4 ms·

Do you have some source to corroborate that Google and Facebook have a net positive effect on the lives of billions of people? Making false assumptions is also

Do you have some source to corroborate that Google and Facebook have a net positive effect on the lives of billions of people? Making false assumptions is also a way of acting biased.

scarface74 4y ago
Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades. Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative and YouTube has allowed anyone to publish video. I myself find Google’s products second rate and I prefer business models where I give the company money and they give me stuff. But I realize that a $1200 iPhone Pro Max is an indulgence that many walking around with a $35 unsubsidized phone can’t afford.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Sure, it's helped people spread some information. It's also helped people massively disseminate misinformation though. What I asked for was some corroboration that there is a net positive.
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  Without Android, would WebOS and other mobile OSes never have come out? Do the people using $35 phones care it’s Android vs what ever other OSes they’d have if it never existed? There were video sites besides YouTube. YouTube cornered the market. That doesn’t make them special. All the examples are one brand cornering a market without having done any exceptional innovation that would be incredibly missed without them. Cornering markets is almost never a net positive for people. I should probably say it never is.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Palm had a decade before Android to spread. Android spread because Google made it open source, had the resources to develop and market it. WebOS was also much slower than Android at the time. YouTube costs billions a year. Few other companies could operate at that scale.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      WebOS was superior in every way to Android at the time. Since, Android has stolen its UI (and the guy who designed it, I think.)
      - scarface74 4y ago
        WebOS with its web based operating system was much more sluggish and had a worse ecosystem.
        skinnymuch 4y ago
        These are subjective opinions. The point stands that Android not being around wouldn’t have made the world that much worse off, if at all.
        scarface74 4y ago
        It’s very objective that Palm’s interface wasn’t as responsive as Androids. It’s processor couldn’t handle a web based os.
        skinnymuch 4y ago
        The world wouldn’t have been negatively affected much if Android wasn’t around. Why would the world be helped with Google controlling the majority of smart phones with a superior OS vs an inferior OS controlled by an independent Palm? The world would be much better.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If these are the best examples, that's not good. > Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades. Facebook didn't allow that, they enabled it, as well as many other places. In fact, if it's on Facebook, I can't see it. Smartphones in general created the glut of police misconduct videos, because everyone started carrying video cameras 24/7. > Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative I do not believe this is true. I don't think they put computing devices into anyone's hands, and that there are also cheap alternatives. Android and ChromeOS crowd out (real) FOSS alternatives, and iirc ChromeOS started by crowding out Linux on the trendy tiny laptops that were being marketed in the mid/early-oughts. Having a monopoly on the low-end market isn't charity work.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    So how many of those “other places” would have gotten the viewership? As far as Android vs the alternatives, Linux was no more ready for the phone than it was ready for “the year of the Linux desktop” to happen. The Linux desktops that it crowded out, didn’t offer the backend server components that make ChromeOS desirable to the target audience.
charcircuit 4y ago
No, and I never said net positive, although I do believe that it is one. The negatives are inherit to anything where people can interact with each other, things like using up your time or things like bullying.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  So, no sources then. Just making assumptions about most of the global human population. Nothing biased about that.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    You don't have a source for your claim either. I'm at least saying that you should recognize how Google provides you plenty of free tools like search, docs, sheets, present, maps, email, etc and entertainment like YouTube. Facebook allows you to connect with your friends, talk to people about your interests, a marketplace, entertainment from photos, videos, streams. Meta also offers Insta for sharing photos or stories and they are investing heavily into XR. These companies do a lot and I do not think you should trivialize all that they have done by saying that they've done something bad in the past and not even say what they have done. Have you considered the people who want to work their want to actually improve people's lives working on these different projects. Have you considered that large compensation can make people ignore issues. Have you considered that people are just interested in working on the stuff that's available there.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      I haven't made any claims. I merely asked if you could back up yours.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      I will respond anyway I guess. All those things you mentioned are great, sure. But to my mind, something can be useful, fun, loved, enjoyed while actively making your life worse. The obvious example being addictive drugs. My smartphone, for example, has definitely made a lot if things more convenient. It use it all the time, for all sorts of useful things. Marvelously useful piece of technology, the smartphone. Has it improved my life? I'm honestly not sure, but my gut reaction is no, because it's ruined my already limited ability to focus(I have ADHD). It actually makes me far more productive having my phone turned off, despite how useful I seem to think it is. My point is that something can be useful and do all sorts of things for you, but that can still be true while it's actively harmful to you. And you might not even be conscious of this about yourself, let alone most of the global population.

Do you have some source to corroborate that Google and Facebook have a net positive effect on the lives of billions of people? Making false assumptions is also a way of acting biased.

scarface74 4y ago

Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades. Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative and YouTube has allowed anyone to publish video. I myself find Google’s products second rate and I prefer business models where I give the company money and they give me stuff. But I realize that a $1200 iPhone Pro Max is an indulgence that many walking around with a $35 unsubsidized phone can’t afford.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Sure, it's helped people spread some information. It's also helped people massively disseminate misinformation though. What I asked for was some corroboration that there is a net positive.
skinnymuch 4y ago
Without Android, would WebOS and other mobile OSes never have come out? Do the people using $35 phones care it’s Android vs what ever other OSes they’d have if it never existed? There were video sites besides YouTube. YouTube cornered the market. That doesn’t make them special. All the examples are one brand cornering a market without having done any exceptional innovation that would be incredibly missed without them. Cornering markets is almost never a net positive for people. I should probably say it never is.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Palm had a decade before Android to spread. Android spread because Google made it open source, had the resources to develop and market it. WebOS was also much slower than Android at the time. YouTube costs billions a year. Few other companies could operate at that scale.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    WebOS was superior in every way to Android at the time. Since, Android has stolen its UI (and the guy who designed it, I think.)
    - scarface74 4y ago
      WebOS with its web based operating system was much more sluggish and had a worse ecosystem.
      - skinnymuch 4y ago
        These are subjective opinions. The point stands that Android not being around wouldn’t have made the world that much worse off, if at all.
        scarface74 4y ago
        It’s very objective that Palm’s interface wasn’t as responsive as Androids. It’s processor couldn’t handle a web based os.
        skinnymuch 4y ago
        The world wouldn’t have been negatively affected much if Android wasn’t around. Why would the world be helped with Google controlling the majority of smart phones with a superior OS vs an inferior OS controlled by an independent Palm? The world would be much better.
pessimizer 4y ago
If these are the best examples, that's not good. > Facebook has allowed anyone to spread video capturing police misconduct that the mainstream press has ignored for decades. Facebook didn't allow that, they enabled it, as well as many other places. In fact, if it's on Facebook, I can't see it. Smartphones in general created the glut of police misconduct videos, because everyone started carrying video cameras 24/7. > Google with Android and ChromeOS has put computing devices in the hands of people who could never afford the alternative I do not believe this is true. I don't think they put computing devices into anyone's hands, and that there are also cheap alternatives. Android and ChromeOS crowd out (real) FOSS alternatives, and iirc ChromeOS started by crowding out Linux on the trendy tiny laptops that were being marketed in the mid/early-oughts. Having a monopoly on the low-end market isn't charity work.
- scarface74 4y ago
  So how many of those “other places” would have gotten the viewership? As far as Android vs the alternatives, Linux was no more ready for the phone than it was ready for “the year of the Linux desktop” to happen. The Linux desktops that it crowded out, didn’t offer the backend server components that make ChromeOS desirable to the target audience.

charcircuit 4y ago

No, and I never said net positive, although I do believe that it is one. The negatives are inherit to anything where people can interact with each other, things like using up your time or things like bullying.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
So, no sources then. Just making assumptions about most of the global human population. Nothing biased about that.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  You don't have a source for your claim either. I'm at least saying that you should recognize how Google provides you plenty of free tools like search, docs, sheets, present, maps, email, etc and entertainment like YouTube. Facebook allows you to connect with your friends, talk to people about your interests, a marketplace, entertainment from photos, videos, streams. Meta also offers Insta for sharing photos or stories and they are investing heavily into XR. These companies do a lot and I do not think you should trivialize all that they have done by saying that they've done something bad in the past and not even say what they have done. Have you considered the people who want to work their want to actually improve people's lives working on these different projects. Have you considered that large compensation can make people ignore issues. Have you considered that people are just interested in working on the stuff that's available there.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I haven't made any claims. I merely asked if you could back up yours.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I will respond anyway I guess. All those things you mentioned are great, sure. But to my mind, something can be useful, fun, loved, enjoyed while actively making your life worse. The obvious example being addictive drugs. My smartphone, for example, has definitely made a lot if things more convenient. It use it all the time, for all sorts of useful things. Marvelously useful piece of technology, the smartphone. Has it improved my life? I'm honestly not sure, but my gut reaction is no, because it's ruined my already limited ability to focus(I have ADHD). It actually makes me far more productive having my phone turned off, despite how useful I seem to think it is. My point is that something can be useful and do all sorts of things for you, but that can still be true while it's actively harmful to you. And you might not even be conscious of this about yourself, let alone most of the global population.