6 ms·

Yeah, they love also facebook, which monetize all their private life or sugary food, which alter your diet balance or cigarettes who can literally kill you. Not

Yeah, they love also facebook, which monetize all their private life or sugary food, which alter your diet balance or cigarettes who can literally kill you. Not to mention all of them are addictive. The fact consumers love something doesn't make it a good thing.

next_xibalba 5y ago
> The fact consumers love something doesn't make it a good thing. It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. > they love also facebook Ah, yes. The old "facebook is as bad as cigarettes" trope. It feels a lot like the claims around TV in the 70s and 80s. "It's rotting people's brains!" But society kept on chugging. It is one thing to object to Facebook's business model. It is another entirely to deem it "Bad For You". Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  But something is seriously wrong with a society where it's impossible to avoid a thing that you consider harmful to yourself just because the larger market prefers it. It used to be that one of the strengths of our economic system was that you could find something to meet your needs even if your needs weren't the same as the majority.
  - next_xibalba 5y ago
    I don't know that this has ever really been the case. Particularly with mature product categories. And most especially for product categories with high barriers to entry in the form of large capital requirements. It was one thing to be able to go to the local candy shop for a chocolate bar if you didn't want a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, but something else if you wanted a television set. Are you thinking of an example where that once was true but has changed? I'm open to examples but can't myself think of any that are analogous.
  - buo 5y ago
    I agree with you; I've noticed the same thing. It seems many niche or small markets are being abandoned in favor of the larger ones.
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    How is it impossible to avoid smart TVs? I don’t own a TV at all, I just use my desktop monitor. And then there are a bunch of examples in this thread about commercial displays. It’s not impossible to not own a smart TV, it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want. Outside of hacker news, no one considers smart TVs harmful. I consider cars harmful and yet hacker news gets up in arms when I propose banning them from cities.
    - oska 5y ago
      > it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want All sorts of ways to dispute this assertion, the most easy probably just to point to the existence of the multi-trillion dollar advertising industry
- wussboy 5y ago
  In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine?
  - next_xibalba 5y ago
    > Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them. I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine. I don't think your argument is made in good faith.
    - readbeard 5y ago
      > I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine. Exactly. You were making a broad claim that it is "paternalistic and elitist" to decide what is "good for you" vs "bad for you". If it is paternalistic and elitist in some cases, but appropriate in others, then don't we need a way to figure out what side of that line various things fall on?
      - next_xibalba 5y ago
        > In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine? This is the comment to which I was responding. As I see it, there are two premises here which both have to be accepted (i.e. it is an "AND" not an "OR"): 1) Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine 2) Cocaine is bad for you If I reject that Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine, I reject the entire thing. I was not making a broad claim about people's autonomy vs. paternalism. I was making a narrow claim in relation to two (at worst) benign things: smart TVs and Facebook.
      - wussboy 5y ago
        Bingo.
- readbeard 5y ago
  > It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. I'm not clear on what your argument is here. Are you: * denying that there is a fact of the matter about whether, for any item X, X is beneficial or harmful? * asserting that something's being beneficial or harmful has no meaning apart from signifying present-day user preference? * merely asserting that users fairly reliably tend to prefer what is good for them, and avoid what is bad for them? > Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them. It sounds like you are making a case here that Facebook is beneficial because it improves the lives of its users—am I understanding that correctly?
  - next_xibalba 5y ago
    Are you engaging in good faith? Your reply seems a lot like [1]. I'll answer your questions if you first answer those that I posed (which you quoted): > Why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
- EliRivers 5y ago
  why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. Is that the same as bad? What is this zealotry against paternalism and elitism? Perhaps you could focus more on outcomes than some social engineering crusade you have, deciding that certain philosophies are automatically "bad".
- ksec 5y ago
  That is why what we need is not DumpTV, but Smart TV that is sane.
- pnt12 5y ago
  > It does make it a good thing for them. This ignores that companies pour billions into advertising, fake research and lobbying to influence consumer behavior. It also ignores network effects and lack of choice: if all your friends are in Facebook and there isn't a viable alternative to socialize, you don't have much of a choice, besides being left out (which may not be such a bad option but may also make you miss valuable socialization).
psion 5y ago
Piggyback to this, wasn't it Steve Jobs who said something about how the users don't know what they want or need?
eternityforest 5y ago
Monetizing my private life is nowhere near in the same category as killing me, unless you believe in some philosophy where privacy is as important as life. Making an algorithm to addict me is arguably pretty evil though.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
It does explain why smart TVs would be easy to buy and dumb TVs difficult to buy. For example, I do not care if a TV is smart or dumb. All I care is how quickly it turns on because I am connecting it to an Apple TV anyway. Even as a person who would rather have a dumb TV than a smart TV, my actions continue to support smart TV manufacturers because I am not willing to spend the time and effort required to seek out dumb TVs, since I have already found an acceptable solution.
- andrepd 5y ago
  But if there are no dumb TVs for sale, how do you know if that's the consumer's desire or not? The much simpler explanation is that TVs plastered with ads and surveillance are more profitable to companies.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I assume there are capable people working at these large TV companies who can ascertain reasonably well what kind of demand there is for a dumb TV. Also, TVs went from dumb to smart, so empirically, sufficient buyers voted for smart even when they had an option for dumb. The alternative is all the manufacturers simultaneously pulled all dumb TVs out of the market even though selling them would provide a competitive advantage in a razor thin profit margin business, which does not seem likely.
    - mrjin 5y ago
      They do. But the thing is that they work for the TV vendors instead of consumers and also if all vendors are moving to the same direction, there is virtually no choice for consumers.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        There is no choice because there is insufficient profit. In an industry with tiny profit margins, if there was margin to be had, surely someone would jump on it.

next_xibalba 5y ago

> The fact consumers love something doesn't make it a good thing. It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. > they love also facebook Ah, yes. The old "facebook is as bad as cigarettes" trope. It feels a lot like the claims around TV in the 70s and 80s. "It's rotting people's brains!" But society kept on chugging. It is one thing to object to Facebook's business model. It is another entirely to deem it "Bad For You". Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them.

JohnFen 5y ago
But something is seriously wrong with a society where it's impossible to avoid a thing that you consider harmful to yourself just because the larger market prefers it. It used to be that one of the strengths of our economic system was that you could find something to meet your needs even if your needs weren't the same as the majority.
- next_xibalba 5y ago
  I don't know that this has ever really been the case. Particularly with mature product categories. And most especially for product categories with high barriers to entry in the form of large capital requirements. It was one thing to be able to go to the local candy shop for a chocolate bar if you didn't want a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, but something else if you wanted a television set. Are you thinking of an example where that once was true but has changed? I'm open to examples but can't myself think of any that are analogous.
- buo 5y ago
  I agree with you; I've noticed the same thing. It seems many niche or small markets are being abandoned in favor of the larger ones.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  How is it impossible to avoid smart TVs? I don’t own a TV at all, I just use my desktop monitor. And then there are a bunch of examples in this thread about commercial displays. It’s not impossible to not own a smart TV, it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want. Outside of hacker news, no one considers smart TVs harmful. I consider cars harmful and yet hacker news gets up in arms when I propose banning them from cities.
  - oska 5y ago
    > it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want All sorts of ways to dispute this assertion, the most easy probably just to point to the existence of the multi-trillion dollar advertising industry
wussboy 5y ago
In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine?
- next_xibalba 5y ago
  > Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them. I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine. I don't think your argument is made in good faith.
  - readbeard 5y ago
    > I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine. Exactly. You were making a broad claim that it is "paternalistic and elitist" to decide what is "good for you" vs "bad for you". If it is paternalistic and elitist in some cases, but appropriate in others, then don't we need a way to figure out what side of that line various things fall on?
    - next_xibalba 5y ago
      > In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine? This is the comment to which I was responding. As I see it, there are two premises here which both have to be accepted (i.e. it is an "AND" not an "OR"): 1) Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine 2) Cocaine is bad for you If I reject that Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine, I reject the entire thing. I was not making a broad claim about people's autonomy vs. paternalism. I was making a narrow claim in relation to two (at worst) benign things: smart TVs and Facebook.
    - wussboy 5y ago
      Bingo.
readbeard 5y ago
> It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. I'm not clear on what your argument is here. Are you: * denying that there is a fact of the matter about whether, for any item X, X is beneficial or harmful? * asserting that something's being beneficial or harmful has no meaning apart from signifying present-day user preference? * merely asserting that users fairly reliably tend to prefer what is good for them, and avoid what is bad for them? > Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them. It sounds like you are making a case here that Facebook is beneficial because it improves the lives of its users—am I understanding that correctly?
- next_xibalba 5y ago
  Are you engaging in good faith? Your reply seems a lot like [1]. I'll answer your questions if you first answer those that I posed (which you quoted): > Why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
EliRivers 5y ago
why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist. Is that the same as bad? What is this zealotry against paternalism and elitism? Perhaps you could focus more on outcomes than some social engineering crusade you have, deciding that certain philosophies are automatically "bad".
ksec 5y ago
That is why what we need is not DumpTV, but Smart TV that is sane.
pnt12 5y ago
> It does make it a good thing for them. This ignores that companies pour billions into advertising, fake research and lobbying to influence consumer behavior. It also ignores network effects and lack of choice: if all your friends are in Facebook and there isn't a viable alternative to socialize, you don't have much of a choice, besides being left out (which may not be such a bad option but may also make you miss valuable socialization).

psion 5y ago

Piggyback to this, wasn't it Steve Jobs who said something about how the users don't know what they want or need?

eternityforest 5y ago

Monetizing my private life is nowhere near in the same category as killing me, unless you believe in some philosophy where privacy is as important as life. Making an algorithm to addict me is arguably pretty evil though.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

It does explain why smart TVs would be easy to buy and dumb TVs difficult to buy. For example, I do not care if a TV is smart or dumb. All I care is how quickly it turns on because I am connecting it to an Apple TV anyway. Even as a person who would rather have a dumb TV than a smart TV, my actions continue to support smart TV manufacturers because I am not willing to spend the time and effort required to seek out dumb TVs, since I have already found an acceptable solution.

andrepd 5y ago
But if there are no dumb TVs for sale, how do you know if that's the consumer's desire or not? The much simpler explanation is that TVs plastered with ads and surveillance are more profitable to companies.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I assume there are capable people working at these large TV companies who can ascertain reasonably well what kind of demand there is for a dumb TV. Also, TVs went from dumb to smart, so empirically, sufficient buyers voted for smart even when they had an option for dumb. The alternative is all the manufacturers simultaneously pulled all dumb TVs out of the market even though selling them would provide a competitive advantage in a razor thin profit margin business, which does not seem likely.
  - mrjin 5y ago
    They do. But the thing is that they work for the TV vendors instead of consumers and also if all vendors are moving to the same direction, there is virtually no choice for consumers.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      There is no choice because there is insufficient profit. In an industry with tiny profit margins, if there was margin to be had, surely someone would jump on it.