMessage.
- dmd 5y ago
  WhatsApp, like the metric system, is a “literally everywhere but the US” thing. I’ve never once seen it used in the US.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  But your friend groups would probably be able to migrate to Signal/Discord/Hangouts/etc quite quickly if WhatsApp were to disappear, no? WhatsApp has the network effect on its side by way of existing, but that could change quickly if given a push.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    Sure. But you might not get everyone back - you'd have to have an alternate method of talking to the folks to get them to switch and meet up in the same place. You'd have this if the service just slowly died (like landlines), but not if something breaks instantly - forever. I'm guessing we've all had this when games died (especially old text-based MMORPG's, for example. So many people gone).

np1810 5y ago

+1, with the recent reveal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28741532

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

clydethefrog 5y ago

Unfortunately Whatsapp replaced texting for around 80 % of the world.

neop1x 5y ago
No problem, they still have phone numbers of those people so they can send them SMS with Signal invitation. :)
pid-1 5y ago
Not a fan of FB, but the main reason for WhatsApp's success was SMS sucking hairy balls.
- snarf21 5y ago
  It didn't help that telecoms used to use SMS as an extreme profit center. I don't think WhatsApp would have taken over the way it did if SMS was always included in all plans for free. This is similar to the way "local" long distance used to be such a racket.
  - martinald 5y ago
    Most UK plans included unlimited SMS for a long time, but whatsapp still took over. The group chat functions don't really exist in SMS (maybe in MMS but they never work properly), photos (same), whatsapp desktop, you can text when you have WiFi but no 4G (or using a different sim card when travelling), etc.

armchairhacker 5y ago

> "Idk man, this seems like a tough issue. Maybe we should just give up" > "Ok." - Zuckerburg shuts down $100B company

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

dominotw 5y ago

i talk to my parents in India everyday in india. Watsapp is the only game in town there.

nicce 5y ago
I hope that you can install other messaging apps as well?
- stonecharioteer 5y ago
  Not OP. They _can_ but good luck trying to convince parents of that. They're not tech savvy enough to install apps themselves. They have simple questions about why Whatsapp cannot be installed in a basic Nokia phone for instance. It's not easy to convince them to use Signal or Telegram or anything else.

georgeecollins 5y ago

The problem for me is Oculus. I really love their headset and I appreciate the investment Facebook has made in that. I hate the stupid strategy tax that makes me have an FB account to use their headset, and has it go down when they have an outage. I hope they can learn from MSFT that "Facebook Everywhere" is ultimately a self defeating strategy.