Comment by m0zg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by m0zg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Facebook's only real "fault" is that the "wrong" person got elected president in the US. The rest is just a politically motivated pile-on with tenuous evidence IMO, which wouldn't even be a subject of "vast public discourse" if someone else won.

>> negative consequences of facebook use

Do those "academics" also research the positive consequences as well? I'm in touch with my high school and university friends to this day thanks to FB products. I value those friendships highly, but I now live on the other side of the globe, and I can't physically be there myself. My parents (and my wife's parents) are active users of WhatsApp and Instagram. My brother (who's also on the other side of the globe) communicates with me mostly via FB Messenger. I'd say my mental well-being benefits significantly from less isolation. I'd also say there are millions of other people like me, who can still easily keep in touch in spite of vast distances separating them from relatives and old friends.

Would alternatives exist if there was no FB? They likely would. But I don't have a problem with FB, as long as it's used moderately. I my view, however, it's a personal responsibility to moderate use. Part of being a functioning adult, so to speak.

The role of Facebook in events like the Rohingya persecutions is a lot harder to write off than opinions about US electoral results. [0] There is a good argument that Facebook--like many--failed to foresee the misuse of social networks but for business reasons then failed to act on that knowledge once it became more obvious.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo...

That's not an argument against FB per se. That's an argument against anything social-network-like in general, because there's nothing that makes FB uniquely suitable. If anything, because of its vast resources and investment in AI, FB is better positioned to respond to adversarial use.

>That's an argument against anything social-network-like in general, because there's nothing that makes FB uniquely suitable.

Then why did they choose FB when there are so many other group-chat type websites out there? I mean, Friendster is still around, or LinkedIn, or...

Probably because it simply has the biggest userbase.

Doesn’t that provide a rationale to promote many different social media networks instead of one big one that could be used for such nefarious purposes?

If they're not federated, I don't see how they are useful as "social networks". If they are federated, I don't see how having many of them would solve the problem.

Isn't that a quality that makes them "uniquely suitable?" I was trying to unwind GP's statement.

plenty of people have been talking about the negatives of facebook long before the 2016 election w.r.t privacy, mental health, and whether we actually benefit from having this kind of tool as part of our culture

There's no such thing as "our" culture as a homogenous, averaged mass. I benefit from FB. If you don't, that's fine, don't use it. But don't tell me what's best for _me_.

Cultures aren't homogenous, but there are things that are bad for communities but good for individuals. Successful thieves, for example. Pretty much any tragedy of the commons, really.

Is it so hard to extend those ideas from there?

>> there are things that are bad for communities but good for individuals

Non-sequitur. I don't agree that FB is necessarily "bad for communities" in the first place. Besides, _which_ communities specifically do you claim it is bad for, and do you have any supporting evidence? Vox and Buzzfeed are not evidence.

I encourage you to read the essay, and then also imagine your last paragraph with "cigarettes" instead of "FB."

Why would anyone read the essay titled "The case against Facebook" and hope to get a balanced view?

Because all persuasive essays are "unbalanced" and it cites a number of reputable sources? Because its argument is compelling, clearly stated, and its author clearly has no vested interest in the argument apart from his professional focus on public policy? Because limiting one's reading diet to "balanced views" will almost certainly foreclose most interesting writing on subjects of controversy?

If you stated reasons for your opinion instead of saying, there's a robust debate, and plenty of reason for there to be a debate, and let's be charitable, there's a debate, and did you see this correlation, and why don't you suffer the experience of reading this essay, written by a journalist hack to persuade Vox-reading plebes with a shoestring of an argument, then you'll understand, maybe you'd be a bit more persuasive.

Edit: Here are some citations to support my argument. Read all these and come back when you're done:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

[3] https://panasonic.jp/cns/pc/products/sv8c/

It's a strange assumption that a "balanced view" can't possibly be critical.

I understand your point of view, but honestly, this type of comparison makes no sense. Cigarettes are not good in any way.

You seem to very creative in coming up with flimsy excuses for facebook :)

Which other fault-free organizations can claim to have settled with the FTC for privacy abuses, had their CEO forced to testify in front of the US congress and be questioned in a case of election manipulation, facilitated genocide, purposefully manipulated people into feeling depressed and many others?

There's an entire book written about the tremendous negative effects of companies like facebook on society - surveilance capitalism.

When comparing all of the above with the benefit of allowing various average joes to stay in touch with their family, which can very well be done over e-mail, phone, or any of the gazillion other social networks, it makes the latter mean precisely nothing.

At this point facebook would have to literally cure cancer for them to make up for their negative effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com