9 ms·

I like the comments on that page. Various users complaining how evil and vile they find Facebook. I take it they are annoyed because they use Facebook and want

I like the comments on that page. Various users complaining how evil and vile they find Facebook. I take it they are annoyed because they use Facebook and want to do client-side parsing. Why not, y'know, just not use Facebook? Are we complicating this issue just to have a discussion? The solution is really simple, yet there seems to be tunnel vision when it comes to thinking of it.

veemjeem 14y ago
Not sure how helpful your comment is either. It would be like saying how evil and vile you find the US government, and your response would be to tell them to move to another country.
- davidjgraph 14y ago
  Sure, that's a like for like. Moving country - deleting Facebook account.
betterunix 14y ago
Facebook interoperates very poorly with other systems, and there are a lot of people who are using Facebook as their primary communication tool. If you don't use Facebook -- I, for example, don't use Facebook -- you are forced to keep reminding certain people that you exist and that you can be contacted by email / IM / phone / etc.
- chii 14y ago
  > you are forced to keep reminding certain people that you exist and that you can be contacted perhaps those people need to pay more attention to you, instead of to your facebook status and/or wall. Real friends sms or call once in a while.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Unfortunately, social convention evolves independently rather than being dictated. If convention evolves in the direction of Facebook events and newsfeeds instead of mass SMS invitations and e-mail, one is forced to choose either to use Facebook or to become a social outcast.
    - chii 14y ago
      did you ever think about whether facebook's marketing and influences have an effect on this evolution? Its not like "society" can think for itself - its just made up of people. It isn't evolving "independently" - its just the sum of the actions of everyone. So, to dicate it, you can attemot to convince your friends of the benefits of moving off it. If it is true that there is benefit form moving off, then it will happen eventually. ...oh except of course, if you get locked in, as designed.
  - pixl97 14y ago
    The problem that you are missing here is one of history. The phone company you so quickly push people to use has a long history of monopoly and abuse (at least where I'm from, where the telephone was invented). For the longest time you could only connect blessed telephone company equipment to your line, nothing else was allowed by law. It wasn't until people fought back that we could even use acoustic couplers. The telephone company was government sanctioned, but it was still a private company just like Facebook is. So instead of telling people to take it, do like or predecessors and fight back. I'm pretty sure if this was back in the Ma Bell days, you'd be telling the crowd that 'Real Friends' send letters via post!
  - pavel_lishin 14y ago
    > perhaps those people need to pay more attention to you When you become a squeaky wheel by demanding special treatment, you don't always get the oil - sometimes you get taken off and left in a ditch.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Nuh-uh! Real friends use a hand-forged knife to sharpen the point of a quill, which they dip in locally-sourced artisanal ink. Then they write you a thoughtful letter in beautiful calligraphy on home-made organic paper. After blotting it dry, they seal it with wax and hand it off to a messenger on horseback. Technology changes. Preferences vary. Declaring your friends inadequate based on chosen mode of communication is ridiculous.
    - eldavido 14y ago
      I got off of facebook a year ago and haven't looked back. I've actually been surprised at how little effect it's had on my life. The UX is only going to get worse as Zuck & Co. have to operate their newly-public company more in the interests of their investors than their users. Between TV, magazines, in-game advertising, billboards, and now airport screening trays, the ad overload finally became more than I was willing to tolerate.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 14y ago
In the past people would serve "stuff", and I'd have a client to receive that stuff. The whole point of the WWW is that you must not rely on your user having a particular browser. Or operating system. Or display resolution. Or a display at all. You serve valid stuff and allow the client to parse it how they like. You can suggest nice font sizes and good contrast colours, but if they want to view it at 72 pt in pink on yellow they can. Lots of the WWW ignores the fact that people may be using different screens or different whatever to view the content. Luckily we're moving away from fixed font sizes and a little fixed width blob of content in the middle of an otherwise white screen, but there are still weird lock ins around. And Facebook are just following this trend - "this is our content, and it's our service, and you'll view it how we want you to". Your wider point is a good one though. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads, with maybe a polite email explaining why they're not going to visit again.
- politician 14y ago
  > If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads.. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting ad servers. Hence, AdBlock and Ghostery.
  - untog 14y ago
    If they object to paying for the service, they should stop using the service- not just stop paying for it.
    - politician 14y ago
      In what sense does directing one's browser to issue HTTP requests towards a foreign endpoint imply payment? Am I "paying" HN for POSTing this comment?
      - untog 14y ago
        Sigh. You know full-well what I am talking about. Discussing it in terms of what is technically occurring does not achieve anything- Facebook is a service. The service is provided to you for free in return for showing you advertisements. If you block those advertisements then you are depriving Facebook of the means by which they pay for your presence on their service. No, it is not a direct payment. Yes, it is a transaction.
pavel_lishin 14y ago
> Why not, y'know, just not use Facebook? The snarky knee-jerk answer is, why not throw away my cellphone and cancel my contract with the ISP while I'm at it? They also do things I disagree with. The longer answer is that Facebook is how most of my friends communicate now, and how they schedule social events. I could delete my account, but it would mean a lot more friction when trying to talk to people, planning events, and attending events planned by others.
- onedev 14y ago
  Then use the service as intended.
Finster 14y ago
Yeah, I'll stop using Facebook. I'll just convince all my family, friends, and co-workers to all switch to G+.

veemjeem 14y ago

Not sure how helpful your comment is either. It would be like saying how evil and vile you find the US government, and your response would be to tell them to move to another country.

davidjgraph 14y ago
Sure, that's a like for like. Moving country - deleting Facebook account.

betterunix 14y ago

Facebook interoperates very poorly with other systems, and there are a lot of people who are using Facebook as their primary communication tool. If you don't use Facebook -- I, for example, don't use Facebook -- you are forced to keep reminding certain people that you exist and that you can be contacted by email / IM / phone / etc.

chii 14y ago
> you are forced to keep reminding certain people that you exist and that you can be contacted perhaps those people need to pay more attention to you, instead of to your facebook status and/or wall. Real friends sms or call once in a while.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Unfortunately, social convention evolves independently rather than being dictated. If convention evolves in the direction of Facebook events and newsfeeds instead of mass SMS invitations and e-mail, one is forced to choose either to use Facebook or to become a social outcast.
  - chii 14y ago
    did you ever think about whether facebook's marketing and influences have an effect on this evolution? Its not like "society" can think for itself - its just made up of people. It isn't evolving "independently" - its just the sum of the actions of everyone. So, to dicate it, you can attemot to convince your friends of the benefits of moving off it. If it is true that there is benefit form moving off, then it will happen eventually. ...oh except of course, if you get locked in, as designed.
- pixl97 14y ago
  The problem that you are missing here is one of history. The phone company you so quickly push people to use has a long history of monopoly and abuse (at least where I'm from, where the telephone was invented). For the longest time you could only connect blessed telephone company equipment to your line, nothing else was allowed by law. It wasn't until people fought back that we could even use acoustic couplers. The telephone company was government sanctioned, but it was still a private company just like Facebook is. So instead of telling people to take it, do like or predecessors and fight back. I'm pretty sure if this was back in the Ma Bell days, you'd be telling the crowd that 'Real Friends' send letters via post!
- pavel_lishin 14y ago
  > perhaps those people need to pay more attention to you When you become a squeaky wheel by demanding special treatment, you don't always get the oil - sometimes you get taken off and left in a ditch.
- wpietri 14y ago
  Nuh-uh! Real friends use a hand-forged knife to sharpen the point of a quill, which they dip in locally-sourced artisanal ink. Then they write you a thoughtful letter in beautiful calligraphy on home-made organic paper. After blotting it dry, they seal it with wax and hand it off to a messenger on horseback. Technology changes. Preferences vary. Declaring your friends inadequate based on chosen mode of communication is ridiculous.
  - eldavido 14y ago
    I got off of facebook a year ago and haven't looked back. I've actually been surprised at how little effect it's had on my life. The UX is only going to get worse as Zuck & Co. have to operate their newly-public company more in the interests of their investors than their users. Between TV, magazines, in-game advertising, billboards, and now airport screening trays, the ad overload finally became more than I was willing to tolerate.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 14y ago

In the past people would serve "stuff", and I'd have a client to receive that stuff. The whole point of the WWW is that you must not rely on your user having a particular browser. Or operating system. Or display resolution. Or a display at all. You serve valid stuff and allow the client to parse it how they like. You can suggest nice font sizes and good contrast colours, but if they want to view it at 72 pt in pink on yellow they can. Lots of the WWW ignores the fact that people may be using different screens or different whatever to view the content. Luckily we're moving away from fixed font sizes and a little fixed width blob of content in the middle of an otherwise white screen, but there are still weird lock ins around. And Facebook are just following this trend - "this is our content, and it's our service, and you'll view it how we want you to". Your wider point is a good one though. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads, with maybe a polite email explaining why they're not going to visit again.

politician 14y ago
> If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting the site serving those ads.. If people are annoyed at ads they should stop visiting ad servers. Hence, AdBlock and Ghostery.
- untog 14y ago
  If they object to paying for the service, they should stop using the service- not just stop paying for it.
  - politician 14y ago
    In what sense does directing one's browser to issue HTTP requests towards a foreign endpoint imply payment? Am I "paying" HN for POSTing this comment?
    - untog 14y ago
      Sigh. You know full-well what I am talking about. Discussing it in terms of what is technically occurring does not achieve anything- Facebook is a service. The service is provided to you for free in return for showing you advertisements. If you block those advertisements then you are depriving Facebook of the means by which they pay for your presence on their service. No, it is not a direct payment. Yes, it is a transaction.

pavel_lishin 14y ago

> Why not, y'know, just not use Facebook? The snarky knee-jerk answer is, why not throw away my cellphone and cancel my contract with the ISP while I'm at it? They also do things I disagree with. The longer answer is that Facebook is how most of my friends communicate now, and how they schedule social events. I could delete my account, but it would mean a lot more friction when trying to talk to people, planning events, and attending events planned by others.

onedev 14y ago
Then use the service as intended.

Finster 14y ago

Yeah, I'll stop using Facebook. I'll just convince all my family, friends, and co-workers to all switch to G+.