I'm not convinced. On the surface the connectivity seems good but I've seen it poison so many people into bubble-thinking that I think it's doing far more damage than good.
The difference now is that outsiders can observe the tribal thinking. Sure it's sad the Internet didn't deliver on the revolution of the 90s interms of bringing us all together; however, I think the idea of being connected to people is only going to increase in importance as the global workforce becomes more and more mobile and bonds become decoupled from geography. I don't think it'll be Facebook (at least in the model that exists today), but it's difficult to deny the massive demand for that kind of product that has been the fire driving the company forward.
In real life, social interactions expose you to people with different viewpoints and social decorum forces you to listen/engage for at least some modicum of time. You couldn't selectively ignore people when they were talking to you. If you behave like an asshole, people who disagree eventually stop interacting with you and you quickly notice that (negative feedback).
I'd also posit you're underestimating the value of a network of weak connections. This is especially true under the idea that most people will work some place different than where they grew up; reconnecting with friends that drift toward the same hub is a powerful tool.
[0] https://blog.acolyer.org/2018/03/07/investigating-ad-transpa...
Edit: See this for example: https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-clicks-shifting-to-paid
"For the ad-heavy non-local SERPs that we work in, paid ads are likely now earning nearly the same percentage of clicks as organic results — a staggering change"
I think it's reasonable to deny that Facebook does net good in the world. Facebook doesn't do any better than open-technology alternatives could offer, and it actively stifles alternatives.
yes we're all nasty and cynical and guess wath, turns out we were right all along, so pardon me if I'm not gonna cut them any slack.
I'm not really interested in having a value judgment discussion of Facebook here, but it really annoys me when people assume this. At least have an open mind enough where you can imagine someone thinking different from you. It really doesn't take that much imagination or empathy to see why some people view it as, yes, completely and totally a net-negative on the world, regardless of whether you specifically believe it or not; I think the good that facebook does do is both incidental and replaceable.
Besides, c'mon, how can you be "nasty" to a corporation? People publicly complaining is probably the only way this change happened in the first place.
OP wasn’t claiming that Facebook is a net positive for the world, just that it indisputably provides a valuable service for at least some people[0] and improving the privacy features is only a good thing. It’s unproductive and misguided to attack Facebook for this.
[0] https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/ex-flds-new-chapt...
Sometimes it seems like there is an underlying, unspoken presumption that no progress, no innovation making use of the internet could occur unless funding comes from exploiting data gathered from its use.
Sadly it has reached the point where some of that "progress" and "innovation" is simply in the mechanism for gathering more user data, unbeknownst to users. The beast is feeding itself. I have no interest in funding that, either directly or indirectly.