5 ms·

There is a label already, "ethical". Argue all you want over the ethics of facebook, or if entrepreneurs have any duty to act ethically, not unethically, not il

There is a label already, "ethical". Argue all you want over the ethics of facebook, or if entrepreneurs have any duty to act ethically, not unethically, not illegally or just not get caught. You don't need a new label though. You sure did write a lot complaining about people using their free speech to criticize businesses they feel are either harmful or a waste of resources because this is a "free country". I was under the impression that the philosophy behind a free country was that allowing the people to openly criticize and discuss things allowed a society to thrive without overly restrictive laws. I guess they didn't consider the hurt feelings of entrepreneurs. I propose a new amendment: Freedom from hurt feelings resulting from the people's reaction to one's actions! I'm actually very content with having the chosen method for encouraging altruism to be social norms. I'm happy you are free to invent a new addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution to society is null or negative. Complaining that some internet words made you feel guilty about it or that there is too much social pressure to actually contribute to the society on who's back you built your business is ... well, it's fucking ridiculous frankly.

zingahgud 14y ago
As long as that ridiculous excuse for an argument or whatever it is (and from a lawyer no less) stays as the top post, it makes all of HN look bad. It's not just the lack of conscience, it's the lack of clarity of thought. Gibberish. The information Greenspan gives us relates to the person behind a website to which millions of people submit their personal information. The kid running it cannot be trusted. And he really does not care about security or privacy. It's that simple. Given this information, who cares about the "purpose" of Facebook? There is none. And in fact, they can use your personal information in myriad ways, without ever informing you. What is worth caring about is this website is run by someone who cannot be trusted. You have person after person who has dealt with him coming forward and telling their story. And it's the same story every time. He cannot be trusted. If someone responsible had founded and was running Facebook, things could be very different.
tptacek 14y ago
Only in places like Hacker News is there a consensus opinion that Facebook is "a new addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is null or negative". Facebook has increased the number of interactions I have with my extended family by roughly a factor of infinity --- and I'm one of those nerds who's run a mailing list for his family since the mid '90s. A more concise way to say what 'grellas said is that these complaints about Facebook have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with fashion. They are just a new way of proclaiming to the world that "I don't even own a television". Concern for masses frittering away hours on meaningless entertainments is at least as old as the mechanical player piano. Despite the countervailing evidence of the Salk Vaccine, the ARPA IMP, Google, stem cell transplants, McGee's _On Food And Cooking_, and everything else society has managed to accomplished while beset by the horrors of entertainment, you are welcome to hold the view that you are better not only than the people who avail themselves of that entertainment, but also the people who manage to produce and maintain it using computer systems running at a scale unimaginable just a decade or two before. Just do it with better writing, because the bar for articulating this particular concern is set very high; you might start with _Infinite Jest_.
- qq66 14y ago
  It's not just Facebook that has an unusually bad reputation among the technology crowd -- companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. are widely respected outside of the industry bubble. I remember hearing two ordinary guys talking about Wall Street bankers in Logan Airport, and contrasting their ill-gotten gains with Bill Gates and how he fairly earned his money by "building a better mousetrap." (Also, your point about entertainment and its production is an interesting one -- the people who built and maintain Facebook can be, in this way, rightly compared to the Beatles, the Baroque composers, and Valmiki).
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  Just to be clear, I do not share this opinion of Facebook.
- autophil 14y ago
  Only in places like Hacker News is there a consensus opinion that Facebook is "a new addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is null or negative" You either know that statement is untrue but lie anyway, or you haven't been outside and seen a tree in real life for over a year. Many people of all walks of life think Facebook is an "addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is negative." If you honestly believe otherwise, you need to push away from the computer desk and interact with normal human beings in the flesh STAT.
tatsuke95 14y ago
>"actually contribute to the society" Facebook has created a vast amount of wealth for a huge number of people. If you believe in capitalism, then Facebook has benefited society greatly, by definition.
- cuergas 14y ago
  Does this also apply to Mexican drug cartels? Not that I am comparing FB to drug dealers, but I'm just curious how to apply this handy definition of capitalism. Are there any limitations?
  - intended 14y ago
    I don't see where in capitalism illegal acts are included in its ambit. It said let the markets decide, it didn't include freedoms to pursue crime. At this point you could bring up the definition of criminal vs unethical. Lets side step that by agreeing on the basic intuitions behind capitalism. Capitalism is a system aimed at answering the question: what is the best way human beings can organize themselves to best distribute resources and maximize human well being while minimizing suffering. There are certain acts and substances that can be shown to be immediately harmful to the well being of humanity and humans. Addiction causing drugs are one of them, and efforts to pursue it are marked as criminal, immoral and unethical. Conflating Facebook with Drug cartels is conflating farmville with cocaine. It very clearly transcends all limitations on the immoral and unethical acts we would permit.
    - cuergas 14y ago
      But I didn't conflate. I specifically said I was not comparing the two. It is simply an example that fits within his definition: it brings wealth to a large number of people. You are bringing in other definitions of capitalism. I'm only commenting on his definition. I'm not taking a jab at capitalism. I'm taking a jab at a sloppy definition.
    - corporalagumbo 14y ago
      I happen to think that Zynga is a 21st century drug dealer. Their "games" are designed to turn people into clicking-addicted machines, slowly depleting their psychological until they start buying virtual gold. Plus, companies like Zynga target the most psychologically vulnerable members of society. Probably the worst is children. Give it 15 years and Zynga-style behaviour will be subject to legal restrictions, I'd say.

zingahgud 14y ago

As long as that ridiculous excuse for an argument or whatever it is (and from a lawyer no less) stays as the top post, it makes all of HN look bad. It's not just the lack of conscience, it's the lack of clarity of thought. Gibberish. The information Greenspan gives us relates to the person behind a website to which millions of people submit their personal information. The kid running it cannot be trusted. And he really does not care about security or privacy. It's that simple. Given this information, who cares about the "purpose" of Facebook? There is none. And in fact, they can use your personal information in myriad ways, without ever informing you. What is worth caring about is this website is run by someone who cannot be trusted. You have person after person who has dealt with him coming forward and telling their story. And it's the same story every time. He cannot be trusted. If someone responsible had founded and was running Facebook, things could be very different.

tptacek 14y ago

Only in places like Hacker News is there a consensus opinion that Facebook is "a new addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is null or negative". Facebook has increased the number of interactions I have with my extended family by roughly a factor of infinity --- and I'm one of those nerds who's run a mailing list for his family since the mid '90s. A more concise way to say what 'grellas said is that these complaints about Facebook have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with fashion. They are just a new way of proclaiming to the world that "I don't even own a television". Concern for masses frittering away hours on meaningless entertainments is at least as old as the mechanical player piano. Despite the countervailing evidence of the Salk Vaccine, the ARPA IMP, Google, stem cell transplants, McGee's _On Food And Cooking_, and everything else society has managed to accomplished while beset by the horrors of entertainment, you are welcome to hold the view that you are better not only than the people who avail themselves of that entertainment, but also the people who manage to produce and maintain it using computer systems running at a scale unimaginable just a decade or two before. Just do it with better writing, because the bar for articulating this particular concern is set very high; you might start with _Infinite Jest_.

qq66 14y ago
It's not just Facebook that has an unusually bad reputation among the technology crowd -- companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, etc. are widely respected outside of the industry bubble. I remember hearing two ordinary guys talking about Wall Street bankers in Logan Airport, and contrasting their ill-gotten gains with Bill Gates and how he fairly earned his money by "building a better mousetrap." (Also, your point about entertainment and its production is an interesting one -- the people who built and maintain Facebook can be, in this way, rightly compared to the Beatles, the Baroque composers, and Valmiki).
corporalagumbo 14y ago
Just to be clear, I do not share this opinion of Facebook.
autophil 14y ago
Only in places like Hacker News is there a consensus opinion that Facebook is "a new addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is null or negative" You either know that statement is untrue but lie anyway, or you haven't been outside and seen a tree in real life for over a year. Many people of all walks of life think Facebook is an "addictive and time wasting form of entertainment who's contribution society is negative." If you honestly believe otherwise, you need to push away from the computer desk and interact with normal human beings in the flesh STAT.

tatsuke95 14y ago

>"actually contribute to the society" Facebook has created a vast amount of wealth for a huge number of people. If you believe in capitalism, then Facebook has benefited society greatly, by definition.

cuergas 14y ago
Does this also apply to Mexican drug cartels? Not that I am comparing FB to drug dealers, but I'm just curious how to apply this handy definition of capitalism. Are there any limitations?
- intended 14y ago
  I don't see where in capitalism illegal acts are included in its ambit. It said let the markets decide, it didn't include freedoms to pursue crime. At this point you could bring up the definition of criminal vs unethical. Lets side step that by agreeing on the basic intuitions behind capitalism. Capitalism is a system aimed at answering the question: what is the best way human beings can organize themselves to best distribute resources and maximize human well being while minimizing suffering. There are certain acts and substances that can be shown to be immediately harmful to the well being of humanity and humans. Addiction causing drugs are one of them, and efforts to pursue it are marked as criminal, immoral and unethical. Conflating Facebook with Drug cartels is conflating farmville with cocaine. It very clearly transcends all limitations on the immoral and unethical acts we would permit.
  - cuergas 14y ago
    But I didn't conflate. I specifically said I was not comparing the two. It is simply an example that fits within his definition: it brings wealth to a large number of people. You are bringing in other definitions of capitalism. I'm only commenting on his definition. I'm not taking a jab at capitalism. I'm taking a jab at a sloppy definition.
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    I happen to think that Zynga is a 21st century drug dealer. Their "games" are designed to turn people into clicking-addicted machines, slowly depleting their psychological until they start buying virtual gold. Plus, companies like Zynga target the most psychologically vulnerable members of society. Probably the worst is children. Give it 15 years and Zynga-style behaviour will be subject to legal restrictions, I'd say.