Hacker News Reader

Comment by moretai | Hacker News Reader

Just get off facebook.

While it was "easy" for me to drop Facebook, I realize that for others it's harder. And not because "it's addicting" but rather for practical reasons.

My wife, who is still on Facebook uses it as a tool to coordinate social events, message teachers, stay in touch with family and even ask useful questions to specific groups. You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms, unless you want to A) piss people off and B) reduce your socialization dramatically. If I didn't have her, I'd probably be forced to be on Facebook, if only to support my kids social activities, and stay in touch with my immediate family.

Some content shared on Facebook still annoys her - stay-at-home moms posting about their purchases and political posts are her least favorite - but I have those same issues on Twitter and remain because she and I derive value from the service(s) despite this.

"You can't force everyone in your life to communicate on your terms..."

Isn't that what many people and groups on Facebook have done? Why feed that mentality?

People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with, as that signals that they don't think you're worth the extra effort. Email and telephone are still quite valid and effective means of communication.

It's not that they force you to use Facebook, you find that it's simply the most optimal way to communicate - to use Mark's own words it's "friction-less". Some people you will text, call, email and no response - message them on FB and bam, instant reply. I realize that's pretty f*cked up but it's useless to scold or hound them to respond to your other inquiries.

"People who will only communicate with you through Facebook are likely not worth communicating with"

Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh.

"Really? You're suggesting I cut people out of my life who want to communicate via Facebook over other mediums? Pretty harsh."

True. But I think Facebook's usefulness is outweighed by its disadvantages. It's an ever-watching anxiety machine: look at this latest atrocious news story, react to the asinine post an acquaintance has made about their life, respond to this event, post more because you haven't in a little while, watch this video about somebody having a life better than yours (or somebody having a horrible time, which may also happen to you, so watch out!), share your contact information for others so we may increase the webbing to keep you in our walled garden!

It's a need machine. It's the worst enabler-friend. It's not in a symbiotic relationship with you; it's parasitic. And IMO Facebook doesn't improve ones life; it merely facilitates using Facebook more and more often to do things that otherwise we either wouldn't do or wouldn't consider a real hassle.

Just like we stopped using AOL, myspace, yahoo and napster, facebook will go the way of the dodo sooner or later. People have short term memories. If there's one thing true of the internet, it's that everything slides into obsolesce at some point.. gopher, FTP, icq, geocities, irc and a long list of one massive sites and technologies that are now dead.

Idk about that. I used to say that, and some days still do, but Facebook is pretty exceptional in scope and how normalized it is.

It will eventually become something else or be replaced, but that may take awhile.

Yes. I'm getting tired of these articles complaining about Facebook when you can stop using it literally any minute.

Also, Grauniad is a terrible source of tech news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497

The point is not about "you" the HN reader, or you the poster, or me. The point is about all of the millions of users who are unaware, haven't read this article, are tech-illiterate, don't understand the psychology, etc.

You and I are completely insignificant in the face of this horde of people who are becoming increasingly vulnerable to subtle manipulation. That's the point of this article. A rising tide lifts all boats.

We're past the point where telling people to stop using the services would have any measurable effect.

That's actually a pretty dismissive comment. It may not have been your intention, but it reads like: "Oh, those poor commoners, who aren't as intelligent as us and can't see the truth that we can see! Why, they're using this terrible thing and they don't even know any better! The masses must be saved from themselves."

No, you're pretty close. I will nitpick that awareness has nothing to do with intelligence and I mentioned nothing about anyone's intelligence level. However, awareness doesn't guarantee compliance.

People were made aware that smoking causes cancer, vaccines do not cause autism, and that man-made production of CO2 was causing accelerated climate change. In each of those cases, there are experts in the field warning common people of the danger. In each of those cases, the experts observed that people didn't know about the dangers beforehand. In each of those cases, there are people who refute the claims of the experts or flat out do not care (I should note that plenty of intelligent people fall into this last category).

I expect this scenario will be no different.

I agree but wish the article was better written. This is for a general audience address those readers dont need huge digressions into zucks well known personal life, nor the etymology of the term algorithm and hacker.

This is an excerpt from a book. And it's not that the author dislikes having to use Facebook, but rather it's complex and nefarious interaction with society and the behaviours of its many willing users that is being decried. I'm all for grumbling, but I think a more specific directed kind of grumbling is appropriate for these comments.

You can, your friends/family won't, then you can be indirectly tracked.

Anyone who's not on Facebook has demonstrated their antisocial tendencies and needs to be even more carefully monitored.

I wonder if this will be seen as when people say "Just stop using drugs" to drug addicts. Facebook for those who use it can have immense real or imaginary utility; it's not as simple as telling someone not to use it, unless they are a very casual user and do not rely on it for things like organising group events.

Stopping the use of Facebook and transitioning to another method of organizing group events does not cause physical illness or death.

Gambling can be an addiction, but does not result in physical illness or death upon termination. Still, it can be highly addictive. Same goes for Facebook.

You're pigeonholing. Facebook is only part of the tapestry of social media poison.

Honestly, the sooner we can have a real discussion of the pros and cons of using Facebook and not using Facebook while everyone else around you continues, without ridiculous hyperbolic bullshit like "social media poison," the better.

You're right but I still wonder what will ever become of the idea of a "true" online social network.

Why do we have to hand over so much of ourselves in order to obtain social connection as a "side-effect" of the true business of social media operators like Facebook and Google? Are these companies the only way to have meaningful online social networks? I don't think it has to be that way, but I also can't fathom how a non-toxic social network can keep the lights on without selling stuff.

I see the big 4 as robber barons[1]. They see opportunity in millions and billions of dollars. The company doesn't care about the individual.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)

Of course they don't care about people. The social network that the members enjoy is merely a side-effect of the true business. Sort of like the fact that a cow pasture is not really about the cows' enjoyment but, when you get down to it, hamburgers. Amazingly most people are still as oblivious to this concept as cows are before becoming hamburgers.

What I am wondering about is the possibility of a social network that is deliberately and intentionally about being JUST a social network and NOT some kind of complex mechanism for market research and exploitation.

I think the obstacle there is momentum and critical mass. Nobody uses askjeeves.com because Google has mindshare.

If you were to build this hypothetical pure social media communication platform we'd still have to find it, it'd have to be funded, maintained, and improved. Even then it's useful only if you can get your network on it.

Money is the root of all evil and will pervade into whatever is next. It's only human nature.

You can see examples of this with https://diasporafoundation.org/ and https://gab.ai/ -> these platforms and ideas exist but they have a raindrop in a bucket of usershare.

I'm not an expert in this field but I think about it a lot. Thanks for discussion, HN.

Maybe we're all thinking about this in a way that's too constrained?

The theoretical dream of cyberspace, back in the 60-80's, before "the web" (as we know it) was that merely being "online" automatically put you in a global community: a place where distance no longer mattered, and where _all_ text is part of one giant hypertext. This was roughly the idea as described by Ted Nelson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nelson).

I think there's a way for this theoretical concept to be realized without dependence on exploitative commerce-oriented websites, and perhaps, without dependence on websites period. Unfortunately, I have no idea what that will be like in reality.

I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a couple of months now. I really like the idea of an open-source social network, maybe supported in part or in full by crowdfunding via something like Patreon. If the intention is connection rather than profit, you'd mostly just need to cover server/hosting fees. Of course, that's still not a cheap proposition.

But I'd rather have a small network focused on good connections than a large network focused on invading and selling user data, and maybe a smaller network could be managed by user contributions over investments that lead to treating users as the product.

Open source social networks already exist, for example GNU Social and Mastodon which form part of the Fediverse.

I'll look those two up - thanks for the tip!

You're thinking of physical dependency. Addiction is compulsive behavior despite adverse consequences.

Neither does stopping gambling.

Neither does the cessation of many addictive drugs, notably nicotine.

Some people are probably addicted to facebook, but for the vast majority I don't think your comparison is very good. In almost all cases you can switch to something different than facebook.

If all your friends are on Facebook: no, you really can't.

I haven't had a Facebook account for five years. I get by just fine by emailing or texting a friend when I want to get a hold of them.

Yes you can, I have friends whom for various reason don't have a Facebook or stopped using it/deleted it. People will adjust and instead we contact them by mail or phone. Perhaps it's a bit of a annoyance, but you are not kept prisoner.

I often get invited to events through Facebook. Without Facebook, I would miss out on a lot of events.

For this reason I'm basically stuck with Facebook, but I've unfollowed most of my friends, so this reduces the burden to some extent.

Are we talking about friends or acquaintances?

Because if ones friends forget to invite them to events because they are not on FB, then it’s time to find new friends.

While I tend to agree, it's a little like telling someone to just "find a better job"; it's not always so easy. Maybe some people are unfortunate enough to not have real friends, and shallow Facebook connections are all they have.

Even though the shallow connections take up time that could be spent forging more meaningful connections with those around them, not everyone is self-confident enough to go cold-turkey.

Definitely, for some people it’s easier said than done, but I think that’s a very small minority and not your average FB user?

Ask one of your friends to text you if there is an event going on. As an added bonus, you might get some honest interaction with your friend.

Just like you're not caught up in a literal prison when your proverbial student loan debt prison is due every month.

If your friends don't want to expend the effort to communicate with you via email, phone or other, non-Facebook means: they're not really your friends.

Depends on your definition of "friend", for sure!

When it comes to messaging I prefer XMPP with Omemo these days. There is Gajim for PC, Conversations for Android and ChatSecure for Apple.

Of course, many people don't want to change their habits and I think there is no need to push too hard. However, I convinced a friend of mine to try Gajim on PC and to my surprise he sticked with it and installed the Conversations App a few months later on his smartphone.

Of course, the network effect of FB is very real. So overall this anecdote doesn't really change anything. But I think it is import to remind ourselves every once in a while that there are people out there who are willing to change their habits. And some of these people, in turn, influence other people. It's unlikely that you start a trend but I think we should keep trying.

No it's pretty simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com