Hacker News Reader

Comment by rixrax | Hacker News Reader

Lawmakers should probably ban and break up FB as harmful, just like we do with some controlled substances and other things.

But the scary thought is that in this unlikely scenario (or in bankruptcy), what would happen to all the data they hoard? Sold to highest bidder maybe? Published under Creative Commons license?

#toomuchdatatofail?

View on HN

Nonsense. Why should the government ban Facebook? Unlike a lot of industries that consumers must use, Facebook is 100% optional. If you don't like what Facebook does, close your account and tell your friends to do the same. But if others want to use the services that Facebook offers, who are you to tell them that they can't?

So is using crack cocaine and meth. And somehow we chose to ban their use. And probably should tell our friends be highly suspicious of using them. This is age old conversation about how much government should protect people from themselves.

Because Facebook also harms non-users. It's worse than 2nd hand smoke. It's like the drug and the junkie at the same time. It's the drug to the users, but then it's the junkie that steals things from others to continue its habit to survive.

You must have drank some serious kool aid if you think that Facebook is worse than second hand smoke.

One of those can actually kill you.

I agree - passive smoking poses a much bigger and more direct threat to our health than Facebook, obviously - but Facebook is much more insidious, since at the very least you can stay away from smokers, and at least the dangers of smoking are well-known, but there is no escaping Facebook, and most people think it to be harmless.

But at some point, it becomes a basic requirement to participate in society, and that gives the people who want out an impossible choice, not by any virtue of the platform, but by the platform hijacking the virtue of society.[0]

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG0KrT6pBPk "Changing threats to privacy"

One of the problems with that is that the politicians are now dependant on facebook to promote themselves.

Where I live there is a ban on political ads on TV and I hope it's extended to facebook pages and general internet ads too. But since those in charge are addicted it's probably not going to happen until facebook shafts them directly in some way.

> But since those in charge are addicted it's probably not going to happen until facebook shafts them directly in some way.

I think the 2016 US presidential election actually started to do that: Democrats have become critical of Facebook due to Russian trolls and pro-Trump fake news, and Republicans have become critical due to the perception that "California liberals" may start deciding to suppress conservative idea on one of the widest-reaching mass media platforms.

Can we make Facebook a Schedule I narcotic? It's more addictive than marijuana. It's also taking plays out of the old tobacco playbook by working tirelessly to make it even more addictive. I'd rather see that than a bunch of Baby books that in a few decades all get bought back into the mothership again.

Nonsense. I quit it and didn’t miss it even for one day. Hacker news is far more addictive than Facebook.

That's great. I did as well. Some people can quit heroin, cigarettes, etc. Some people fall off the wagon and go back to bad habits. What's your point?

There is no evidence that Facebook is addictive. There is a difference between physical addiction and habit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com