6 ms·

Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.

by clavalle 14y ago

betterunix 14y ago
Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.
- clavalle 14y ago
  Limiting technology to refer only to things not built on top of other technology is defining the term too narrowly. Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is. Facebook's purpose (sell social connections) and its method (networking) are distinct and separate. Facebook could accomplish its objectives in any number of ways -- networking is coincidental to the company's purpose.
    - clavalle 14y ago
      So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other? I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods. > I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. Yes, I can see that. You also think Facebook is an application, like Excel. It isn't, it's a company.
        clavalle 14y ago
        Good Lord, man. Facebook is both. Which is to say that the word Facebook can be used in reference to a corporation or the application that kicked off that corporation (and still forms the core of that corporation's method). I thought it was obvious from the context which we were discussing. I'll try to make it less ambiguous in the future.
- freehunter 14y ago
  Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electrons aren't a technology because it requires a universe. But the universe isn't a technology because...
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals. In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal. > But the universe isn't a technology because... Do try to think this through.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product. My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.
      - lutusp 14y ago
        > Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company? > It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software application. It's a company that uses applications -- software -- to accomplish its purposes. > My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules. > If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe. No, actually, if you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe in an absurd way. Companies and software applications aren't the same thing -- unless you think a chestnut horse is the same as a horse chestnut. And why not? They're described using the same words.

Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.

betterunix 14y ago

Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.

clavalle 14y ago
Limiting technology to refer only to things not built on top of other technology is defining the term too narrowly. Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is. Facebook's purpose (sell social connections) and its method (networking) are distinct and separate. Facebook could accomplish its objectives in any number of ways -- networking is coincidental to the company's purpose.
  - clavalle 14y ago
    So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other? I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods. > I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. Yes, I can see that. You also think Facebook is an application, like Excel. It isn't, it's a company.
      - clavalle 14y ago
        Good Lord, man. Facebook is both. Which is to say that the word Facebook can be used in reference to a corporation or the application that kicked off that corporation (and still forms the core of that corporation's method). I thought it was obvious from the context which we were discussing. I'll try to make it less ambiguous in the future.
freehunter 14y ago
Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electrons aren't a technology because it requires a universe. But the universe isn't a technology because...
- lutusp 14y ago
  > Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals. In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal. > But the universe isn't a technology because... Do try to think this through.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product. My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.
    - lutusp 14y ago
      > Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company? > It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software application. It's a company that uses applications -- software -- to accomplish its purposes. > My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules. > If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe. No, actually, if you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe in an absurd way. Companies and software applications aren't the same thing -- unless you think a chestnut horse is the same as a horse chestnut. And why not? They're described using the same words.