5 ms·

I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Replace Facebook with a gym membership, or a ch

by Kranar 5y ago

I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Replace Facebook with a gym membership, or a charity, or some other thing that one does not presume is harmful as the premise of their argument. Would the leadership of a gym be compromised and hypocrites if they banned someone who used their gym to tell others that working out is harmful and they should stop exercising at the gym? Would banning that member indicate that the owners of the gym don't care about the health of their users and instead put profits over well being? Your argument only works and sounds credible because most people on this site believe Facebook is harmful. If people don't share that belief, then it doesn't follow that Facebook is being hypocritical because they are banning someone who is using their product to defeat the product.

munk-a 5y ago
Lets say that a poorly designed gym wants to promote social interaction - so they build a cool down room with a small cafe that has a machine you need to swipe a card through every ten reps to continue using the exercise equipment. Some enterprising fellow builds a portable machine that will simulate the card swipe action but can be done at the actual exercise equipment. This seems like a fairer analogy to me since this extension is dealing with a component facebook put in to drive "engagement" that is viewed by a lot of people as an anti-feature - some people like it: Miles, who hangs around the gym for the conversation, really likes the fact that he bumps into people more often in the cool-down room... but most people wish that feature had never been added. Add all of that to the fact that Facebook is the only tool Facebook allows on Facebook (so there are no competing gyms) and the tool becomes even more justifiable. Is it still quite legal for Facebook to C&D this guy - absolutely - but they're definitely not acting in their user's best interest.
- Kranar 5y ago
  Sure if the gym is poorly designed and causing actual harm, then you can attack the gym on the basis of being poorly designed and causing harm. Attacking the gym on the basis that its owners do not want patrons who are using the very gym as a means of compromising it is not a valid argument as to why the gym's owners are hypocrites, causing harm, and putting profits above the well being of their customers.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    In my scenario the gym isn't causing actual harm - it's just forcing users to use it in a manner that they consider inefficient - this is the same as the actual extension we're talking about. You can manually unfollow everyone through facebook's UI - but it is cumbersome and difficult. I think there are some really strong reasons why facebook actually does cause actual harm and I'm not certain why you're being so defensive over that point - but my argument doesn't even involve facebook "causing harm" - it's just involves them having a terrible UX.
mullingitover 5y ago
>Your argument only works and sounds credible because most people on this site believe Facebook is harmful. If people don't share that belief, then it doesn't follow that Facebook is being hypocritical because they are banning someone who is using their product to defeat the product. I've been seeing this idea a lot on HN, that we're just in this echo chamber and the general public doesn't have the same opinion. This notion isn't supported by the data[1]: > 57% believe Facebook is “primarily a harm to society” and 71% believe the company “prioritizes profits, even if it might cause societal harm.” [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/23/mark-zuckerberg-is-even-less-popular-than-donald-trump https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/23/mark-zu...
- jedimastert 5y ago
  This smells funny: I feel like those numbers don't jive with the portion of the population who use Facebook. Looking at the poll, there were only a thousand "registered voters" that were meant to be a representative population of the America, which I'm gonna give a hard pass.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    It tracks pretty well with my personal experience. I have plenty of non-tech friends who generally aren't following Facebook's every move, but there is a strong across-the-board sentiment that FB is a malevolent entity.
    - mpmpmpmp 5y ago
      But not all for the same reason. Part of them think FB is evil because they only care about engagement and profits regardless of the outcome to society. And the other part thinks FB is biased and is censoring conservatives and pushing too liberal of an agenda.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Also there are liberals convinced that FB got Trump elected.
DoctorNick 5y ago
>I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Considering that genocide has been organized on it? Yes. It's absolutely harmful.
- slingnow 5y ago
  Knives have been used to murder people. They are absolutely harmful. Your grossly reductionist argument doesn't really add much to the discussion.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    You are very quick to dismiss a completely valid point, people are careful with sharp knives, and for example, generally don't let children use them, they aren't allowed on airplanes etc. How many people have a similar view of facebook as dangerous?
    - themitigating 5y ago
      It's the type of use that makes a knife dangerous. Everyday people use knives to prepare and eat food but don't think what they are doing is dangerous.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Everyone respects how dangerous knives at at least - you know not to play around with them and you know how sharp their edges are. People don't (I really really hope) realize how many lives they're endangering by passing on misinformation. America is one of the most individualistic and tech literate countries in the world and it's suffering terribly during this pandemic from absolutely atrocious vaccination numbers.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    All the knives in the world aren't under the real-time control of a single entity.
tylerhou 5y ago
I disagree that it depends on such a prior belief -- the fact is that users seemed to have very positive feedback to the extension. As the extension has been taken down, it's not possible to see the reviews, but I've linked some other praises [1][2][3]. If Facebook was really acting in their users interests, a look at the extension's reviews would have immediately told them that this benefited at least some users. And even if the extension conflicted with the terms of service, the right thing to do would be to have some employee at Facebook work with the extension author to make the extension comply, or implement such a feature as a first party feature. But what I assume could have happened is some department of Facebook trawls through app stores looking for unauthorized references to Facebook. There is no oversight as to whether an extension benefits users or not -- Facebook just sends a cease & desist all the same. That IMO is neglectful -- for every app takedown, there should be careful review as to whether it actually harms anyone. The fact that that review did not happen shows that FB does not care about the user. The more cynical possibility is that someone at Facebook realized that this was hurting their revenue stream. [1] https://browser-addons.com/unfollow-everything-for-facebook/ https://browser-addons.com/unfollow-everything-for-facebook/ [2] https://twitter.com/gchaslot/status/1410843427164598275?lang=en https://twitter.com/gchaslot/status/1410843427164598275?lang... [3] https://crxcavator.io/report/ohceakcebcalehmaliegoenkliddajoo?platform=Chrome https://crxcavator.io/report/ohceakcebcalehmaliegoenkliddajo... (4.3/5 rating)
teawrecks 5y ago
It would beg the question if it were trying to show that Facebook is harmful. But it's not, it's trying to show that Facebook doesn't care that it is harmful when profits are at stake. The fact that it is harmful has already been demonstrated by Facebook (re: leaked studies).
keeglin 5y ago
As long as a computer decides where your time and energy is going as conduit for communication, it has become a moral arbiter. Facebook is harmful. Computers can't do this; they don't breathe. Unfollowing everything restores a user's agency when using the service, which is where it should be.
jrm4 5y ago
The belief really doesn't matter in light of what we know now, which is that Facebook itself believed that there was harm and proceeded anyway. A better analogy than those I've seen. Facebook is like a wildly popular hookah spot, probably partially due to the fact that this hookah spot is knowingly putting crack in the hookah (in a world where maybe not everyone knows how bad crack is.) In comes a guy who, yes against all the "rules", hands out mouthpieces that filter out the crack. How bad is this guy now? How do we feel about him?
mmarq 5y ago
Would the gym threaten litigation to a former member who writes blog against fitness? I'm fine with Facebook closing this developer's account, I'm not fine with the developer being forced to make his tool disappear, under the threat of litigation.
quantified 5y ago
Too much working out at the gym is harmful. It’s only a problem for an insignificant number of people. In the author’s own words: > But by unfollowing everything, you eliminate your News Feed. This leaves you free to use Facebook without the feed, or to more actively curate it by refollowing only those friends and groups whose posts you really want to see. Cuts the crap and reduces the addiction, but still leaves Facebook in place. Like any addictive behavior, it’s not wrong on its own.

by Kranar 5y ago

munk-a 5y ago

Lets say that a poorly designed gym wants to promote social interaction - so they build a cool down room with a small cafe that has a machine you need to swipe a card through every ten reps to continue using the exercise equipment. Some enterprising fellow builds a portable machine that will simulate the card swipe action but can be done at the actual exercise equipment. This seems like a fairer analogy to me since this extension is dealing with a component facebook put in to drive "engagement" that is viewed by a lot of people as an anti-feature - some people like it: Miles, who hangs around the gym for the conversation, really likes the fact that he bumps into people more often in the cool-down room... but most people wish that feature had never been added. Add all of that to the fact that Facebook is the only tool Facebook allows on Facebook (so there are no competing gyms) and the tool becomes even more justifiable. Is it still quite legal for Facebook to C&D this guy - absolutely - but they're definitely not acting in their user's best interest.

Kranar 5y ago
Sure if the gym is poorly designed and causing actual harm, then you can attack the gym on the basis of being poorly designed and causing harm. Attacking the gym on the basis that its owners do not want patrons who are using the very gym as a means of compromising it is not a valid argument as to why the gym's owners are hypocrites, causing harm, and putting profits above the well being of their customers.
- munk-a 5y ago
  In my scenario the gym isn't causing actual harm - it's just forcing users to use it in a manner that they consider inefficient - this is the same as the actual extension we're talking about. You can manually unfollow everyone through facebook's UI - but it is cumbersome and difficult. I think there are some really strong reasons why facebook actually does cause actual harm and I'm not certain why you're being so defensive over that point - but my argument doesn't even involve facebook "causing harm" - it's just involves them having a terrible UX.

mullingitover 5y ago

>Your argument only works and sounds credible because most people on this site believe Facebook is harmful. If people don't share that belief, then it doesn't follow that Facebook is being hypocritical because they are banning someone who is using their product to defeat the product. I've been seeing this idea a lot on HN, that we're just in this echo chamber and the general public doesn't have the same opinion. This notion isn't supported by the data[1]: > 57% believe Facebook is “primarily a harm to society” and 71% believe the company “prioritizes profits, even if it might cause societal harm.” [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/23/mark-zuckerberg-is-even-less-popular-than-donald-trump https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/07/23/mark-zu...

jedimastert 5y ago
This smells funny: I feel like those numbers don't jive with the portion of the population who use Facebook. Looking at the poll, there were only a thousand "registered voters" that were meant to be a representative population of the America, which I'm gonna give a hard pass.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  It tracks pretty well with my personal experience. I have plenty of non-tech friends who generally aren't following Facebook's every move, but there is a strong across-the-board sentiment that FB is a malevolent entity.
  - mpmpmpmp 5y ago
    But not all for the same reason. Part of them think FB is evil because they only care about engagement and profits regardless of the outcome to society. And the other part thinks FB is biased and is censoring conservatives and pushing too liberal of an agenda.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Also there are liberals convinced that FB got Trump elected.

DoctorNick 5y ago

>I think your argument is begging the question as it depends on a prior belief that Facebook is actually harmful. Considering that genocide has been organized on it? Yes. It's absolutely harmful.

slingnow 5y ago
Knives have been used to murder people. They are absolutely harmful. Your grossly reductionist argument doesn't really add much to the discussion.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  You are very quick to dismiss a completely valid point, people are careful with sharp knives, and for example, generally don't let children use them, they aren't allowed on airplanes etc. How many people have a similar view of facebook as dangerous?
  - themitigating 5y ago
    It's the type of use that makes a knife dangerous. Everyday people use knives to prepare and eat food but don't think what they are doing is dangerous.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Everyone respects how dangerous knives at at least - you know not to play around with them and you know how sharp their edges are. People don't (I really really hope) realize how many lives they're endangering by passing on misinformation. America is one of the most individualistic and tech literate countries in the world and it's suffering terribly during this pandemic from absolutely atrocious vaccination numbers.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  All the knives in the world aren't under the real-time control of a single entity.

tylerhou 5y ago

I disagree that it depends on such a prior belief -- the fact is that users seemed to have very positive feedback to the extension. As the extension has been taken down, it's not possible to see the reviews, but I've linked some other praises [1][2][3]. If Facebook was really acting in their users interests, a look at the extension's reviews would have immediately told them that this benefited at least some users. And even if the extension conflicted with the terms of service, the right thing to do would be to have some employee at Facebook work with the extension author to make the extension comply, or implement such a feature as a first party feature. But what I assume could have happened is some department of Facebook trawls through app stores looking for unauthorized references to Facebook. There is no oversight as to whether an extension benefits users or not -- Facebook just sends a cease & desist all the same. That IMO is neglectful -- for every app takedown, there should be careful review as to whether it actually harms anyone. The fact that that review did not happen shows that FB does not care about the user. The more cynical possibility is that someone at Facebook realized that this was hurting their revenue stream. [1] https://browser-addons.com/unfollow-everything-for-facebook/ https://browser-addons.com/unfollow-everything-for-facebook/ [2] https://twitter.com/gchaslot/status/1410843427164598275?lang=en https://twitter.com/gchaslot/status/1410843427164598275?lang... [3] https://crxcavator.io/report/ohceakcebcalehmaliegoenkliddajoo?platform=Chrome https://crxcavator.io/report/ohceakcebcalehmaliegoenkliddajo... (4.3/5 rating)

teawrecks 5y ago

It would beg the question if it were trying to show that Facebook is harmful. But it's not, it's trying to show that Facebook doesn't care that it is harmful when profits are at stake. The fact that it is harmful has already been demonstrated by Facebook (re: leaked studies).

keeglin 5y ago

As long as a computer decides where your time and energy is going as conduit for communication, it has become a moral arbiter. Facebook is harmful. Computers can't do this; they don't breathe. Unfollowing everything restores a user's agency when using the service, which is where it should be.

jrm4 5y ago

The belief really doesn't matter in light of what we know now, which is that Facebook itself believed that there was harm and proceeded anyway. A better analogy than those I've seen. Facebook is like a wildly popular hookah spot, probably partially due to the fact that this hookah spot is knowingly putting crack in the hookah (in a world where maybe not everyone knows how bad crack is.) In comes a guy who, yes against all the "rules", hands out mouthpieces that filter out the crack. How bad is this guy now? How do we feel about him?

mmarq 5y ago

Would the gym threaten litigation to a former member who writes blog against fitness? I'm fine with Facebook closing this developer's account, I'm not fine with the developer being forced to make his tool disappear, under the threat of litigation.

quantified 5y ago

Too much working out at the gym is harmful. It’s only a problem for an insignificant number of people. In the author’s own words: > But by unfollowing everything, you eliminate your News Feed. This leaves you free to use Facebook without the feed, or to more actively curate it by refollowing only those friends and groups whose posts you really want to see. Cuts the crap and reduces the addiction, but still leaves Facebook in place. Like any addictive behavior, it’s not wrong on its own.