Hacker News Reader

"Facebook is definitely not the company you want operating the world's social infrastructure."

I couldn't agree more. It's too bad that I was never able to get anyone to believe me when I pointed this out at the very beginning, but I'm glad people seem to be paying attention now.

Wasn't it Cardinal Richelieu who said "Never write a letter and never destroy one." ? :-)

It isn't about the platform, you are completely missing that. Not about Ayn Rand's "amorality" defining SV, which didn't even work out for herself. Those are just a lowly technical tools and excuses.

As you say, it is about the age-old money and power. There is nothing social about those, except for being a substrate to create the two for the "amoral" without deep social and ethical level.

http://robotmonkeys.net/2011/06/27/pandoras-vox/

I think comparing Facebook to having access to water or power is a bit of a reach.

I don't think he's comparing FB to water, he's comparing social networking/communication/connection to water. Facebook would then be the utility company, with a de facto monopoly, but no check on its power. (Personally I think competition is the check, and I'm on team Google.)

I don't think he's saying Facebook is like water. I think he's saying facebook is NOT like a stable utility like water or power.

From the top-level comment: "this is very basic and very global stuff, similar to water or power, and you shouldn't have to question its integrity."

So yes, unless my English fails me, he is indeed saying that social networking is (or should be) like a utility.

I believe he means in terms of it being a platform for development. So for instance as a platform for development it might be compared to a utility in which case you wouldn't expect the people that run your water or electric to shut those off because some manager at the plant was playing god. Whereas in Facebook's case this apparently has the potential to happen. Making Facebook a not so attractive platform.

Well he's saying it should be like a utility, but it isn't.

For me a better comparison is emails. Social content should be produced and consumed with the tool of your choice, like emails. cf http://www.douban.com/note/174513094/

It is a metaphorical comparison. I believe he is saying FB has become so ubiquitous and pervasive in our lives, that in the social media it dominates as a fundamental utility. It has become so important to 100's of millions of people and that there is little recourse if you did not want to use them. and yes there is Google plus, but there is not enough people on that service currently to rival the social interactions of Facebook. And regardless of how well a service is designed it is pointless if you can't have the same level of interaction with other people. I think a better comparison would be the monopoly AT&T had over long distance telephone service in the mid-20th century. It was not as essential to living as water or power was but still seen as a monopoly and was broken up into the Baby Bells. I think Facebook falls in that category while you can definitely live your life without it, it has become the de facto place for social interaction. That being the case, you should not have to worry about the integrity or perhaps the malicious behavior of said company.

don't you ever question the strange phenomenon of these giant inhuman corporations manipulating us to the point where we choose one as a team, adopting our allegiance to them as an salient feature of our identity?

they don't give a fuck about us, at all - by definition, they are incapable of doing so.

Facebook is water for your business if your business is Facebook applications.

If you have access to your friends, you can get water and power. It doesn't work the other way around.

the thing - Facebook - has been dirty from its very start

"But anyway, that's a whole 'nother subject, and I'd rather be coding (or socializing!) than writing."

What you wrote here is insightful and well put. I hope you write more.

    There's a reason these guys don't call themselves a 
    "social utility" anymore... But anyway, that's a whole    
    'nother subject

I am reposting my comment on Google+ as it seems relevant to the point raised here:

"""Social networking has two vital utilities. First, it connects people of different geographical locations but of similar interests. The graph of people connected by shared interests is called the interest graph.

Secondly, it enriches existing real life relationships. This is best described within the pre-Facebook era, the era of blogging. At that point, whenever I read a friend's blog, I was always amazed by how much I don't know about him or her. A blog captures something very different about a person, something one can't comprehend even through face to face conversation. In this sense, online social networking is complementing real life social interaction.

In my vision, social networks of the future will continue to push to the limit on each of these fronts. The interest graph is apparently nowhere near complete, and there are opportunities to look for in what is missing through face to face communication, and how software can help with that.

But what Facebook has been doing is much more pervasive than that. They are partly replacing real life interaction. There are less questions to ask of a person as Facebook already shows you whether she has a boyfriend and which bar she went to last night. They are exploiting the narcissism in each and every of us. Every other social network solves a problem and then stays out of our ways. Facebook is trying to become the social life itself."""

I didn't get what you mean by 'not web-scale'

i guess his point was that the reason the web works at all, or tcp/ip, or email, or any of the really successful platforms - is because of certain contracts of openness and (essentially) fair play that are built into the very structure of how they are built.

this openness allows them to scale to that level and without it you can't get to truly global scale.

Please re-read the line, there is a but before "on a deep social and ethical level, Facebook and its platform are not web-scale".

I think he meant for any company to be web-scale there are other sides of the story included too - having big, distributed data centers alone is not sufficient. There is a thing called "privacy" and "trust" which would scale throughout the internet, for which Facebook never had serious concerns, IMO.

I think he means that gatekeepers are a step down from the web, which is not censored.