They also do events pretty well. It's easy to invite people and most people my age have a neglected facebook account so you can usually find who you want to invite. You just have to make sure you don't miss seeing the event.
FB, PayPal, the bank all stopped the charges quickly enough, but it was 6 weeks of bullshit in the meantime.
People should have a score and be excluded from it based on their shit ghosting behavior and lack of follow though.
On the other hand, I'd been looking for a used car on FB Marketplace for about 3 years and couldn't find a single listing that seemed like it was from a legit owner (i.e. someone who wasn't selling a bunch of random cars parked on the street or a dealer posting fake prices).
However, they don't do social private groups well at all. For them it's all or nothing. Meetup, unfortunately, is still used for that.
They either force you to do all private events or all public and broadcasted events. Theres no way to maintain a community or a LUG on FB.
I've been working on an app inspired by challenges I had organizing hack nights and poker games. It's kind of a cross between Facebook events and Google Calendar, and allows you to send an invite link and send text updates. Would love to hear your thoughts!
I have to aggressively block all jokes (there were funny 1000 shares ago), memes (always stupid, but they seem insightful), politics (left and right wing extremism), cats (not your cat, I don't care), and other things people share that get in the way of the purpose of seeing what my friends and family are up to.
I think it is because so many people have low trust in Facebook. For years there has been a huge movement of people encouraging each other to lock down their FB account. So while they might keep an account to check in on old friends and family, they have set their profiles to be not searchable.
Those days are gone. People have moved from landlines to permanent cell numbers, so once you have someone's number, you always have it. Email addresses are gmail.com, outlook.com, etc. As with the phone number, once you have an email address, you always have it. Plus, with widespread cellphone usage and unlimited text messaging, it's low cost for both parties to send a quick text message to stay in touch.
Facebook's original source of popularity is now dead. Of course this does not imply that Facebook will disappear.
Instagram.... Whatsapp... FB marketplace...
I don't have a Facebook account (or Instagram or Whatsapp) but Facebook (Meta) is more than just Facebook. Maybe FB is just the product targeted toward older adults and grandparents now? That seems fine.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/03/aarp-backed-soci...
Ethically, morally, emotionally (empathy) - he's been pretty out of touch this whole time, not understanding the full breadth of consequences of his actions, and therefore not caring.
People get confused by the popular media depictions - sociopaths are just people with very little empathy and virtually no remorse. People who do tremendous harm are not sadistic cruel people, they’re often just boring people who have no empathy for others and show very little remorse or none at all when lying or engaging in deception - which is why it’s hard to tell they’re even lying - they don’t show the tells of self doubt and remorse that we use to detect deception.
As far as I know, Facebook has never innovated. It’s either bought or copied every single feature it’s ever implemented, with the exception of course of giant shameless data gathering on an industrial scale that has led to cognitive warfare being part of political battles in the West.
And now of course a huge increase in depression and mental illness due to poor incentives on their social media platforms. If Facebook/Instagram was a physical product that you would take, that lets say reduces anxiety temporarily but increases depression in the long run, it would likely be banned.
And of course they won’t fix anything because “reducing engagement” is a mortal sin for the company.
Sure there are paranoid delusional maniacs who sometimes lead them (and then you see the real damage). But a person with very low empathy can create enormous damage. I see them often working in finance in London and ignoring the second order effects of ie tax avoidance schemes for the super rich, or selling real estate to the Saudis while going with their friends to the local LGBT disco. They just don’t care.
Part of the whole origin story of TheFacebook that falls in line with this is that his university actually had a print version of a compilation of people's face - I presume like a yearbook - that they were planning to make an online version of; it was actually called The Facebook from my recollection, and another place Mark wasn't creative or innovative and took from as well.
Apparently they were taking a long time to make the site, Mark couldn't understand why. The reason? Apparently the group who was working on bringing the print version online were brainstorming through the potential consequences of doing so.
I remember reading about it many years ago online in one of the university's student newspapers, I think I remembered it correctly but my memory of it is a little fuzzy; I believe it'll be in one of these articles: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/tag/mark-zuckerberg/
I don't think the problem at Facebook/Meta is that it's a mortal sin to reduce engagement, I honestly think they just aren't creative enough and they don't understand from foundational principles why they have what they have, nor how to improve on it in a nuanced way.
As you said it's basically an industrial machine with very few wheels, where all of the basic or crude parts are in place, where their guide is the most basic-shallow metric possible is whether engagement goes up or down; where it's the network effects that kept it together for so long. Mark certainly isn't a creative visionary, and so with him at the helm, all of his decisions of who he empowers under him will be random as to whether they are beneficial or not - but logical decisions looking at user numbers and growth made purchases like WhatsApp and IG no brainers.
Interestingly, you are actually correct, in that the original meaning for sin is aim related - and so because of their lack of sophistication, the only thing they see or know how to aim at are engagement numbers. The sin will be by not aiming at the only thing they are good at aiming at, where they otherwise miss the mark - and sin; is it irony that his name is Mark and he's arguably been missing the mark this whole time - or perhaps a generous perspective is that he's really good at hitting one specific mark, the Mark? Anyway..
In contrast, Elon Musk functions creatively, an imaginative open mind, and has developed an understanding of first/foundational principles that he works from. Twitter will likely be a good buy once Elon re-lists it. I'll still be investing in my projects though.
I have been working on my own platform solution to solve for our society in crisis mode. It unexpectedly was a relief when Elon bought Twitter, as I am primarily driven by necessity. Elon will course correct Twitter away from the ideological and censorship bent platform it was becoming, so at least there's one major battleship on our side, funded by the person who most definitely has Fuck You money and competent to boot.
If he doesn’t have psychotic phases and how bipolar is not so strong, he can be a high performance individual but I think it’s something he will eventually have to take a look at.
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/elon-musk-admits-to-un...
I can’t tell nor would I diagnose someone I don’t know.
However - his current tweet storm has included imo a lot of Juveline type stuff. He also seems to be tweeting more than usual. - this matches with the impulsivity you’d feel in a manic phase. You’re also full of dopamine so you feel like you “can do anything”. This can lead to irresponsible behaviour and grandiose dreams that you feel “are totally possible”. - it’s possible he has a low-grade bipolar type mood swings. I had something like bipolar, but not quite, before I had my first psychotic episode. Very high highs and very low lows. Same as he’s described. I’m not sure if you can live your entire life this way, but it’s possible that it is and he’s a case. His behaviour certainly reminds me of my own previous to my outbreak. - one of the things that destroys you with bipolar and that they warn you about is compulsive buying. Your impulsive behaviour + money is the worst aspect of even a low manic phase, since you can easily blow all your money very quickly.
Looking at his purchase of twitter, his prolific tweeting, the way he’s acting in those tweets (juveline, impulsive) he really really reminds me of someone in a low-grade manic phase.
In a manic phase you are pumped full of absurd amounts of dopamine, so you have tremendous energy, you think you can do anything, you can fall into impulsive buying, and you are so led by impulse you can do a lot of irresponsible behaviour.
Him purchasing twitter reminds me of people who buy boats/homes in mania essentially. He doesn’t seem to have a master plan that I’ve heard about to turn it around. Even if he does have a master plan, his behaviour suggests mania to me.
Like I already said I can’t diagnose anyone, but his behaviour is so familiar I can’t help but wonder.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this, but I think there's more to Musk than this. He's incredibly intelligent, and has radically innovated in two industries (Space and EVs), but I don't think he has the maturity/emotional intelligence or societal vision that's needed for combatting the problems that Twitter (and social media) present to democratic societies.
I'm a massive fan of what he's achieved in many areas - and watch every Falcon 9 landing with the same child-like awe that I did the first one that nailed it, and I watched every Starship test live. But this is the same man who had a battle calling a cave rescuer a 'pedo guy' and I'd be surprised if Twitter goes in a direction which will benefit society in the way that EVs and making life interplanetary will do.
I can see where you are coming from with this, and I agree with the general premise, but I think about it a bit differently.
Twitter already had a few "mature" people with "emotional intelligence or societal vision" that ran it at different points in time, and yet here we are in Twitter's current state. Clearly something isn't working.
There is a non-zero possibility that someone like Elon (who is very unlike those previous people who ran twitter) might be exactly the right kind of a person to address the ailments of twitter and course-correct it. He could also fail miserably at it, but I think it is definitely worth a shot to find out.
I think a common misconception is that one’s morals and ethics prohibits them from doing not-socially acceptable actions. I don’t believe this to be true. Rather , I believe one might hesitate (and for all we know he might have) but if this incentive is greater than aligning with what’s commonly accepted as right, than I don’t see Mark’s actions as Sociopathic. It’s what I expect most people to do , especially in the business world.
Does it not have the same outcome that greed or excitement is overriding morality?
That's a very pessimistic view that you expect most people to function from a lack of conscience. You're probably not wrong that it's more common in the business world as well where there's more to gain. I used to think that too, still to some degree but I understand that most people's selfishness is give themself a comfortable amount.
I think maybe you're confusing my saying he's sociopathic with that it's malicious or with intent, which I don't believe Mark to have conscious or willful intent for harm behind his actions; and he's not a psychopath.
Yes but many things can override morality. I believe it all comes down to how strong you hold are to your morals. But I see your point and it’s probably the case.
> That's a very pessimistic view that you expect most people to function from a lack of conscience. You're probably not wrong that it's more common in the business world as well where there's more to gain. I used to think that too, still to some degree but I understand that most people's selfishness is give themself a comfortable amount.
I don’t think it’s a lack of conscience but moreso an overide of it. I think depending on the incentive a lot of people would overide their morals. Though maybe not most people. Idk.