4 ms·

You might not have to use these platforms, but tell a random parent to stop using Facebook and Messenger cold turkey, and they'll tell you that a lot of their k

by rsolva 3y ago

You might not have to use these platforms, but tell a random parent to stop using Facebook and Messenger cold turkey, and they'll tell you that a lot of their kids activities (both school and otherwise) is mainly being coordinated on Facebook. The same with politics and other core societal activities – at least here in Norway. It was never a good idea to use these services as a core communication infrastructure in the first place, but it happened non the less. It will take considerable effort to turn this around, and we should not blame the average user, but the tech companies using "growth hacking" and other unsavory tactics to lock people into their walled gardens. Also the governments for not taking action and regulating this space earlier.

roenxi 3y ago
To be honest, you're making it sound easier to quit Facebook than I believe it is. Humans have a multi-millennia history of successfully raising children without Facebook. We know it is possible. Facebook is more convenient than the alternatives, that much is obvious. This is a strength of fiefdoms - they can be very effective. But there aren't really any significant things holding you to them and you can drop them if you think the value isn't there. Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't because they are better than the alternatives. That isn't a bad thing, for anyone. > It will take considerable effort to turn this around, and we should not blame the average user... They're enabling it. I don't see anything blameworthy happening, but if there was the users would shoulder most of the blame.
- ajb 3y ago
  It's incorrect to say that they provide more value than they cost you. They cost most users more to leave than they cost to stay. That's not the same as providing that value, they've simply found a away to become a gatekeeper to the value people get from their social contacts.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    The cost to leave Facebook is precisely the cost of providing services equivalent to the value of Facebook's offering. There isn't an exit tax. In fact, I'd speculate the cost is exactly that someone would have to ring up their friends every so often and ask what is going on in their lives. As costs go we're delving into some trivial ones.
    - theblobawakens 3y ago
      For having taken that choice - getting off socials for ideological reasons - and now being left to do exactly what you suggest - phoning everybody regularly - I have realized that the cost in time is, in fact to trivial at all, quite the opposite. For a few months now I set time aside every few days to do so, particularly on the week-ends. Problem is ofc that not everybody is available to answer when I call. They then call back at random times, which are not always the best, but you can't also just cut ppl off and say I'll call you later. Digital social circles allow for asynchronous transmission, while regular comms require synchronous schedules which fast become a big opportunity cost. As such, maintaining the knowledge of the current state of your social network without some form of localized broadcast mechanism is in truth quite expensive.
- rsolva 3y ago
  > Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't because they are better than the alternatives. That isn't a bad thing, for anyone. My argument is the network effect and the lock in. As an individual user, there are no way to leave without being cut of from your groups and friends. The product is not that great in itself, the group functionality in Facebook is a mess, and many other chat apps can do all the important things that Messenger can do. It's the lock-in effect that makes it super inconvenient to leave for most people. I don't have kids and stopped using Facebook in 2018 without to much trouble. I joined the fediverse in 2017 and quit Twitter when Musk blocked me from mentioning my fediverse handle in my bio. But I have cared about this for quite a while, so I saw the writing on the wall and was mentally prepared to jump ship. Most people are not – although that might be changing now, actually.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    I feel your argument that people are locked in to Facebook is undermined somewhat if you quit using it in 2018 and moved to an alternative.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Some people do not have this alternative without paying the price of being alienated from activities that are only discussed through Facebook groups or FB Messenger. Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, but now you are not part of the groups interactions there. Your friends and family that don't share the same ideological drive won't increase their friction on communication just because, they will keep using whatever is providing a low friction interaction and network effects increase the friction on leaving a lot. Network effects are huge, when it tips the scale on the friction effort to get rid of the platform they have won, the only way to quit one is if everyone else you care about also move to a different one, that's a massive effort.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        > Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal... Sorry, I've missed a step in the thinking here. Why would you do that?
- npteljes 3y ago
  >Humans have a multi-millennia history of successfully raising children without Facebook Facebook is also culture now. And I don't think that humans have a great history with abandoning their culture, and thriving outside of it. Personal responsibility is a thing, yes, but it's far from the be-all, end-all that people make it up to be. Humans work in a certain way and if something abuses that outright, the blame is more on the abuser, and less on the people. Yes, people should be careful, but booby traps are made to be hard to avoid.

by rsolva 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

To be honest, you're making it sound easier to quit Facebook than I believe it is. Humans have a multi-millennia history of successfully raising children without Facebook. We know it is possible. Facebook is more convenient than the alternatives, that much is obvious. This is a strength of fiefdoms - they can be very effective. But there aren't really any significant things holding you to them and you can drop them if you think the value isn't there. Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't because they are better than the alternatives. That isn't a bad thing, for anyone. > It will take considerable effort to turn this around, and we should not blame the average user... They're enabling it. I don't see anything blameworthy happening, but if there was the users would shoulder most of the blame.

ajb 3y ago
It's incorrect to say that they provide more value than they cost you. They cost most users more to leave than they cost to stay. That's not the same as providing that value, they've simply found a away to become a gatekeeper to the value people get from their social contacts.
- roenxi 3y ago
  The cost to leave Facebook is precisely the cost of providing services equivalent to the value of Facebook's offering. There isn't an exit tax. In fact, I'd speculate the cost is exactly that someone would have to ring up their friends every so often and ask what is going on in their lives. As costs go we're delving into some trivial ones.
  - theblobawakens 3y ago
    For having taken that choice - getting off socials for ideological reasons - and now being left to do exactly what you suggest - phoning everybody regularly - I have realized that the cost in time is, in fact to trivial at all, quite the opposite. For a few months now I set time aside every few days to do so, particularly on the week-ends. Problem is ofc that not everybody is available to answer when I call. They then call back at random times, which are not always the best, but you can't also just cut ppl off and say I'll call you later. Digital social circles allow for asynchronous transmission, while regular comms require synchronous schedules which fast become a big opportunity cost. As such, maintaining the knowledge of the current state of your social network without some form of localized broadcast mechanism is in truth quite expensive.
rsolva 3y ago
> Your argument is you can't drop them because they provide more value than they cost you. Fair enough; but that doesn't mean you can't. It means you won't because they are better than the alternatives. That isn't a bad thing, for anyone. My argument is the network effect and the lock in. As an individual user, there are no way to leave without being cut of from your groups and friends. The product is not that great in itself, the group functionality in Facebook is a mess, and many other chat apps can do all the important things that Messenger can do. It's the lock-in effect that makes it super inconvenient to leave for most people. I don't have kids and stopped using Facebook in 2018 without to much trouble. I joined the fediverse in 2017 and quit Twitter when Musk blocked me from mentioning my fediverse handle in my bio. But I have cared about this for quite a while, so I saw the writing on the wall and was mentally prepared to jump ship. Most people are not – although that might be changing now, actually.
- roenxi 3y ago
  I feel your argument that people are locked in to Facebook is undermined somewhat if you quit using it in 2018 and moved to an alternative.
  - piva00 3y ago
    Some people do not have this alternative without paying the price of being alienated from activities that are only discussed through Facebook groups or FB Messenger. Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal, but now you are not part of the groups interactions there. Your friends and family that don't share the same ideological drive won't increase their friction on communication just because, they will keep using whatever is providing a low friction interaction and network effects increase the friction on leaving a lot. Network effects are huge, when it tips the scale on the friction effort to get rid of the platform they have won, the only way to quit one is if everyone else you care about also move to a different one, that's a massive effort.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      > Yes, you can quit all the messenger apps, get rid of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal... Sorry, I've missed a step in the thinking here. Why would you do that?
npteljes 3y ago
>Humans have a multi-millennia history of successfully raising children without Facebook Facebook is also culture now. And I don't think that humans have a great history with abandoning their culture, and thriving outside of it. Personal responsibility is a thing, yes, but it's far from the be-all, end-all that people make it up to be. Humans work in a certain way and if something abuses that outright, the blame is more on the abuser, and less on the people. Yes, people should be careful, but booby traps are made to be hard to avoid.