3 ms·

"Sorry but comparing a dictatorship to Facebook is a little off, by any standards." Nope, you are confused about the difference between comparing and equating.

"Sorry but comparing a dictatorship to Facebook is a little off, by any standards." Nope, you are confused about the difference between comparing and equating. It is perfectly reasonable to compare an amoeba to an elephant, and to highlight similarities between the two (for example, both use DNA for genetic information), and the confusion is on your part if you think that therefore an amoeba weighs multiple tons. "Yes, there were several projects that opted for a decentralized version of Facebook and all of them failed to gain any traction. Why?" What do you think? You made the claim, it's not my job to provide the evidence. "What are the facts that are already happening related to Facebook that affect the populations?" Just read this thread for examples? The most obvious example: Some people who value their privacy are excluded from some parts of social life due to network effects/social pressure from facebook, even where the loss of privacy is not an inherent part of the respective activity. That's a loss for these people at the very least, and not unlikely to also be a disadvantage for society as a whole, if such people are effectively removed from the social fabric of society.

atmosx 12y ago
> Nope, you are confused about the difference between comparing and equating. You can compare Apple to Oranges, they are both fruits. You can compare Donald McDuck to an asteroid if you like. But that doesn't make it meaningful just because you said so. Same with a social network and a military state. > What do you think? You made the claim, it's not my job to provide the evidence. I didn't make a claim, I just stated the obvious. Any similar, privacy-oriented social network that has then less 10% of Facebook's adoption is obviously not doing well as a FB competitor. > Just read this thread for examples? The most obvious example: Some people who value their privacy are excluded from some parts of social life due to network effects/social pressure from facebook, even where the loss of privacy is not an inherent part of the respective activity. That's a loss for these people at the very least, and not unlikely to also be a disadvantage for society as a whole, if such people are effectively removed from the social fabric of society. I understand what you're saying, but you're whining about a choice because you don't like either outcome :-) ... That's a pretty much standard situation and applies to virtually anything I can think of.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
  "You can compare Donald McDuck to an asteroid if you like. But that doesn't make it meaningful just because you said so." Indeed. You may not have noticed that in order for a comparison to become meaningful, you have to point out the similarities that you think are relevant to your argument. Which is what I did with the externalities of a dictatorship and the externalities of a social network, but which you unfortunately failed to do for your comparison. "I didn't make a claim, I just stated the obvious." You very much made the claim that "I can say that if Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook in ~ 2004, it would have been invented by now, [...]". Given that I question that claim, it's obviously pointless to then just claim that it's obvious. If I thought it was obvious, I probably would not have questioned it. "Any similar, privacy-oriented social network that has then less 10% of Facebook's adoption is obviously not doing well as a FB competitor." Sure, and now, please demonstrate that there was no reasonably reachable path that would have led to a different outcome. Before you answer, please read and understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect . "I understand what you're saying, but you're whining about a choice because you don't like either outcome :-) ... That's a pretty much standard situation and applies to virtually anything I can think of." Your point being? Something that's bad becomes good if you (supposedly) can't change it?

atmosx 12y ago

> Nope, you are confused about the difference between comparing and equating. You can compare Apple to Oranges, they are both fruits. You can compare Donald McDuck to an asteroid if you like. But that doesn't make it meaningful just because you said so. Same with a social network and a military state. > What do you think? You made the claim, it's not my job to provide the evidence. I didn't make a claim, I just stated the obvious. Any similar, privacy-oriented social network that has then less 10% of Facebook's adoption is obviously not doing well as a FB competitor. > Just read this thread for examples? The most obvious example: Some people who value their privacy are excluded from some parts of social life due to network effects/social pressure from facebook, even where the loss of privacy is not an inherent part of the respective activity. That's a loss for these people at the very least, and not unlikely to also be a disadvantage for society as a whole, if such people are effectively removed from the social fabric of society. I understand what you're saying, but you're whining about a choice because you don't like either outcome :-) ... That's a pretty much standard situation and applies to virtually anything I can think of.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
"You can compare Donald McDuck to an asteroid if you like. But that doesn't make it meaningful just because you said so." Indeed. You may not have noticed that in order for a comparison to become meaningful, you have to point out the similarities that you think are relevant to your argument. Which is what I did with the externalities of a dictatorship and the externalities of a social network, but which you unfortunately failed to do for your comparison. "I didn't make a claim, I just stated the obvious." You very much made the claim that "I can say that if Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook in ~ 2004, it would have been invented by now, [...]". Given that I question that claim, it's obviously pointless to then just claim that it's obvious. If I thought it was obvious, I probably would not have questioned it. "Any similar, privacy-oriented social network that has then less 10% of Facebook's adoption is obviously not doing well as a FB competitor." Sure, and now, please demonstrate that there was no reasonably reachable path that would have led to a different outcome. Before you answer, please read and understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect . "I understand what you're saying, but you're whining about a choice because you don't like either outcome :-) ... That's a pretty much standard situation and applies to virtually anything I can think of." Your point being? Something that's bad becomes good if you (supposedly) can't change it?