3 ms·

Sharing photos and videos is an activity that brings meaning to billions of lives, and it's not unreasonable to try to improve upon it. Facebook is a large com

Sharing photos and videos is an activity that brings meaning to billions of lives, and it's not unreasonable to try to improve upon it. Facebook is a large company with a number of revenue streams. Every single feature they undertake does not need to individually earn its keep. (And I'm not sure why that aspect would concern you in any case.)

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>Sharing photos and videos is an activity that brings meaning to billions of lives, and it's not unreasonable to try to improve upon it. On the other hand, the "meaning" that people derive from sharing can be defined in some basic terms (e.g. interaction, connection, etc.). At what point does the incremental "improvement" in sharing mechanics no longer justify the resources required to produce that improvement? First, we share it. Then, we share it and it disappears. Next, we can't see what's shared until we share something back. Is this really improving on the basic "meaning"? Sure, Facebook gets to decide how their resources are applied. But, I don't think we should pretend that there's some great and noble effort to bring still more meaning to billions of lives. Facebook wants a novel way to keep you on Facebook where you can bring more meaning to their bottom line. Period. And, you know what else has meaning? Talking to people. Having lunch with people. Seeing people; not watching their latest "broadcast", but actually seeing them. I'm just over it, and I'm guessing others are as well. There's just this constant, vapid, soul-sucking effort to endlessly distract people with some novel piece of nothingness as a means of generating still more revenue. Gets a little old.
- npizzolato 12y ago
  It's these comments that get a little old. Yes, obviously Facebook wants to make more money, and they do that by selling your information to advertisers. Thanks for the reminder. At the same time, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Facebook has enriched the lives of millions of people. I know it has allowed me to stay in touch with family and friends who I otherwise would probably speak to more rarely. That's meaningful to me. I'm also tired of the "why don't you go out and have a REAL conversation" comments. I would love to have lunch with the friends I keep in touch with primarily on Facebook. Unfortunately, they live halfway across the country, so it's not that easy. Just because the interactions happen online doesn't mean they're not real or meaningful. The fact that your comment on an online forum suggests otherwise is particularly rich.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    Honestly, it's these predictable replies that are even older. >Facebook has enriched the lives of millions of people Right. So, not saying Facebook has no utility. Yes, we know it serves a purpose for a lot of people. Clearly. >it has allowed me to stay in touch with family and friends who I otherwise would probably speak to more rarely. Yes, we also know that's the number one use case, which serves as Facebook's crowning contribution to humanity. I won't argue what it means to you or anyone else personally. I do think it replaces more meaningful interaction with a relatively superficial pub/sub model. I also believe that it isolates people and I am aware of studies which have indicated the same. That you and others find some value in it doesn't make it a net positive for society, or even for you for that matter. But, that's really not my argument anyway. >they live halfway across the country, so it's not that easy. Well, you could call them and invest some one-on-one time if they were meaningful relationships but, in any case, I am referring more to the overall tendancy of people to marginalize an increasing number of relationships (even local) to a pub/sub tool like Facebook. But, really, I am objecting more to this never-ending devaluing of relationships by Facebook whose motive is to capture your social activity (relationships) by any means necessary, irrespective of the actual value-add (or subtract) to those relationships. Of course we all know that their purpose is to make money. I wasn't dropping that as a great revelation. My point is that it should and does matter that we give so much of our relationships over to a company whose interests may run orthogonal to the preservation of value in those relationships. >The fact that your comment on an online forum suggests otherwise is particularly rich. It's really not. You just missed the point.
- edgyswingset 12y ago
  I suppose this can depend on the context of the users. Personally, I've gone through the beginnings of MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat (the last of which I've uninstalled and never use). Having more than a decade of various types of social networking, I've "grown up" on what amounts to a more wordy, involved kind of interpersonal communication. The generation of people who are just turning 18, though, have grown up with more immediate forms of social networking. Snapchat, Secret, etc reign supreme in younger demographics. An interesting parallel is the concept of a meme. For people who were around for the growth of the meme, they're stories or actions. For younger folk, they're image macros.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>Sharing photos and videos is an activity that brings meaning to billions of lives, and it's not unreasonable to try to improve upon it. On the other hand, the "meaning" that people derive from sharing can be defined in some basic terms (e.g. interaction, connection, etc.). At what point does the incremental "improvement" in sharing mechanics no longer justify the resources required to produce that improvement? First, we share it. Then, we share it and it disappears. Next, we can't see what's shared until we share something back. Is this really improving on the basic "meaning"? Sure, Facebook gets to decide how their resources are applied. But, I don't think we should pretend that there's some great and noble effort to bring still more meaning to billions of lives. Facebook wants a novel way to keep you on Facebook where you can bring more meaning to their bottom line. Period. And, you know what else has meaning? Talking to people. Having lunch with people. Seeing people; not watching their latest "broadcast", but actually seeing them. I'm just over it, and I'm guessing others are as well. There's just this constant, vapid, soul-sucking effort to endlessly distract people with some novel piece of nothingness as a means of generating still more revenue. Gets a little old.

npizzolato 12y ago
It's these comments that get a little old. Yes, obviously Facebook wants to make more money, and they do that by selling your information to advertisers. Thanks for the reminder. At the same time, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Facebook has enriched the lives of millions of people. I know it has allowed me to stay in touch with family and friends who I otherwise would probably speak to more rarely. That's meaningful to me. I'm also tired of the "why don't you go out and have a REAL conversation" comments. I would love to have lunch with the friends I keep in touch with primarily on Facebook. Unfortunately, they live halfway across the country, so it's not that easy. Just because the interactions happen online doesn't mean they're not real or meaningful. The fact that your comment on an online forum suggests otherwise is particularly rich.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  Honestly, it's these predictable replies that are even older. >Facebook has enriched the lives of millions of people Right. So, not saying Facebook has no utility. Yes, we know it serves a purpose for a lot of people. Clearly. >it has allowed me to stay in touch with family and friends who I otherwise would probably speak to more rarely. Yes, we also know that's the number one use case, which serves as Facebook's crowning contribution to humanity. I won't argue what it means to you or anyone else personally. I do think it replaces more meaningful interaction with a relatively superficial pub/sub model. I also believe that it isolates people and I am aware of studies which have indicated the same. That you and others find some value in it doesn't make it a net positive for society, or even for you for that matter. But, that's really not my argument anyway. >they live halfway across the country, so it's not that easy. Well, you could call them and invest some one-on-one time if they were meaningful relationships but, in any case, I am referring more to the overall tendancy of people to marginalize an increasing number of relationships (even local) to a pub/sub tool like Facebook. But, really, I am objecting more to this never-ending devaluing of relationships by Facebook whose motive is to capture your social activity (relationships) by any means necessary, irrespective of the actual value-add (or subtract) to those relationships. Of course we all know that their purpose is to make money. I wasn't dropping that as a great revelation. My point is that it should and does matter that we give so much of our relationships over to a company whose interests may run orthogonal to the preservation of value in those relationships. >The fact that your comment on an online forum suggests otherwise is particularly rich. It's really not. You just missed the point.
edgyswingset 12y ago
I suppose this can depend on the context of the users. Personally, I've gone through the beginnings of MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat (the last of which I've uninstalled and never use). Having more than a decade of various types of social networking, I've "grown up" on what amounts to a more wordy, involved kind of interpersonal communication. The generation of people who are just turning 18, though, have grown up with more immediate forms of social networking. Snapchat, Secret, etc reign supreme in younger demographics. An interesting parallel is the concept of a meme. For people who were around for the growth of the meme, they're stories or actions. For younger folk, they're image macros.