4 ms·

> buying stuff I was buying more generic stuff before, now I’m buying products that are tailor made for the very specific demographic I am. Win-win for me and

> buying stuff I was buying more generic stuff before, now I’m buying products that are tailor made for the very specific demographic I am. Win-win for me and for the entrepreneur targeting me. Who cares if Facebook also benefits? Who cares if that entrepreneur becomes a billionaire? I get a gadget/book/product that solves my specific problem. I just don’t see how I, or anyone, is the victim here. > socially better I have vastly more contact with family and old friends now. I’ve had career opportunities from Facebook messages with old pals. > people are going nuts due to social media I have no answer to this one, except that we clearly have to mature into this as a culture, the same way we’ve done with phasing out smoking and are currently phasing out alcohol. People are only getting sucked into social media vortexes because of bad mental habits they had going into it. Banning social media for under-16’s and changing attitudes towards it will certainly help a ton. If you use it as a connection tool, it’s amazingly valuable and helpful.

consteval 2y ago
The inherent problem is that what you want out of social media and what it wants after you are at odds. It's not intended to be a social tool; it's intended to keep your eyes on the platform as much as possible. Their goal is to incite an addiction in you, not unlike gambling. Naturally we can take measures to try to prevent ourselves from developing an addiction. But ultimately the product itself will always attempt to undo those. In my view there's two camps of people: those who have to recognize this reality, and those that haven't. I have seen many family members literally destroy their lives and relationships due to the dopamine addiction they've developed with social media. They now only respond to blatant lies, conspiracies, racism, homophobia, and the most extreme of emotions. The trouble is this is a unique addiction, one that does not rely on a substance. I have no doubt I would have an easier time weaning them off of heroin than off of Facebook.
- FredPret 2y ago
  OK but that’s true for literally every relationship between a human and an organization. But you have to balance what you give and get so it remains mutually beneficial. You can choose the optimal level of your engagement, including none at all. Just like McDonalds doesn’t make people fat, Facebook doesn’t make people sad. I’m really sorry about your relatives getting sucked in, but wouldn’t they have fallen for some other thing if not Facebook? There is lots of shit out there on the radio, TV, books, cults.
  - consteval 2y ago
    This is an extraordinarily generous and almost child-like perspective on business. You're correct that McDonald's doesn't hold a gun to your head and make you fat. That doesn't mean McDonald's plays no role in making you fat. As with everything, there are many compounding factors that contribute to an outcome. If McDonald's only sold, say, kale salads, would you gain the same amount of weight? No, right? So therefore, McDonald's must have some hand in making people fat. Again, I circle back to Tobacco because nicotine is plainly addictive, but do you truly believe that the Tobacco industry had nothing to do with societal smoking? That's rhetorical, I know you don't believe that because it's so obviously incorrect. While social media does not contain nicotine, how confident are you that it is not addictive? For me, I'm not very confident. > but wouldn’t they have fallen for some other thing if not Facebook? There is lots of shit out there on the radio, TV, books, cults And instead of smoking, could those people have just gotten addicted to sunflower seeds? Well, why didn't they? Because the nature of the medium and product matters. Social media is always immediately available. It features bright colors. And it's extraordinarily fast-paced. Compare that to a book - and it should be obvious why people are addicted to Facebook and not To Kill a Mockingbird.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      1. Don’t be a dick. We come down on different sides of this - don’t assume people who don’t agree with you are being children. 2. To the extent that FB is addictive, it should be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco as I noted earlier. Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool. Meta has been a huge positive for me and many others; just because you hate it doesn’t make it fundamentally bad.
      - consteval 2y ago
        Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Otherwise, why have we never seen nicotine-free cigarettes? Consider: if McDonald's had the power, right now, to rid the world of Ozempic - would they? I think absolutely they would. > Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool These are rather vague and not really how things have gone historically. Smoking stopped working because every doctor was telling you it would kill you. And then it became very, very hard to smoke. You couldn't smoke just about anywhere in public. And then you couldn't even smoke in your rental car, or apartment, or hotel. If you could only access Facebook in the confines of a property you own, I imagine it's use would plummet. I don't think a "cultural movement" could do that. Especially when such a cultural movement would need to take place ON Facebook. Because it's a platform.

consteval 2y ago

The inherent problem is that what you want out of social media and what it wants after you are at odds. It's not intended to be a social tool; it's intended to keep your eyes on the platform as much as possible. Their goal is to incite an addiction in you, not unlike gambling. Naturally we can take measures to try to prevent ourselves from developing an addiction. But ultimately the product itself will always attempt to undo those. In my view there's two camps of people: those who have to recognize this reality, and those that haven't. I have seen many family members literally destroy their lives and relationships due to the dopamine addiction they've developed with social media. They now only respond to blatant lies, conspiracies, racism, homophobia, and the most extreme of emotions. The trouble is this is a unique addiction, one that does not rely on a substance. I have no doubt I would have an easier time weaning them off of heroin than off of Facebook.

FredPret 2y ago
OK but that’s true for literally every relationship between a human and an organization. But you have to balance what you give and get so it remains mutually beneficial. You can choose the optimal level of your engagement, including none at all. Just like McDonalds doesn’t make people fat, Facebook doesn’t make people sad. I’m really sorry about your relatives getting sucked in, but wouldn’t they have fallen for some other thing if not Facebook? There is lots of shit out there on the radio, TV, books, cults.
- consteval 2y ago
  This is an extraordinarily generous and almost child-like perspective on business. You're correct that McDonald's doesn't hold a gun to your head and make you fat. That doesn't mean McDonald's plays no role in making you fat. As with everything, there are many compounding factors that contribute to an outcome. If McDonald's only sold, say, kale salads, would you gain the same amount of weight? No, right? So therefore, McDonald's must have some hand in making people fat. Again, I circle back to Tobacco because nicotine is plainly addictive, but do you truly believe that the Tobacco industry had nothing to do with societal smoking? That's rhetorical, I know you don't believe that because it's so obviously incorrect. While social media does not contain nicotine, how confident are you that it is not addictive? For me, I'm not very confident. > but wouldn’t they have fallen for some other thing if not Facebook? There is lots of shit out there on the radio, TV, books, cults And instead of smoking, could those people have just gotten addicted to sunflower seeds? Well, why didn't they? Because the nature of the medium and product matters. Social media is always immediately available. It features bright colors. And it's extraordinarily fast-paced. Compare that to a book - and it should be obvious why people are addicted to Facebook and not To Kill a Mockingbird.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    1. Don’t be a dick. We come down on different sides of this - don’t assume people who don’t agree with you are being children. 2. To the extent that FB is addictive, it should be treated the same as alcohol and tobacco as I noted earlier. Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool. Meta has been a huge positive for me and many others; just because you hate it doesn’t make it fundamentally bad.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Such an innocent and naive view can only be described as child-like. I was under the impression only a small child could legitimately believe businesses don't have the intention of maintaining the addictive practices that keep them profitable. Otherwise, why have we never seen nicotine-free cigarettes? Consider: if McDonald's had the power, right now, to rid the world of Ozempic - would they? I think absolutely they would. > Restrictions on young people. A cultural movement to regard use/overuse as uncool These are rather vague and not really how things have gone historically. Smoking stopped working because every doctor was telling you it would kill you. And then it became very, very hard to smoke. You couldn't smoke just about anywhere in public. And then you couldn't even smoke in your rental car, or apartment, or hotel. If you could only access Facebook in the confines of a property you own, I imagine it's use would plummet. I don't think a "cultural movement" could do that. Especially when such a cultural movement would need to take place ON Facebook. Because it's a platform.