6 ms·

If it's over 50% then it's no problem, they can just quit it without fearing network effects. There will be enough users in the new platform.

by vadfa 5y ago

zepto 5y ago
What new platform? Why won’t the new platform be just as bad? Switching brand of cigarettes doesn’t protect your lungs.
- vadfa 5y ago
  It will be just as bad, I'm just mocking this stupid survey.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Fair comment!
- dylan604 5y ago
  Don't worry, we've switched to clean coal because it's better for the environment
- jszymborski 5y ago
  I think that's a fair point, but I wonder if I can probe HNs brain on what a "healthy" online social network would look like. Here are some thoughts I have: 1) The platform does not have a user-engagement incentive. 2) Personal network sizes are restricted. You can't be "friends" with everyone. Adding friends perhaps comes at some cost or is just strictly capped. 3) Sharing outside your friends network from the platform is not possible. This platform is for sharing with your friends, not the world. 4) Trust in the platform and how it shares your data. The easiest way to trust the server is if everything is E2EE, but we all know that's not trivial. Perhaps the limits in scaling E2EE can work synergistically with (2) and (3) (1) seems to be the hardest thing here in my mind. Anybody have thoughts on what could make a social network "healthy"?
  - pzo 5y ago
    some good points. I would add also: 5) limit how many posts / pictures / content you can share per day to avoid information overload. This should make people double thing what they are writing and hopefully more higher quality content. 6) automatically limit time spend for everyone on social media for e.g. 30-60 min per person per day. 7) Different business model than ads.
    - bena 5y ago
      5 & 6 just means multiple accounts per person. 7 means some sort of paywall. You either collect from the users themselves, or collect from people who want access to those users.
      - pzo 5y ago
        I just only added features that IMO would make a healthier social network. It's different problem how to implement in a way to avoid people try to game it. Maybe it's not even possible and only utopia.
        bena 5y ago
        The only problem is how to implement it in a way to avoid people gaming it. You didn't "add features", you made a wish list. What's your "solution" for online advertising? Ads that are noticeable but unobtrusive? Now all we got to do is get the nerds down in R&D to make it happen. It's a miracle no one has thought of this before.
  - lovecg 5y ago
    From an evolutionary perspective, the thing that grows and is used is the thing that wins. If you take away the growth incentive you can’t compete by definition unless you change the rules of the game (worldwide government regulation?).
  - hungryhobo 5y ago
    heh funny enough, wechat satisfies 1-3. So maybe someone just need to clone that.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  > Switching brand of cigarettes doesn’t protect your lungs. Atleast get one with filters?
  - zepto 5y ago
    Filters make cigarettes mildly worse. https://www.quora.com/Is-smoking-unfiltered-cigarettes-significantly-worse-for-your-health-than-smoking-filtered-cigarettes?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-smoking-unfiltered-cigarettes-signi...
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      I hate when my intuition on seemingly simple things is wrong ...
dymk 5y ago
How do you figure 50%? It's not like groups of friends are going to put it to a vote and say "Let's go use this other thing". And even if they did, alternatives to Facebook simply don't exist for people to switch to (I'd be happy for somebody to give me an example of a comparable service to what Facebook offers in terms of features and ease of use). And even if one does exist, most groups of people aren't going to abandon the <50% of those who do want to stay on the platform. From the article: > However, more than three in four believe the social network helps them stay connected to their loved ones, with just over 50 per cent saying it is key to sharing information and positive for free expression.
iamdbtoo 5y ago
The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit something that is harming you is at the core of addiction.
- filoleg 5y ago
  We don't ban alcohol, videogames, twitter, tv shows, or buying excessive amounts of food, despite a giant number of people in the US suffering from addiction to those. War on drugs was a failure. At some point, you have to draw a line at where you take personal responsibility. The utility to those who can use those things I listed above responsibly outweighs the potential danger and plies of those who use "addiction" as their primary argument for bans (aka I have no self-control, so you should not be able to use those things responsibly either). I am not saying "let's make heroin recreationally legal, just use it responsibly", since both utility and danger are gradients, and for heroin they are of very dubious value. But for something that has no physical addiction component at all, like videogames or facebook, I am sorry, it is on you. And please, no pedantry with "I get hits of dopamine when I browse my FB feed, so it is a physical addiction too!". This is not what physical addiction means in the context.
  - nafix 5y ago
    Exactly. How is this even an argument point? If you support banning Facebook because of addictive potential, then add about 50 other things to the list to ban as well. If it's to regulate Facebook more, what exact kind of regulation would make it OK again? Age limit, as in 18+ to use? Don't porn sites use that and children still have no issues logging onto those sites.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - iamdbtoo 5y ago
      I never said anything about banning anything.
  - 5y ago

If it's over 50% then it's no problem, they can just quit it without fearing network effects. There will be enough users in the new platform.

by vadfa 5y ago

If it's over 50% then it's no problem, they can just quit it without fearing network effects. There will be enough users in the new platform.

zepto 5y ago

What new platform? Why won’t the new platform be just as bad? Switching brand of cigarettes doesn’t protect your lungs.

vadfa 5y ago
It will be just as bad, I'm just mocking this stupid survey.
- zepto 5y ago
  Fair comment!
dylan604 5y ago
Don't worry, we've switched to clean coal because it's better for the environment
jszymborski 5y ago
I think that's a fair point, but I wonder if I can probe HNs brain on what a "healthy" online social network would look like. Here are some thoughts I have: 1) The platform does not have a user-engagement incentive. 2) Personal network sizes are restricted. You can't be "friends" with everyone. Adding friends perhaps comes at some cost or is just strictly capped. 3) Sharing outside your friends network from the platform is not possible. This platform is for sharing with your friends, not the world. 4) Trust in the platform and how it shares your data. The easiest way to trust the server is if everything is E2EE, but we all know that's not trivial. Perhaps the limits in scaling E2EE can work synergistically with (2) and (3) (1) seems to be the hardest thing here in my mind. Anybody have thoughts on what could make a social network "healthy"?
- pzo 5y ago
  some good points. I would add also: 5) limit how many posts / pictures / content you can share per day to avoid information overload. This should make people double thing what they are writing and hopefully more higher quality content. 6) automatically limit time spend for everyone on social media for e.g. 30-60 min per person per day. 7) Different business model than ads.
  - bena 5y ago
    5 & 6 just means multiple accounts per person. 7 means some sort of paywall. You either collect from the users themselves, or collect from people who want access to those users.
    - pzo 5y ago
      I just only added features that IMO would make a healthier social network. It's different problem how to implement in a way to avoid people try to game it. Maybe it's not even possible and only utopia.
      - bena 5y ago
        The only problem is how to implement it in a way to avoid people gaming it. You didn't "add features", you made a wish list. What's your "solution" for online advertising? Ads that are noticeable but unobtrusive? Now all we got to do is get the nerds down in R&D to make it happen. It's a miracle no one has thought of this before.
- lovecg 5y ago
  From an evolutionary perspective, the thing that grows and is used is the thing that wins. If you take away the growth incentive you can’t compete by definition unless you change the rules of the game (worldwide government regulation?).
- hungryhobo 5y ago
  heh funny enough, wechat satisfies 1-3. So maybe someone just need to clone that.
rightbyte 5y ago
> Switching brand of cigarettes doesn’t protect your lungs. Atleast get one with filters?
- zepto 5y ago
  Filters make cigarettes mildly worse. https://www.quora.com/Is-smoking-unfiltered-cigarettes-significantly-worse-for-your-health-than-smoking-filtered-cigarettes?share=1 https://www.quora.com/Is-smoking-unfiltered-cigarettes-signi...
  - rightbyte 5y ago
    I hate when my intuition on seemingly simple things is wrong ...

dymk 5y ago

How do you figure 50%? It's not like groups of friends are going to put it to a vote and say "Let's go use this other thing". And even if they did, alternatives to Facebook simply don't exist for people to switch to (I'd be happy for somebody to give me an example of a comparable service to what Facebook offers in terms of features and ease of use). And even if one does exist, most groups of people aren't going to abandon the <50% of those who do want to stay on the platform. From the article: > However, more than three in four believe the social network helps them stay connected to their loved ones, with just over 50 per cent saying it is key to sharing information and positive for free expression.

iamdbtoo 5y ago

The "they can just quit it" part is directly at odds with the "harms their mental health" part. Not being able to quit something that is harming you is at the core of addiction.

filoleg 5y ago
We don't ban alcohol, videogames, twitter, tv shows, or buying excessive amounts of food, despite a giant number of people in the US suffering from addiction to those. War on drugs was a failure. At some point, you have to draw a line at where you take personal responsibility. The utility to those who can use those things I listed above responsibly outweighs the potential danger and plies of those who use "addiction" as their primary argument for bans (aka I have no self-control, so you should not be able to use those things responsibly either). I am not saying "let's make heroin recreationally legal, just use it responsibly", since both utility and danger are gradients, and for heroin they are of very dubious value. But for something that has no physical addiction component at all, like videogames or facebook, I am sorry, it is on you. And please, no pedantry with "I get hits of dopamine when I browse my FB feed, so it is a physical addiction too!". This is not what physical addiction means in the context.
- nafix 5y ago
  Exactly. How is this even an argument point? If you support banning Facebook because of addictive potential, then add about 50 other things to the list to ban as well. If it's to regulate Facebook more, what exact kind of regulation would make it OK again? Age limit, as in 18+ to use? Don't porn sites use that and children still have no issues logging onto those sites.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - iamdbtoo 5y ago
    I never said anything about banning anything.
- 5y ago