Facebook – You are the Product(lrb.co.uk)
lrb.co.uk
Facebook – You are the Product
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product
312 comments
So tell me, how do i replace around 5 different group chats i have on messenger which can have anywhere between 5-10 people in each chat?
Music events that i go to are exclusively promoted on facebook. How do you recommend i find out about these events so that i can get a cheaper ticket price?
if anyone wants to organize a plan that has more than 8 people, facebook groups make it much much easier.
I personally hate facebook's mobile apps and some it's policies ( Internet.org comes 1st to my mind), but it's hard to completely stop using it.
Music events that i go to are exclusively promoted on facebook. How do you recommend i find out about these events so that i can get a cheaper ticket price?
if anyone wants to organize a plan that has more than 8 people, facebook groups make it much much easier.
I personally hate facebook's mobile apps and some it's policies ( Internet.org comes 1st to my mind), but it's hard to completely stop using it.
I stopped using the harmful part of Facebook, ie the newsfeed, which is designed to create an addictive behaviour, using the following technique. On every single post in my newsfeed, I tell the application I no longer want to see content from the source. It takes some weeks to dry up, but you end up with an empty page. You still get notifications related to your events, group activities, and you can still use the messages. By the way, here's another tip, if you want to read and send messages on mobile without installing the app: use mbasic.fb.com instead of the default m.facebook.com URL.
I also adopted a similar approach, where I unfollowed ALL my firends so that none of them will show up in newsfeed.
Then I added the few ones I truly wanted to know about to the "Close friends" list which allows you to activate notifications for everything they post.
Now when I log in I only see a bunch of notifications which have a very handy "Mark all as read" link, and I only click further when I see a non-meme status update or an interesting share from them.
I can always search someone and go to their profile, or click on a firend list and see what certain group is up to. And I still find messenger useful, except for the forced "Add to your day" part, from which I daily hide any friends "day" as they post it without opening it (hold click to show that option). I'm about 1 year like this and it has been great, don't feel like I'm missing anything.
Then I added the few ones I truly wanted to know about to the "Close friends" list which allows you to activate notifications for everything they post.
Now when I log in I only see a bunch of notifications which have a very handy "Mark all as read" link, and I only click further when I see a non-meme status update or an interesting share from them.
I can always search someone and go to their profile, or click on a firend list and see what certain group is up to. And I still find messenger useful, except for the forced "Add to your day" part, from which I daily hide any friends "day" as they post it without opening it (hold click to show that option). I'm about 1 year like this and it has been great, don't feel like I'm missing anything.
This is similar to what I did too but the newsfeed is still polluted with lots of "likes" (e.g. liking a page, liking a post) by my close friends which are irrelevant to me 99% of the time. I wish Facebook let me hide "likes" from my friends.
If it really bothers you, a simple Greasemonkey script can fix that.
Or just don't visit the newsfeed ever.
There are dozens of browser extensions that just hide the newsfeed. No need to go through all that labor.
Make Hacker News Your Facebook Newsfeed
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755217
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14755217
I made one for Firefox on Android (should work on iOS too).
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-mobile-f...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-mobile-f...
Relying on extensions on every browser on every browser I use seems cumbersome? I've unfollowed everything and everyone, and it works on every device without extension. There was a way to batch this.
this is really cool!
FWIW - mbasic.fb.com does not work. But mbasic.facebook.com does.
FWIW - mbasic.fb.com does not work. But mbasic.facebook.com does.
You don't need to do that. Simply use Adblock to block the newsfeed element (the infinite-scroll column in the middle of the page).
I achieved this by unfollowing everyone and changing my browser bookmark to my most commonly used group. I never visit the news feed anymore because there's nothing on it besides adverts.
It's not that hard, you've just forgotten how to do these things without Facebook.
>I personally hate facebook's mobile apps and some it's policies ( Internet.org comes 1st to my mind), but it's hard to completely stop using it.
Try it! Deactivate your account for a week. Do it again later for two weeks. Maybe for a month. When you learn how to live without it, delete it.
>I personally hate facebook's mobile apps and some it's policies ( Internet.org comes 1st to my mind), but it's hard to completely stop using it.
Try it! Deactivate your account for a week. Do it again later for two weeks. Maybe for a month. When you learn how to live without it, delete it.
> It's not that hard, you've just forgotten how to do these things without Facebook.
This doesn't work because the world has changed since Facebook didn't exist. Now that it does, some forms of social interaction that existed outside of FB now only exist on FB.
I have friends with whom FB is the only form of communication with them, and many more friends with whom FB is easily the primary form. You can't singlehandedly convince all of your friends to move off FB and onto a better platform. Especially since most of these friendships are kinda small.
I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.
We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know". Does it seem so easy now?
This doesn't work because the world has changed since Facebook didn't exist. Now that it does, some forms of social interaction that existed outside of FB now only exist on FB.
I have friends with whom FB is the only form of communication with them, and many more friends with whom FB is easily the primary form. You can't singlehandedly convince all of your friends to move off FB and onto a better platform. Especially since most of these friendships are kinda small.
I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.
We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know". Does it seem so easy now?
You can and should ask your friends to adapt if FB is the only form of communication they will have with you.
First off, you're doing a terrible thing to yourself by framing it as if you have only two choices: Become FB's product or become ostracised from your social circle. The latter is a deeply-ingrained biological fear, back in our tribal hunter/gather days, this basically meant death. Advertising has been abusing this biological behavioural function since the early 80's[0] but Facebook is going to extremes by actually invading and parasitising off our current social fabric, rather than just promising a "cool" lifestyle on top, like branding does.
In addition, by letting your friends do this, you are normalising the idea of "FB as only form of communication" for everybody else, too! There's so many people out there who would love to stop using FB that won't because they, like you, deeply fear being ostracised. More than you think (you won't find them on FB). If you feel that, just maybe, a single mega-corporation shouldn't be able to do this to more than 25% of all people in the whole wide world[1], then just maybe it's worth it to take a tiny bit of a stance and have a firm talk with your friends about this abuse, no?
Then there's people that I've seen (on here) crying, "you seem to have it easy, apparently your friends+family will accept this and you have time to find other means of communication but I live far away from home and have no time, and I would be so incredibly lonely if I'd stop doing FB". If you really, really feel that way, here's a big, fat yell-out-loud piece of advice: YOU ARE ALREADY LONELY. BEING A FB USER JUST OBSCURES THIS FACT. START TAKING ACTION TO FIX THIS IN A HEALTHY WAY. You're a user, and your social network consists of users (even if many of them seem to do fine). Ask any ex-addict what that's worth.
Finally, some of my friends have gone through hard times. Money, mental health, bad times. Sometimes they drop off the radar. Damage or lose their phone, disconnect from the social networks because of anxiety, shame or worries. These are the people that need their (real) social networks the most. I (and some of my friends with me) always make a point of SMS texting them about social stuff, keeping them in the loop, hangouts going on, once I realise they no longer read a certain group-chat. Even if they don't reply 4 out of 5 times, you will find they are super-grateful the fifth time. If you love them, keep an eye out for them. And even if you don't know anyone in this kind of situation, somebody you know probably does, so for their sake, start normalising the idea of keeping people in the loop whether they are on FB or not! (same goes for other networks/means of communication, but FB is extra bad because of its ubiquity and it's actively exploiting our human behaviour in a manner that is harmful to many individuals--while to groups appearing fine).
> I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.
Except for pointing out the fact that last line is false and this fade in/out of friendships really does happen whether you're on FB or not, I'm just going to repeat: Ask any ex-addict. There's a lot of subtle nuances and facets to this fear of losing touch with certain people or potential future social contacts if you'd really really stop being a user. Be sure to ask one instead of assuming you know what they'll tell you. If you think you don't know any ex-addicts, try asking about alcohol.
> We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know".
But are you really. How can you even say you're interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know if that interaction is forcefully mediated through a singular channel of communication and you openly admit you're unable to really connect with them otherwise.
> Does it seem so easy now?
Face it, what seems hard is actually interacting with these people more, in a way that does not involve using FB together. It's that corporate-manufactured addictiveness talking. Just like the trying-to-quit alcoholic, finding it hard to expand their interaction with their friends to include things that do not involve consuming alcohol, getting pulled back in again every time.
And if you're that far in, you have my compassion. Because that is hard. It starts with facing the facts and not making excuses, it is your social responsibility.
On the bright side, working to expand your interaction with those you care about outside FB, is wholesome and fun. Chances are you might even reconnect with someone you haven't spoken in 5 years.
[0] Naomi Klein, No Logo. With the rise of "branding", advertising shifted from "this is our product" and "it's better because it has Y" towards associating the product with a lifestyle, a social group often entirely unrelated to the product (Coca-Cola being the classic example, having gone through many lifestyle-guises, none of which having to do with consuming carbonated sugary chemical sludge).
[1] 26.1% at time of posting, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(facebook+users)/(worl...
First off, you're doing a terrible thing to yourself by framing it as if you have only two choices: Become FB's product or become ostracised from your social circle. The latter is a deeply-ingrained biological fear, back in our tribal hunter/gather days, this basically meant death. Advertising has been abusing this biological behavioural function since the early 80's[0] but Facebook is going to extremes by actually invading and parasitising off our current social fabric, rather than just promising a "cool" lifestyle on top, like branding does.
In addition, by letting your friends do this, you are normalising the idea of "FB as only form of communication" for everybody else, too! There's so many people out there who would love to stop using FB that won't because they, like you, deeply fear being ostracised. More than you think (you won't find them on FB). If you feel that, just maybe, a single mega-corporation shouldn't be able to do this to more than 25% of all people in the whole wide world[1], then just maybe it's worth it to take a tiny bit of a stance and have a firm talk with your friends about this abuse, no?
Then there's people that I've seen (on here) crying, "you seem to have it easy, apparently your friends+family will accept this and you have time to find other means of communication but I live far away from home and have no time, and I would be so incredibly lonely if I'd stop doing FB". If you really, really feel that way, here's a big, fat yell-out-loud piece of advice: YOU ARE ALREADY LONELY. BEING A FB USER JUST OBSCURES THIS FACT. START TAKING ACTION TO FIX THIS IN A HEALTHY WAY. You're a user, and your social network consists of users (even if many of them seem to do fine). Ask any ex-addict what that's worth.
Finally, some of my friends have gone through hard times. Money, mental health, bad times. Sometimes they drop off the radar. Damage or lose their phone, disconnect from the social networks because of anxiety, shame or worries. These are the people that need their (real) social networks the most. I (and some of my friends with me) always make a point of SMS texting them about social stuff, keeping them in the loop, hangouts going on, once I realise they no longer read a certain group-chat. Even if they don't reply 4 out of 5 times, you will find they are super-grateful the fifth time. If you love them, keep an eye out for them. And even if you don't know anyone in this kind of situation, somebody you know probably does, so for their sake, start normalising the idea of keeping people in the loop whether they are on FB or not! (same goes for other networks/means of communication, but FB is extra bad because of its ubiquity and it's actively exploiting our human behaviour in a manner that is harmful to many individuals--while to groups appearing fine).
> I've often seen the argument "well if they aren't meaningful friendships, it doesn't matter" but that's just not practical. Sometimes you'll reconnect with someone who you haven't spoken with in 5 years - that's occasionally how friendships work. Friendships aren't permanent and steady in intensity: they sometimes fade in and out. Quitting FB obliterates all those transient and potential future friendships.
Except for pointing out the fact that last line is false and this fade in/out of friendships really does happen whether you're on FB or not, I'm just going to repeat: Ask any ex-addict. There's a lot of subtle nuances and facets to this fear of losing touch with certain people or potential future social contacts if you'd really really stop being a user. Be sure to ask one instead of assuming you know what they'll tell you. If you think you don't know any ex-addicts, try asking about alcohol.
> We can reduce you saying "When you learn how to live without it" to you saying "When you learn how to live without interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know".
But are you really. How can you even say you're interacting with a decent chunk of people that you know if that interaction is forcefully mediated through a singular channel of communication and you openly admit you're unable to really connect with them otherwise.
> Does it seem so easy now?
Face it, what seems hard is actually interacting with these people more, in a way that does not involve using FB together. It's that corporate-manufactured addictiveness talking. Just like the trying-to-quit alcoholic, finding it hard to expand their interaction with their friends to include things that do not involve consuming alcohol, getting pulled back in again every time.
And if you're that far in, you have my compassion. Because that is hard. It starts with facing the facts and not making excuses, it is your social responsibility.
On the bright side, working to expand your interaction with those you care about outside FB, is wholesome and fun. Chances are you might even reconnect with someone you haven't spoken in 5 years.
[0] Naomi Klein, No Logo. With the rise of "branding", advertising shifted from "this is our product" and "it's better because it has Y" towards associating the product with a lifestyle, a social group often entirely unrelated to the product (Coca-Cola being the classic example, having gone through many lifestyle-guises, none of which having to do with consuming carbonated sugary chemical sludge).
[1] 26.1% at time of posting, https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(facebook+users)/(worl...
Unfortunately I believe you have missed what I was trying to say and went on a very long post against something that doesn't have anything to do with how I use FB. Your post was fun and interesting to read, I- it- I- just... it's almost as if you responded to a completely different post.
To recap, I have a bunch of friendships that are so minor that I only have contact with them on FB. They're not serious enough to demand the other person to move off FB. (We're talking about "I randomly like one of there posts every few months" minor.) They may become more serious in the future due to the ephemeral nature of friendships. Leaving FB would sever those friendships before they get to that stage.
Hopefully that makes sense!
To recap, I have a bunch of friendships that are so minor that I only have contact with them on FB. They're not serious enough to demand the other person to move off FB. (We're talking about "I randomly like one of there posts every few months" minor.) They may become more serious in the future due to the ephemeral nature of friendships. Leaving FB would sever those friendships before they get to that stage.
Hopefully that makes sense!
This is a painfully simplistic response.
No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.
And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.
No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.
And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.
I don't use FB at all, and haven't, ever. I'm a part of two groups that do most of their business on FB, in an official role in one of them. I don't miss anything important, and find it beneficial that I miss the rest[1].
I've refused to be blackmailed into Facebook use by my family, so there's zero chance a friend or associate will get away with it. If people can't be arsed to email me about something they consider significant, I don't have time for them either.
FOMO is a condition that happens in your head, as is how you let your peers treat you. It is within your power to deal with it.
[1] I don't discount that informal bonding, chit-chat, etc.; it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, group formation, etc. I prefer the in-person sort, and for virtual, there's a whole internet out there that is not FB.
I've refused to be blackmailed into Facebook use by my family, so there's zero chance a friend or associate will get away with it. If people can't be arsed to email me about something they consider significant, I don't have time for them either.
FOMO is a condition that happens in your head, as is how you let your peers treat you. It is within your power to deal with it.
[1] I don't discount that informal bonding, chit-chat, etc.; it is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, group formation, etc. I prefer the in-person sort, and for virtual, there's a whole internet out there that is not FB.
> And that, in fact, _does_ makes it hard to avoid using facebook without being left out.
I think you might mean _fear_ of being left out...friends will find other ways to contact you.
I think you might mean _fear_ of being left out...friends will find other ways to contact you.
Or not. Maybe they just decide it's not worth the hassle of tracking down the outliers. I guess we can argue that anybody who's a real friend will message you using your preferred comm, though that cuts both ways. If you are a real friend, you'd message them back with their preferred system.
Email is a system which you can assume virtually 100% of users have and doesn't force users to participate in a social network that has been shown to be harmful for a lot of users.
Further email doesn't force you to participate in any particular service at all because it is a federated service.
Assuming that someone should get a facebook to talk to you is like assuming someone should switch to sprint to call you.
Imagine how moronic the world would be if all the different phone networks were disconnected from one another.
Further email doesn't force you to participate in any particular service at all because it is a federated service.
Assuming that someone should get a facebook to talk to you is like assuming someone should switch to sprint to call you.
Imagine how moronic the world would be if all the different phone networks were disconnected from one another.
Regardless of the morality, weirdness or absurdness, that ship has sailed. Many, many groups only use facebook, and if you want to be a part of them, you have to as well.
I agree it is suboptimal, and whether or not it is worth the tradeoff is an individual decision, but that is the world we live in.
The group level is where most of the rubber meets the road here.
I agree it is suboptimal, and whether or not it is worth the tradeoff is an individual decision, but that is the world we live in.
The group level is where most of the rubber meets the road here.
I bet most teens do not use email for anything except work stuff.
I work at a youth centre. The teens I know really have the widest range of options of contacting each other. They use FB mostly for school and family. Email is used mainly for sending documents or attachments.
If they're hard to reach it's because they chose to, not because you're using the wrong comm channel :)
If they're hard to reach it's because they chose to, not because you're using the wrong comm channel :)
How is your guess about other people useful info?
How is the parent comment's guess about 100% of people having email useful?
That it is true, and a communication system?
But if many don't use email much, how does it help? I barely check my personal email. And no one in my normal life knows my business email. Once in while a family member or friend will send something unimportant via email. Either I never see it. Or I see it a week or month afterward. My career relates strongly to the internet too.
I would estimate at most 10% of my Facebook friends have the same email address today that they had on the day we connected.
Huh? "Preferred" doesn't cut both ways. It never does, unless it's a shared preference. Using any shared method of communication to contact each other is what real friends do.
Also a group that "just decides" outliers are not worth the hassle, are not friends. They seriously are not. Friend groups are pretty much defined as the sort of groups that do not do this. Except in cases of grave social misconduct, often destroying the "group" or "friend" aspect in the process.
They are a group, yes. And indeed, some groups will sometimes just decide to ostracise outliers if it conflicts with the group identity. Nothing inherently wrong with that, btw, this can be very useful for certain types of group. As long as it doesn't become the main type of group you identify with. Because then, as we see from all the people making excuses all over this thread, not adhering to certain rules of the group-identity becomes an existential fear of epic proportions, because it touches upon a very fundamental behavioural aspect of our biology--fear of being cast out of the tribe (which used to mean suffering followed by near-certain death).
Facebook is currently exploiting this behavioural trigger (together with an addictive cocktail of other triggers) in a quarter of the world's population.
Also a group that "just decides" outliers are not worth the hassle, are not friends. They seriously are not. Friend groups are pretty much defined as the sort of groups that do not do this. Except in cases of grave social misconduct, often destroying the "group" or "friend" aspect in the process.
They are a group, yes. And indeed, some groups will sometimes just decide to ostracise outliers if it conflicts with the group identity. Nothing inherently wrong with that, btw, this can be very useful for certain types of group. As long as it doesn't become the main type of group you identify with. Because then, as we see from all the people making excuses all over this thread, not adhering to certain rules of the group-identity becomes an existential fear of epic proportions, because it touches upon a very fundamental behavioural aspect of our biology--fear of being cast out of the tribe (which used to mean suffering followed by near-certain death).
Facebook is currently exploiting this behavioural trigger (together with an addictive cocktail of other triggers) in a quarter of the world's population.
If you’re considered an outlier then you should probably start finding new friends.
Generally back when I used facebook the cloests friends I had had 0 interaction on facebook and we usually just direct message through messenger or imessage.
Fscebook at that time was just for maintaining those “outlier” relationships until I realized its better to have closer bonds with fewer people.
Generally back when I used facebook the cloests friends I had had 0 interaction on facebook and we usually just direct message through messenger or imessage.
Fscebook at that time was just for maintaining those “outlier” relationships until I realized its better to have closer bonds with fewer people.
I don't think this is true. We always have that moment at parties, "Where's Kyle? Oh shit, he deleted his facebook and didn't see the invite, did anybody text him to tell him?!" No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.
Those aren't your friends buddy.
>No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.
My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.
>No, we didn't, because 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook.
My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.
And here we see the mismatch between the two camps:
Sure, [good|strong|old|pick your adjective] friends will contact you regardless of your facebook involvement.
But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?
If I live on a mountain, 1,000 miles from everyone, people--even my friends--don't invite me to their parties because they don't think I'm available. I have isolated myself, and people take social cues from that. People also take clues from social isolation.
I'm reminded of when I set my mother up for email. She really didn't think she needed it or would want it, "Getting a stamp just isn't that hard." But the fact of the matter is that the lower friction method of communication enabled her to be in contact with many, many more people. Facebook is even lower friction than that.
"Those aren't your friends" ignores too many realities of life.
Sure, [good|strong|old|pick your adjective] friends will contact you regardless of your facebook involvement.
But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?
If I live on a mountain, 1,000 miles from everyone, people--even my friends--don't invite me to their parties because they don't think I'm available. I have isolated myself, and people take social cues from that. People also take clues from social isolation.
I'm reminded of when I set my mother up for email. She really didn't think she needed it or would want it, "Getting a stamp just isn't that hard." But the fact of the matter is that the lower friction method of communication enabled her to be in contact with many, many more people. Facebook is even lower friction than that.
"Those aren't your friends" ignores too many realities of life.
> And even so, why would you put the extra burden on your friends to contact you in a special way? Why wouldn't you make it easy for them to contact you?
Texting is just as easy as facebook messaging. Or they can use discord, slack, etc etc. facebook isn't the only way to contact someone that is easy.
> But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
Maybe this is because I grew an introvert, but I can deal with being by myself as well as most of my friends. Going to events, etc isn't a must have. It's something that you can do if you want too. If I want to go hang out, then I will contact people. I will make it easy for them to say yes/no/no response. But I don't have to be apart of every group meeting, or every little discussion.
Texting is just as easy as facebook messaging. Or they can use discord, slack, etc etc. facebook isn't the only way to contact someone that is easy.
> But there are plenty of acquaintances, groups, events and whatnot that only get organized or contacted on facebook.
Maybe this is because I grew an introvert, but I can deal with being by myself as well as most of my friends. Going to events, etc isn't a must have. It's something that you can do if you want too. If I want to go hang out, then I will contact people. I will make it easy for them to say yes/no/no response. But I don't have to be apart of every group meeting, or every little discussion.
This is again an argument that the tradeoff is worth it, not that it is easy.
Trade that off if you like, not not everyone does.
Trade that off if you like, not not everyone does.
So what am I trading here?
Facebook vs having acquaintances?
Facebook vs having acquaintances?
Addiction versus having to put up with people defending their addiction as a "social habit".
It's like smoking in the 80s, with the ostracism turned up to 11.
The good news being, what seemed impossible then, we slowly seem to be winning the tide against smoking. Speaking as a (currently..) ex-smoker. If you remember we used to be allowed to smoke in restaurants (I can hardly believe it myself, sometimes), how the consensus felt back then, there is hope :)
It's like smoking in the 80s, with the ostracism turned up to 11.
The good news being, what seemed impossible then, we slowly seem to be winning the tide against smoking. Speaking as a (currently..) ex-smoker. If you remember we used to be allowed to smoke in restaurants (I can hardly believe it myself, sometimes), how the consensus felt back then, there is hope :)
How is email even remotely comparable to FB use?
It's not even addictive.
This is like saying you taught your mother to enjoy mint-flavoured soda water ("a glass of water is just as good for thirst") ... as a way to defend having to drink alcohol to feel accepted by your friends.
Oh and in a lot of cases, the fear is not even real, you just believe you need FB. Your friends might just surprise you yet.
It's not even addictive.
This is like saying you taught your mother to enjoy mint-flavoured soda water ("a glass of water is just as good for thirst") ... as a way to defend having to drink alcohol to feel accepted by your friends.
Oh and in a lot of cases, the fear is not even real, you just believe you need FB. Your friends might just surprise you yet.
Everyone has an email. You are comparing opening a different app on your phone which requires you to move your finger an inch to a 1000 mile trek.
Anyone who can't move their finger an inch to click on a different ubiquitous app to contact you isn't your friend regardless of what you think.
Anyone who can't move their finger an inch to click on a different ubiquitous app to contact you isn't your friend regardless of what you think.
It isn't just moving your finger an inch. It's contacting you differently than they contact literally every one else in their social circle.
And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't. Your ability to judge from several paragraphs of my writing and nothing more is pretty impressive.
The things I missed weren't really, my friends exactly, but rather broad groups with common interests.
If one doesn't hang out where everyone else does, you can't expect people to invite you when they look at each other and say, "Let's go somewhere."
And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't. Your ability to judge from several paragraphs of my writing and nothing more is pretty impressive.
The things I missed weren't really, my friends exactly, but rather broad groups with common interests.
If one doesn't hang out where everyone else does, you can't expect people to invite you when they look at each other and say, "Let's go somewhere."
> And thanks for the incredible insight into who is my friend and who isn't.
Read it again. He's not actually saying that.
Buddy I'm pretty sure it is your inability to judge just how many of your friends would still take the effort to reach out to you if you were to quit being a FB user, given any of the good reasons to do so.
Just like you might fear they won't be your friends or you won't be having a good time if you don't drink with them. That fear is most probably not real. And if it does turn out to be true, in the case if alcohol you probably dodged a bullet. And in the case of FB use ... well it's your call.
Read it again. He's not actually saying that.
Buddy I'm pretty sure it is your inability to judge just how many of your friends would still take the effort to reach out to you if you were to quit being a FB user, given any of the good reasons to do so.
Just like you might fear they won't be your friends or you won't be having a good time if you don't drink with them. That fear is most probably not real. And if it does turn out to be true, in the case if alcohol you probably dodged a bullet. And in the case of FB use ... well it's your call.
A social network isn't a place which implies exclusivity. If you are at one place you aren't at another and it also implies significant effort to move from one place to another.
Sending an email really does imply moving your finger an inch to use a different app.
Sending an email really does imply moving your finger an inch to use a different app.
How dare you imply that a real friend would lift a finger for me.
I'm more likely to have someone on facebook that I am to be able to look up their email via name on any of my phone apps (either by having their email saved against their contact, or having it in gmail)
> My friends will actively invite me (I don't use facebook) to events if they want me there.
The part where you get left out is when someone from your squad sees a cool event and decides to go. They're going regardless of who else is going, but it would be nice to have some friends there.
So they post in the squad group chat "Hey I'm going to this event, anyone in?" aaaaand that's about it as far as organization goes. If you're in you're in, if you're not, that's fine too.
Not every event warrants personally inviting everyone you'd like to see there. Personally inviting people is for small primarily gatherings, not for more casual larger stuff.
The part where you get left out is when someone from your squad sees a cool event and decides to go. They're going regardless of who else is going, but it would be nice to have some friends there.
So they post in the squad group chat "Hey I'm going to this event, anyone in?" aaaaand that's about it as far as organization goes. If you're in you're in, if you're not, that's fine too.
Not every event warrants personally inviting everyone you'd like to see there. Personally inviting people is for small primarily gatherings, not for more casual larger stuff.
> casual larger stuff
casual isn't friendship. My friends and I, hang out because we enjoy each others company and like to do things together. Not to invite people because we are lonely.
Plus, I don't mind being "left out" or "missing something". As I get older, it's just not worth the hassle
casual isn't friendship. My friends and I, hang out because we enjoy each others company and like to do things together. Not to invite people because we are lonely.
Plus, I don't mind being "left out" or "missing something". As I get older, it's just not worth the hassle
> casual isn't friendship
Why not? People are busy. They have jobs and partners and pets and sometimes kids. All of that takes time and attention.
These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is. And trying to get together face-to-face? LoL, it can take months to align our schedules.
And when it comes to larger stuff. Sometimes you just wanna organize a birthday party or something for everyone, you know? If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
Why not? People are busy. They have jobs and partners and pets and sometimes kids. All of that takes time and attention.
These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is. And trying to get together face-to-face? LoL, it can take months to align our schedules.
And when it comes to larger stuff. Sometimes you just wanna organize a birthday party or something for everyone, you know? If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends
Acquaintances or good acquaintances.
I think this boils down to each person's definition of friends and friendship along with the amount of social interaction each person needs.
I need very little social interaction, so I tend to keep close friends and not much else. I know others who always like to be around someone. They don't care much who it is, and they generally have looser terms for friendship.
Also, face-to-face isn't required. Hop on discord or skype, or just send them a text message. If they are a close friend and you enjoy their company, you should try to keep the lines of communication open.
Acquaintances or good acquaintances.
I think this boils down to each person's definition of friends and friendship along with the amount of social interaction each person needs.
I need very little social interaction, so I tend to keep close friends and not much else. I know others who always like to be around someone. They don't care much who it is, and they generally have looser terms for friendship.
Also, face-to-face isn't required. Hop on discord or skype, or just send them a text message. If they are a close friend and you enjoy their company, you should try to keep the lines of communication open.
> I need very little social interaction
Don't let that stop you from telling others how to socialize correctly!
Don't let that stop you from telling others how to socialize correctly!
> Acquaintances or good acquaintances.
So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.
> I need very little social interaction
Me too. Which is why I tend to keep to myself, and throw a huge rager for as many people as I can get to show up a couple times per year.
Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.
But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend. Usually I'd like a mix.
So I'm throwing a party with just acquaintances and no friends are coming? That feels weird.
> I need very little social interaction
Me too. Which is why I tend to keep to myself, and throw a huge rager for as many people as I can get to show up a couple times per year.
Maybe I don't really have any close friends anymore, the definition gets muddy when most everyone you used to consider a close friend is now a 12 hour flight away and you never really get to see them anymore.
But my point is that when I'm organizing a party, I want everyone. Acquaintances and close friends alike. It feels weird that just because I'm organizing a larger event, that should automatically make everyone I invite a not-friend. Usually I'd like a mix.
> These days I talk less to my closest friends than I did to my farthest acquaintances in high school or even college. It's kinda sad but that's just how it is.
Well, at least now you have your FB to collectively like and share away your sorrows. I'm sure you feel less sad while you're on it.
> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
If you do not invite me to this party just because I don't use FB? What do you think yourself? Would you call yourself my friend?
I mean if you forget, ok. But if you keep forgetting, yes that is how friendships wither and die. This is a natural thing. If it feels like a painful idea to lose someone's friendship that way, watering it is really one of the easiest things to do. If instead it feels like it is a hard thing to do, then ask yourself and consider what you really fear losing? (probably something other than friendship--not necessarily bad)
You can of course use FB to connect with friends. But, like alcohol, you cannot justify lack of FB to justify not connecting with your friends.
Well, at least now you have your FB to collectively like and share away your sorrows. I'm sure you feel less sad while you're on it.
> If I want to invite you to a party like that, are we not friends?
If you do not invite me to this party just because I don't use FB? What do you think yourself? Would you call yourself my friend?
I mean if you forget, ok. But if you keep forgetting, yes that is how friendships wither and die. This is a natural thing. If it feels like a painful idea to lose someone's friendship that way, watering it is really one of the easiest things to do. If instead it feels like it is a hard thing to do, then ask yourself and consider what you really fear losing? (probably something other than friendship--not necessarily bad)
You can of course use FB to connect with friends. But, like alcohol, you cannot justify lack of FB to justify not connecting with your friends.
I think it's pretty bad to restrict this sort of communication (which nowhere requires anything remotely like FB use) to a singular communication channel and actively hampering any attempts to transparently include other methods that do not not involve FB use.
And the buck doesn't stop at FB or its developers, now you are forcing other people start using, too.
And the buck doesn't stop at FB or its developers, now you are forcing other people start using, too.
>Those aren't your friends buddy.
Maybe sometimes I want to go see acquintances though, not just people who are already good friends and will remember to invite me via my preferred way of communication?
Maybe sometimes I want to go see acquintances though, not just people who are already good friends and will remember to invite me via my preferred way of communication?
> Those aren't your friends buddy.
Um, so? He still wanted to go that party.
Um, so? He still wanted to go that party.
The party didn't want him. No one at that party cared enough to make less of an effort to inform him that there was a party than it would take me to get a glass of water from the kitchen.
Sending snail mail is pretty easy too. If you were to switch to only communicating via snail mail, do you think your invites to social events would drop? The events probably didn't want you anyways, since they couldn't be bothered to just send you the snail mail via this simple internet service. They're not your real friends.
Stop drinking beer? What are you gonna drink, sand??
... like there aren't any communication alternatives that don't take days, just as speedy and convenient, but less addictive.
... like there aren't any communication alternatives that don't take days, just as speedy and convenient, but less addictive.
What's the actual number? Because if 99 people out of a 100 all didn't think to text Kyle, then I don't think there's even a handful of people that actually really ever wanted him to be there.
It takes a very particular size of group for that to happen. If you hang out with 4-5 people you would know if you "forgot" to invite someone. If it's much more than that, that is really a lot of people who it didn't occur to whether they wanted to see Kyle there or not.
But you should really ask Kyle, about feeling left out and the quality of his friendships.
> 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook
Except that is not why you are on FB while trying to defend your behaviour towards Kyle, that's only the story an alcoholic tells to himself when he's meeting his friends at the corner pub.
If FB usage was just a "party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing", we would not be having this discussion.
Let alone a "very useful" one, which would obviously allow to invite people transparently and easily via multiple channels of communication. FB does the exact opposite of this[0]. Now listen to yourself defending this!! Is that really your true opinion of this "organising app" speaking, or is it your dopamine-addiction, group identity and fear of ostracism?
[0] Try using FB links sent through other comm for a bit with a logged out, cookies cleared browser. Like, a day or two.
It takes a very particular size of group for that to happen. If you hang out with 4-5 people you would know if you "forgot" to invite someone. If it's much more than that, that is really a lot of people who it didn't occur to whether they wanted to see Kyle there or not.
But you should really ask Kyle, about feeling left out and the quality of his friendships.
> 99% of our friends use the very useful party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing, Facebook
Except that is not why you are on FB while trying to defend your behaviour towards Kyle, that's only the story an alcoholic tells to himself when he's meeting his friends at the corner pub.
If FB usage was just a "party organizing app with integrated chat and picture sharing", we would not be having this discussion.
Let alone a "very useful" one, which would obviously allow to invite people transparently and easily via multiple channels of communication. FB does the exact opposite of this[0]. Now listen to yourself defending this!! Is that really your true opinion of this "organising app" speaking, or is it your dopamine-addiction, group identity and fear of ostracism?
[0] Try using FB links sent through other comm for a bit with a logged out, cookies cleared browser. Like, a day or two.
sounds like Kyle got lucky not spending time with "friends" like that
Fear has nothing to do with it. When I was not on facebook, I was getting left out of activities and events that weren't exactly with friends, but more with common interests.
So you are basically saying that you can be an ass and make it harder for others to contact you. Then if they are worthy enough you they will spend their time installing whatever communication tool you use. I do not get the feeling that I can be a princess and I also have to care about relation.
>No matter what I do, several activities and groups I want to be a part of are only advertised and organized on facebook. It's not within my power to change that.
It is. You have the power to choose what you want to be a part of. And these groups have more members than yourself - people who you can ask to help you stay up to date on meetings and such.
It is. You have the power to choose what you want to be a part of. And these groups have more members than yourself - people who you can ask to help you stay up to date on meetings and such.
I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life. For many people, facebook far and away is the most convenient way to manage their social life simply because they have the greatest adoption within their social groups.
Yes, we could "write someone a letter in the mail instead" or "ask a friend about the events on facebook" but that would defeat the point for the vast majority of us that aren't interested in spending hours managing our social contacts and calendars. You're not really giving solutions when you suggest things like that.
Yes, we could "write someone a letter in the mail instead" or "ask a friend about the events on facebook" but that would defeat the point for the vast majority of us that aren't interested in spending hours managing our social contacts and calendars. You're not really giving solutions when you suggest things like that.
The point I'm making is thus: if you acknowledge that Facebook is a bad influence on your life but you feel stuck with it, here's a low risk strategy for dipping your toes into life without it that you can try out.
I don't spend hours managing my social contacts and calendars and I still feel connected with my family and my friends without Facebook.
I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
I don't spend hours managing my social contacts and calendars and I still feel connected with my family and my friends without Facebook.
I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
>I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.
"It is legal to hunt. There's nothing stopping you from going into the woods, killing a deer, and salting its meat other than your own dependency on the conveniences of the modern era."
I mean, at some point, we have to accept that the world is becoming a lot easier to live in.
I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked. I genuinely believe people that disagree are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.
"It is legal to hunt. There's nothing stopping you from going into the woods, killing a deer, and salting its meat other than your own dependency on the conveniences of the modern era."
I mean, at some point, we have to accept that the world is becoming a lot easier to live in.
I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked. I genuinely believe people that disagree are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
>I feel like if I applied the logic you're using here for that, I could say the same thing about buying food in a store.
Well, a grocery store isn't really harmful in the way Facebook is. Grocery stores aren't tracking you in every other store you go to and selling that information to the highest bidder, they aren't tracking when you're asleep and awake and everything you use on your phone and they aren't designed to keep you addicted and in the store for as many of your waking hours as possible. You could point out that they might do things like put sugary foods in prominent places but you can always exercise self control and go to the healthier choice - but there's no equivalent Facebook "lite:. Even if grocery stores were all of these things it'd be a lot more reasonable to suggest the farmer's market before hunting. Facebook is demonstrably harmful, grocery stores are not.
>I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked.
I'm 25 years old, and I definitely lived through and remember a lot of time when the internet was not ubiquitous and calling your friends up was the best way to reach them (I remember the rise of texting, too). It really wasn't bad at all.
>Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
I don't use Facebook today and I still have friends around the world. Hell, in two weeks I'm flying out to Tokyo and crashing on a friend's couch for two weeks and seeing a concert - and we managed to arrange that without Facebook.
Well, a grocery store isn't really harmful in the way Facebook is. Grocery stores aren't tracking you in every other store you go to and selling that information to the highest bidder, they aren't tracking when you're asleep and awake and everything you use on your phone and they aren't designed to keep you addicted and in the store for as many of your waking hours as possible. You could point out that they might do things like put sugary foods in prominent places but you can always exercise self control and go to the healthier choice - but there's no equivalent Facebook "lite:. Even if grocery stores were all of these things it'd be a lot more reasonable to suggest the farmer's market before hunting. Facebook is demonstrably harmful, grocery stores are not.
>I'm curious what era you grew up in - were you around when literally the only way to get a hold of someone was hope they're home for a phone call? It sucked.
I'm 25 years old, and I definitely lived through and remember a lot of time when the internet was not ubiquitous and calling your friends up was the best way to reach them (I remember the rise of texting, too). It really wasn't bad at all.
>Back then, my only friends could be the ones that went to my highschool, or lived in my neighborhood. In a city like Houston, that's quite the restriction - my sister can have friends from all over the city, as far as Pasadena or even Sugarland! Impossible when I was a kid.
I don't use Facebook today and I still have friends around the world. Hell, in two weeks I'm flying out to Tokyo and crashing on a friend's couch for two weeks and seeing a concert - and we managed to arrange that without Facebook.
Apparently your social circles don't use facebook as much as other people's do. That's great that you can make it work for you. But don't project your social world onto every one else's.
Also, I keep seeing the, "Facebook isn't worth the tradeoff" argument coming up. That may be true, but again, that is a different claim than, "It is easy to live without it."
re: Your note below that you are suggesting others give it a try:
I did that for years. I counted on getting invites via text message or email. I organized things myself without it. I really did give it a go. I still missed out on way more than I wanted to.
I finally joined facebook about six months ago. I'm very careful about what I share, both with other facebook users and the company itself.
I hate many things about facebook. But what I can't deny is that I am much more connected with many more people than I was before. There is no comparison.
Also, I keep seeing the, "Facebook isn't worth the tradeoff" argument coming up. That may be true, but again, that is a different claim than, "It is easy to live without it."
re: Your note below that you are suggesting others give it a try:
I did that for years. I counted on getting invites via text message or email. I organized things myself without it. I really did give it a go. I still missed out on way more than I wanted to.
I finally joined facebook about six months ago. I'm very careful about what I share, both with other facebook users and the company itself.
I hate many things about facebook. But what I can't deny is that I am much more connected with many more people than I was before. There is no comparison.
I'm only talking about my experiences and suggesting others give it a try.
You could ONLY say the same thing about buying food in a store if, given that all the other arguments were refuted or shown weak, you came up with "but I fear I will lose my shopping buddies".
In addition, unlike supermarkets, FB use is actually addictive, it is very much designed to be that way. This is not a point of discussion any more.
For instance, your era with the nostalgia glasses, sure it sucked (depending where you lived I guess). But FB use was not the thing that changed it. That was mobile phones, and if you lived in that era you know this very well. That's a couple of decades of technology you're skipping over to justify your FB use.
In addition, unlike supermarkets, FB use is actually addictive, it is very much designed to be that way. This is not a point of discussion any more.
For instance, your era with the nostalgia glasses, sure it sucked (depending where you lived I guess). But FB use was not the thing that changed it. That was mobile phones, and if you lived in that era you know this very well. That's a couple of decades of technology you're skipping over to justify your FB use.
Do you know the internet was a thing in the 90s?
Yes, late 90's, AIM was a thing... if my mom wasn't on the phone, or if my dad didn't need the computer for work. Didn't help me early 90's and certainly didn't help me figure out if my friend was home before I made the bike ride over :P
And then FB came along and suddenly everything was better.
... Except it didn't go like that at all, a zillion other options came along, pagers, mobile phones + texting, email, a whole bunch of instant messaging networks, all of which worked increasingly well for the problems your FB use is supposedly uniquely solving, yet none of was addictive like FB use, a machine learning algorithm targeting flaws in the human psyche / attention-mechanism / dopamine-treadmill to keep them "engaged" and instilling the fear of ostracism if they ever dare to leave.
You can defend convenient channels of communication, but you can't defend the package FB wraps it in.
Sir_Cmpwn said,
> I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
Scarily so.
... Except it didn't go like that at all, a zillion other options came along, pagers, mobile phones + texting, email, a whole bunch of instant messaging networks, all of which worked increasingly well for the problems your FB use is supposedly uniquely solving, yet none of was addictive like FB use, a machine learning algorithm targeting flaws in the human psyche / attention-mechanism / dopamine-treadmill to keep them "engaged" and instilling the fear of ostracism if they ever dare to leave.
You can defend convenient channels of communication, but you can't defend the package FB wraps it in.
Sir_Cmpwn said,
> I'd like to point out that this thread has depressingly similar patterns compared to talking with drug addicts about their habit.
Scarily so.
Or, perhaps, just maybe people have different social lives and expectations within a social group that yours don't share. Just maybe.
I joined facebook less than six months ago. I know quite well what life is like without it. My social life is quite a bit better now than it was before. And yes, I really did try.
Although I hate, hate, hate certain parts of it, there is absolutely zero doubt that it has been beneficial on balance.
Although I hate, hate, hate certain parts of it, there is absolutely zero doubt that it has been beneficial on balance.
Yes, your last point seems quite accurate -- smokers often complain that they would like to stop smoking, but don't want to miss out on the social connections it entails.
The problem is that those assistance & speed-up effects are directly tangible, but the addictiveness, echo chamber, and privacy effects aren't quite so apparent.
It's not a clear net positive just because of those conveniences, and there are no current "solutions" to give as everything you list is far more relevant to network effects than technical feature set. (e.g. in the past, using Facebook made you an outlier, why not just use email lists/myspace/phone calls/etc like everyone else?) A path to an alternative would be through Facebook collapsing (unlikely on their own), another social media site out-marketing Facebook, or establishing your own small networking effect under different assumptions.
It's not a clear net positive just because of those conveniences, and there are no current "solutions" to give as everything you list is far more relevant to network effects than technical feature set. (e.g. in the past, using Facebook made you an outlier, why not just use email lists/myspace/phone calls/etc like everyone else?) A path to an alternative would be through Facebook collapsing (unlikely on their own), another social media site out-marketing Facebook, or establishing your own small networking effect under different assumptions.
You could offer to assist in making information about said events available on multiple platforms. You could help everyone and yourself simultaneously.
> I'm sorry, but get real. People use technology because it assists and speeds up areas of their life.
Get real: people waste a lot more time on 'tech' than they save, compared to doing without. The goal of most of those 'techs' is to take up as much of your time as possible, that's the foundation of their business.
Get real: people waste a lot more time on 'tech' than they save, compared to doing without. The goal of most of those 'techs' is to take up as much of your time as possible, that's the foundation of their business.
I don't think that you can mention that a site people spend 4 hours a week browsing isn't a significant time saver compared to calling people and leaving texts.
I never said I didn't have the power to choose not to be a part of these groups. The point is that I want to be a part of them, and doing that without facebook is 10x the additional friction.
Yes, I could ask someone to forward me the notices, and activities, but how do you propose I participate in the discussions of what to do?
When the voting via facebook poll happens, how do you propose I make my voice heard.
Now, you could argue that facebook isn't worth it. (And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.) But that is a different position than, "It's easy to make these things work without facebook."
Yes, I could ask someone to forward me the notices, and activities, but how do you propose I participate in the discussions of what to do?
When the voting via facebook poll happens, how do you propose I make my voice heard.
Now, you could argue that facebook isn't worth it. (And that is a perfectly reasonable position to take.) But that is a different position than, "It's easy to make these things work without facebook."
Promote giving up facebook or advertising via alternative means both to whomever organizes it and among your fellow users.
Volunteer to help with those alternative means.
Volunteer to help with those alternative means.
Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication. Pick a method for managing the lists. Avoid the additional publicity public facebook postings get you when someone likes it.
Those are real tradeoffs that many groups aren't willing to accept, regardless of how willing a single person is to shoulder the burden.
Those are real tradeoffs that many groups aren't willing to accept, regardless of how willing a single person is to shoulder the burden.
Ask everyone to sign up for different methods of communication
Nearly everyone is already there, and the number that isn't continues to fall every year. Yes everyone already has email, but list management and group organization is much worse. Even compared to Google groups.
And the fact is that most people prefer it.
And the fact is that most people prefer it.
[deleted]
It's not really possible if the majority (or even portions) of your social life use facebook to organize events.
If you're interested in being a diligent contributor to your social group, you're either stuck trying to evangelize some other tool (usually less convenient for everyone else who doesn't mind facebook) or you're stuck asking for someone to check the FB event for you.
You can't really disconnect and easily maintain a social life in this circumstance.
If you're interested in being a diligent contributor to your social group, you're either stuck trying to evangelize some other tool (usually less convenient for everyone else who doesn't mind facebook) or you're stuck asking for someone to check the FB event for you.
You can't really disconnect and easily maintain a social life in this circumstance.
You will be surprised by how easy it is. Take the approach I suggested. Wane yourself off of it and don't quit entirely until you feel comfortable with it.
I help out with an Art open studio event.
Its really starting to be the case that people who are organizing events want to let members know about events and invite people via Facebook. We use that and email. Facebook is easy and somewhat effective.
Some people use it for their whole social calendar. This is different from the old evite.com days, which was more email list based.
I'm not on it so Facebook, but my Partner is so she keeps me posted on the social aspect of whats going on. If she wasn't I probably would have to be. Not being on it means stuff happens and I won't know. I'm ok with that, but it can be a bit isolating. There is only so much you can expect acquaintances to work to keep you in the loop.
People like that its free (not like the services you pay for like meetup.com)
Some people use it for their whole social calendar. This is different from the old evite.com days, which was more email list based.
I'm not on it so Facebook, but my Partner is so she keeps me posted on the social aspect of whats going on. If she wasn't I probably would have to be. Not being on it means stuff happens and I won't know. I'm ok with that, but it can be a bit isolating. There is only so much you can expect acquaintances to work to keep you in the loop.
People like that its free (not like the services you pay for like meetup.com)
I'm not interested in doubling or tripling the amount of time it takes to manage my social calendar and I find your comments that seem to be treating it like it's some kind of addiction to be a tad condescending for those of us who would close their account in a heartbeat if it wasn't such a necessary tool.
Perhaps you will be surprised to learn that not everybody is living the same life as you.
I just rejoined facebook. I call it giving in again, but really, I see a lot more of what's going on in the city than I could otherwise. There are some websites that try to fill this gap (sites like Meetup or do512.com) and physical bulletin boards at the coffee shops, but FB is by FAR the easiest, and sometimes the only, way to find out about things.
And yeah, you can text, you can call, but "if" everyone is on facebook, it's a lot easier. I still have friends texting, but esp. for bigger group events, Fb is "just there" for most people. It's useful to be a part of that.
I don't like it, I don't like their views on destroying privacy or discouraging pseudonyms, and I wish there was something that was better at Facebook than Facebook, but there isn't.
And yeah, you can text, you can call, but "if" everyone is on facebook, it's a lot easier. I still have friends texting, but esp. for bigger group events, Fb is "just there" for most people. It's useful to be a part of that.
I don't like it, I don't like their views on destroying privacy or discouraging pseudonyms, and I wish there was something that was better at Facebook than Facebook, but there isn't.
Honestly I am not ready to simply delete my FB account, but I absolutely use it increasingly less. Every 3rd post is straight up an ad and generally an incredibly stupid ad. Social networks have become increasingly difficult to enjoy in my opinion because they have become insanely greedy and block the actual experience for why people want to be there.
In the past 3 months I am down an Instagram account and LinkedIn. Snapchat is probably next due to the absolutely awful interface and general pointlessness.
In the past 3 months I am down an Instagram account and LinkedIn. Snapchat is probably next due to the absolutely awful interface and general pointlessness.
You know how when you recommend to someone that they should start going to the gym, they always have a laundry list of problems?
"It's too far away", "I don't trust them with my credit card", "I don't like exercising in front of people", "I need to be careful of my back", "I don't have time after work and I can't show up sweaty".
Ultimately, they just don't want to go to the gym. Nothing on that list is hard to solve, if you decide to go to the gym. If you don't have any drive to go to the gym, it's an unscalable and infinite wall of problems.
I can give you solution to the problems you've listed. In my experience, people will use other messenger solutions if you just ask them. Facebook users are a demographic that care nothing for installing another app on their phones. Pick one, and ask people to use it. Try wickr. There are dozens of online event organizers that can replace facebook's event RSVP, although I generally just talk to people like a human being.
If the music events you enjoy are promoted /only/ on facebook, then they're relatively niche affairs. Get involved with them. Hell, offer to be their "promotes in places that aren't facebook" guy in exchange for free tickets. Be a community builder.
But these ideas won't be acceptable to you, and even if they were you'd have a thousand other objections up your sleeve, because ultimately you don't actually want to leave facebook. I'm not going to try to frog-march you out the door, but lets not pretend there are actually any meaningful barriers there.
"It's too far away", "I don't trust them with my credit card", "I don't like exercising in front of people", "I need to be careful of my back", "I don't have time after work and I can't show up sweaty".
Ultimately, they just don't want to go to the gym. Nothing on that list is hard to solve, if you decide to go to the gym. If you don't have any drive to go to the gym, it's an unscalable and infinite wall of problems.
I can give you solution to the problems you've listed. In my experience, people will use other messenger solutions if you just ask them. Facebook users are a demographic that care nothing for installing another app on their phones. Pick one, and ask people to use it. Try wickr. There are dozens of online event organizers that can replace facebook's event RSVP, although I generally just talk to people like a human being.
If the music events you enjoy are promoted /only/ on facebook, then they're relatively niche affairs. Get involved with them. Hell, offer to be their "promotes in places that aren't facebook" guy in exchange for free tickets. Be a community builder.
But these ideas won't be acceptable to you, and even if they were you'd have a thousand other objections up your sleeve, because ultimately you don't actually want to leave facebook. I'm not going to try to frog-march you out the door, but lets not pretend there are actually any meaningful barriers there.
Replaced it with whatsapp for communication with friends (not fb friends but Friends). I just have a facebook account cuz everybody else has one but it is filled with notifications and messages that I don't reply to. All the people around me know that I don't respond to.
Viola, I am free of facebook and don't use it though I still have an account and have never deactivated it. Maybe it will not work for you.
P.S HN seems to be a bigger problem than FB for me atleast. Can't stop reading all posts and comments everyday.
Viola, I am free of facebook and don't use it though I still have an account and have never deactivated it. Maybe it will not work for you.
P.S HN seems to be a bigger problem than FB for me atleast. Can't stop reading all posts and comments everyday.
So you moved from Facebook to Facebook (whatsapp of course is owned by Facebook and gets the equivalent amount of information on you). Did you just want a different interface?
It's a completely different product.
As much as privacy is a legitimate concern, it's also a modern form of angst. So the existentialist mode that says "oh, you either have chicken and wait to die or have the beef and wait to die", which is demodé, gets replaced by "you either have chicken and get massacred by the social media-advertising-mass scale espionage nexus, or..."
(Angst isn't necessarily a bad thing either, but you should know...)
As much as privacy is a legitimate concern, it's also a modern form of angst. So the existentialist mode that says "oh, you either have chicken and wait to die or have the beef and wait to die", which is demodé, gets replaced by "you either have chicken and get massacred by the social media-advertising-mass scale espionage nexus, or..."
(Angst isn't necessarily a bad thing either, but you should know...)
Less time wasted? I mean regardless of what I do, they will continue collect data about me. It is just a question of how much I personally contribute and how much they acquire from my friends. The real gain is you are less addicted to news feeds with the cursed infinite scrolling. A big gain for me.
It's much more limited, WA is e2e encrypted so only metadata is accessible.
Just stop. Do other things. Plenty of people seem to find a way and live great and wonderful lives without facebook. You can too.
I get what you're saying regarding the utility of facebook, but it's really not missed much once you leave.
I get what you're saying regarding the utility of facebook, but it's really not missed much once you leave.
> if anyone wants to organize a plan that has more than 8 people, facebook groups make it much much easier.
So, there is this thing which a little old: emails. It is wonderful to organize things. For group chats you also have some old shit like IRC. You get your beloved hashtag too.
So, there is this thing which a little old: emails. It is wonderful to organize things. For group chats you also have some old shit like IRC. You get your beloved hashtag too.
Although beware that # does a slightly different thing.
So tell me, how do i replace around 5 different group chats i have on messenger which can have anywhere between 5-10 people in each chat?
You throw a party and get to talk to everyone. I mean come on, we used to socialize before social networks.
You throw a party and get to talk to everyone. I mean come on, we used to socialize before social networks.
Many of us did not, because throwing a party is expensive and complicated.
It doesn't have to be expensive if you tell everybody to bring something to eat or drink. It does require à bit of organization but nothing very complicated. If your place is too small you can do a picnic in a public park.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For music i find songkick https://www.songkick.com/ is very good. I usually get information for bands i like from them before i see it on facebook.
Fb was taking too much of my time and attention since it was super easy to scroll either mobile or desktop.
What worked for me:
1. Delete facebook app from phone (hiding it didnt work) 2. Install Newsfeed eradicator chrome extension
Result: still maintaining communication with friends via messenger app and checking facebook only once in a while for events etc. News Feed was the attention grabber.
Helped me to get back attention and time. Would recommend.
What worked for me:
1. Delete facebook app from phone (hiding it didnt work) 2. Install Newsfeed eradicator chrome extension
Result: still maintaining communication with friends via messenger app and checking facebook only once in a while for events etc. News Feed was the attention grabber.
Helped me to get back attention and time. Would recommend.
The group chats are just standard messenger services that’s basically interchangeable with imessage, gchat, msn messenger, aim, whatsapp, line, wechat, or kakaotalk.
It’s ok to use that part since it’s basically a commodity feature that can be swapped if it becomes bad. That being said, they do read your messenger chats.
It’s ok to use that part since it’s basically a commodity feature that can be swapped if it becomes bad. That being said, they do read your messenger chats.
I recommend making an entirely fake persona for Facebook and use it only for necessary groups and chats. Use the mobile web interface exclusively, and don't install any related mobile apps.
Use Telegram groups.
https://telegram.org/faq#q-what-makes-telegram-groups-cool
https://telegram.org/faq#q-what-makes-telegram-groups-cool
For me it was easy.. but then again I have few real friends, and those I keep in touch with by other means
[deleted]
The Facebook API is pretty easy to use. I'd recommend writing some scripts and then PushBullet'ing them to you as necessary. The goal is to prevent yourself as much as you can from opening facebook.com.
e mail; these technologies such as WhatsApp are derogatorily referred to as e mail-killers.
Just use messenger?
[deleted]
Well... As someone who has moved to various countries and across continents a few times over the last three decades, I can hardly find another medium that allows me to keep up with friends and family across many countries and time zones easily.
Before Facebook I created and/or used e-mail aliases, e-mail groups, forums, file hosting services, etc. to share our story with friends and family. Facebook makes it much simpler.
I don't use it extensively. I don't play games on it. I don't even connect to it every day. And I would stop using it if I had a good alternative.
Before Facebook I created and/or used e-mail aliases, e-mail groups, forums, file hosting services, etc. to share our story with friends and family. Facebook makes it much simpler.
I don't use it extensively. I don't play games on it. I don't even connect to it every day. And I would stop using it if I had a good alternative.
Well, I moved over the last years across several time-zones and continents. There are people that I knew back then and lost contact now. Do I care if they got babies, found a new job, like/dislike Trump, or are doing Toga on the beach ? No, I don't. I moved away. Having that knowledge does not make my life better or worse in any way. I can get the illusion that we are still in contact, but in reality I will never move back to these places. So why should I care?
Sounds like you didn't care about them in the first place. I'd like to think that friendships and love (not necessarily romantic love) survives the distance.
Having said that, I totally get that one may not necessarily want to know what a friend had for lunch, for example :).
Having said that, I totally get that one may not necessarily want to know what a friend had for lunch, for example :).
This is what I don't get about the dichotomy of either quitting facebook or letting it run your life. Can't people just use fb minimally without it absorbing everything they do?
I login probably once a week at most, and only check messenger if someone pings me on it. It's not difficult, so why are so many people advocating deleting accounts to improve their lives?
I login probably once a week at most, and only check messenger if someone pings me on it. It's not difficult, so why are so many people advocating deleting accounts to improve their lives?
Totally! That's close to how I'm using Facebook normally. I don't even have Messenger on my mobile devices.
How about letters via snail mail? It's a lot more personal, since you have to set aside some time to sit down and read/write the letters without the all of the distractions Facebook presents to you, and you're able to filter it to the subjects that are important to you rather than a constant stream of thought from everyone you know.
That would work for my parents. It means my second cousin and I exchange "Christmas cards" and no more which leaves a lot out.
You have almost 9,000 hours in a year. Surely you can find time in them to write to your second cousin.
How long does it take to write a 2 page letter? I'm not even talking about preparing the mail, posting, etc.
I'm in software development, just like yourself, and I can probably type many times faster than I can write.
I think you're being too romantic about the good old snail mail. ;)
I think you're being too romantic about the good old snail mail. ;)
You can write snail mail with a text editor on a computer and print it off...
(replying at this level, because HN seems to have a depth limit for nested messages)
Drew, I think I understand where you're coming from. But as stated earlier on, I don't even connect to Facebook daily, let alone spending hours on it.
Drew, I think I understand where you're coming from. But as stated earlier on, I don't even connect to Facebook daily, let alone spending hours on it.
You didn't answer my question, though. I didn't expect you to write letters daily either. How does the amount of time you spend on Facebook compare to the amount of time you could see yourself spending writing letters?
I prefer not to repeat myself and spend that time for more happy memories ;).
How many hours per week do you spend on Facebook instead of making "happy memories"?
(I downvoted you for excessive repetition. You have posted 17 times in this thread, mostly antagonistically, without saying much new.
That's even less useful than the time I spent on Facebook this evening :-)
That's even less useful than the time I spent on Facebook this evening :-)
[deleted]
This is hardly practical :), let alone slow and expensive with all the pictures printed etc.
Of course it's practical! How do you think people kept in touch before the internet? How difficult is it to write up a letter, put it in an envelope with a stamp (which you can pick up at the gas station, grocery store, etc) and drop it in your mailbox?
Printing pictures is only a few bucks, and as a side effect the recipient can easily frame it and put it on their hearth!
Printing pictures is only a few bucks, and as a side effect the recipient can easily frame it and put it on their hearth!
Seriously?!? Would you write that letter to dozens of people in 3 different languages? Or should I pick "only one" of my aunts and uncles to share my son's first school day pictures? Or maybe we can create a human chain where one sends the letter and pictures that he/she receives to the next one in line. (hmm... maybe there's a business idea there...)
You're used to pushing information to them with a firehose. Use a bucket instead. Send letters out infrequently, one per household.
This assumes the recipients have consistent addresses, and requires significant additional time and labour. Why would he drop Facebook in favour of snail mail, when e-mails (a more convenient version of the same thing) provided an inadequate solution for him in the past?
You can put just as much time and thought into an email as you can a letter. Technology is not the issue here, merely etiquette.
You can put just as much time and thought into an email as you can a letter. Technology is not the issue here, merely etiquette.
I wrote about the difference between snail mail and letters here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15031357
Instead of writing letters, I guess I prefer to have hobbies.
How many handwritten letters do you send?
I never said handwritten. I send printed letters every month or two.
Why would you print a typed letter and send it by mail instead of e-mailing? Waste of resources, if you ask me, and pretty expensive depending on the country you're sending it to. Good for USPS, though.
A typed letter is not more personal than e-mail, I'm afraid.
A typed letter is not more personal than e-mail, I'm afraid.
>Why would you print a typed letter and send it by mail instead of e-mailing? Waste of resources, if you ask me, and pretty expensive depending on the country you're sending it to. Good for USPS, though.
I just checked with USPS. It costs _a dollar_ to mail a letter from Philly to Madagascar.
>A typed letter is not more personal than e-mail, I'm afraid.
Comparing it to an email is clever, because it helps your point seem more valid. But this is about Facebook, so I'm going to compare it to that - though many of these points are valid when comparing against email as well.
Facebook is a constant barrage of snippets from constant mini mind dumps of everything each person is thinking, mixed with ads and distracting videos all carefully served by an algorithm that uses machine learning to steal your attention for as long as possible and addict you to the service.
A letter, typed or not, is going to be read in the real world, probably sitting down somewhere comfortable without any ads or distractions. It will be written more thoughtfully because it is an infrequent occurance. It may have been mailed with photos or a small trinket that made you think of them. How would you react if you received a thoughtful letter from your sister instead of of a hundred thoughtless shouts into the void? I certainly hope you would be touched, and I feel bad for your sister if you wouldn't.
All you're doing in this thread is deflect, deflect, deflect. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. I am fully convinced that you are a Facebook addict in denial.
I just checked with USPS. It costs _a dollar_ to mail a letter from Philly to Madagascar.
>A typed letter is not more personal than e-mail, I'm afraid.
Comparing it to an email is clever, because it helps your point seem more valid. But this is about Facebook, so I'm going to compare it to that - though many of these points are valid when comparing against email as well.
Facebook is a constant barrage of snippets from constant mini mind dumps of everything each person is thinking, mixed with ads and distracting videos all carefully served by an algorithm that uses machine learning to steal your attention for as long as possible and addict you to the service.
A letter, typed or not, is going to be read in the real world, probably sitting down somewhere comfortable without any ads or distractions. It will be written more thoughtfully because it is an infrequent occurance. It may have been mailed with photos or a small trinket that made you think of them. How would you react if you received a thoughtful letter from your sister instead of of a hundred thoughtless shouts into the void? I certainly hope you would be touched, and I feel bad for your sister if you wouldn't.
All you're doing in this thread is deflect, deflect, deflect. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish. I am fully convinced that you are a Facebook addict in denial.
For me this is similar to junk that I receive by snail mail :). They go directly to recycling.
Same with Facebook (for any other media type, for that matter). I put my filters on, and I don't get distracted by the adds.
Also, on Facebook, I'm arguably pushing more information than I'm pulling. So my consumption and communication is somewhat limited to the notifications that I get. So I already have a filter when I connect: I look at my notifications. I don't browse Facebook aimlessly. My time is precious ;).
There are reasons why snail mail is not so popular anymore. It's not because we are technology junkies, but mainly because snail mail is inefficient and much less interactive. Why don't we play chess by mail, or play a an RPG game by mail? Certainly some people still do but we have much better ways of doing it now.
I like "writing" and I have a decent handwriting. But, to me, writing letters for everything I want to share with my friends and family looks like overkill to say the least.
I'm not happy that Facebook is the most efficient way for me to communicate with friends and family living abroad, but until there is a better alternative, I'm afraid I'm stuck with it.
Only exception is my grandma and a good friend who refuses to be on FB (he lives in Australia). I use phone and video to catch up with them :).
Same with Facebook (for any other media type, for that matter). I put my filters on, and I don't get distracted by the adds.
Also, on Facebook, I'm arguably pushing more information than I'm pulling. So my consumption and communication is somewhat limited to the notifications that I get. So I already have a filter when I connect: I look at my notifications. I don't browse Facebook aimlessly. My time is precious ;).
There are reasons why snail mail is not so popular anymore. It's not because we are technology junkies, but mainly because snail mail is inefficient and much less interactive. Why don't we play chess by mail, or play a an RPG game by mail? Certainly some people still do but we have much better ways of doing it now.
I like "writing" and I have a decent handwriting. But, to me, writing letters for everything I want to share with my friends and family looks like overkill to say the least.
I'm not happy that Facebook is the most efficient way for me to communicate with friends and family living abroad, but until there is a better alternative, I'm afraid I'm stuck with it.
Only exception is my grandma and a good friend who refuses to be on FB (he lives in Australia). I use phone and video to catch up with them :).
> I am fully convinced that you are a Facebook addict in denial
This is certainly your right, but I am not. Someone said "denial"? :)
I rarely get religious and passionate about things. I don't have FB shares. I'm simply pragmatic. It serves its purpose. Nothing more.
This is certainly your right, but I am not. Someone said "denial"? :)
I rarely get religious and passionate about things. I don't have FB shares. I'm simply pragmatic. It serves its purpose. Nothing more.
Facebook is a much better way for me to share pictures of my kids to all my relatives. Sure I can text that picture to each individually, but some people want to see all pictures in full detail while some want to see just a few.
I have no way of knowing who wants to see any individual pictures. My parents want to see nearly all. What about my second cousin who I haven't seen in person in 15 years because she lives so far away? What about the running back of our high school football team? I'm not close enough that I'd send any pictures to either of them, but in fact they like that once in a while they see pictures of my kids and remember I exist.
Facebook solves a real social problem that text, and phones do not solve. (There are other solutions, but Facebook is the popular one)
What made Facebook useful for me is when I blocked all games. I'm slowly eliminating political posts as well, but since I'm active in politics some of my real friends are also active which makes this impossible.
I have no way of knowing who wants to see any individual pictures. My parents want to see nearly all. What about my second cousin who I haven't seen in person in 15 years because she lives so far away? What about the running back of our high school football team? I'm not close enough that I'd send any pictures to either of them, but in fact they like that once in a while they see pictures of my kids and remember I exist.
Facebook solves a real social problem that text, and phones do not solve. (There are other solutions, but Facebook is the popular one)
What made Facebook useful for me is when I blocked all games. I'm slowly eliminating political posts as well, but since I'm active in politics some of my real friends are also active which makes this impossible.
> Facebook solves a real social problem
With all due respect, until FB nominally solved this problem, you (I) never even knew this problem existed. Before it became trivial to share pictures with a long lost acquaintance using FB, we got by just fine showing pics to a tiny subset of friends.
There was literally no idea in anyone's head that they needed to show pictures of their children to some guy they last spoke to 15 years ago. This notion that FB is solving a real need is false. It's like saying cigarette companies solve the problem of nicotine cravings among smokers.
With all due respect, until FB nominally solved this problem, you (I) never even knew this problem existed. Before it became trivial to share pictures with a long lost acquaintance using FB, we got by just fine showing pics to a tiny subset of friends.
There was literally no idea in anyone's head that they needed to show pictures of their children to some guy they last spoke to 15 years ago. This notion that FB is solving a real need is false. It's like saying cigarette companies solve the problem of nicotine cravings among smokers.
Something about people wanting a faster horse.
They didn't. And, as a car obsessive, it was a mistake.
commute times are probably the same (45 minutes walking/tram with a 4~5 mi dense city core, vs 45 in the freeway and a 60 miles of low suburban development) and we don't have the infrastructure for alternatives to travel outside the city.
As to the need for speed itself. I used to like big fancy fast cars.
Then I got a motorcycle. Now cars are... boring.
commute times are probably the same (45 minutes walking/tram with a 4~5 mi dense city core, vs 45 in the freeway and a 60 miles of low suburban development) and we don't have the infrastructure for alternatives to travel outside the city.
As to the need for speed itself. I used to like big fancy fast cars.
Then I got a motorcycle. Now cars are... boring.
For every "wanting a faster horse" I give you "new iPhones every 6 months", "smart bottles that remind you to drink more water" and "Internet-connected $400 juicer that requires special cartridges to make juice".
>Facebook is a much better way for me to share pictures of my kids to all my relatives
Also to Facebook's facial recognition software, without your kids ever agreeing to it and they won't have a way to undo it once they grow up, even if they want to.
Also to Facebook's facial recognition software, without your kids ever agreeing to it and they won't have a way to undo it once they grow up, even if they want to.
This is really worrying, that there's a whole generation growing up whose personal data are being gathered and exploited, without their consent. I'm already upset that my friends have tagged me in numerous photos on FB, giving them more info than I care to. I can only imagine how much worse it would have been if that had been done throughout my childhood and teenage years..
I had been off facebook for 5 years. Now my kid started school and there's info in private facebook groups that is not shared any other way. I hate it but decided to rejoin.
So wait...the school uses Facebook for communication? Gross. My kids' school uses something called ClassDojo, which is exactly like Facebook, but geared towards classroom settings. It works well enough.
I'm guessing that parents connect through Facebook groups.
Today, being the first day of school here in Colorado, my wife told me that the parents decided to organize a Facebook group to share information. My suggestion was a Whatsapp group, but I guess that's Facebook as well :).
Today, being the first day of school here in Colorado, my wife told me that the parents decided to organize a Facebook group to share information. My suggestion was a Whatsapp group, but I guess that's Facebook as well :).
This is not a good solution. It's not about keeping in touch, it's also a way to send news to other people.
I live in the US but most of my family is in Europe, how do you want me to post a picture of my daughter so that all my family views it? By texting it (which I can't really right now because Google Voice doesn't support international texting), it would require me to send the picture to at least 20 people who I think would be interested in it.
Texting and calling is mostly a 1 to 1 relationship. Which is good to wish happy birthday or such. But it sucks to actually update people about news, post pictures.
Now I could potentially open a blog, but then again a lot of the people checking my Facebook profile aren't really that into tech. I have my 97 years old grandfather that checks Facebook because we taught him how to. If I tell him to go this blog to check my news, to another blog to check my sisters news, etc... It will become very difficult.
I think Facebook is a great platform, but over the years it filled up with too many ads. They are attempting too much to maximize profit, which is a crappy goal. If I would control Facebook, I would reduce the ads to a minimum survivable. And then I would offer a premium option with no ads.
Texting and calling is mostly a 1 to 1 relationship. Which is good to wish happy birthday or such. But it sucks to actually update people about news, post pictures.
Now I could potentially open a blog, but then again a lot of the people checking my Facebook profile aren't really that into tech. I have my 97 years old grandfather that checks Facebook because we taught him how to. If I tell him to go this blog to check my news, to another blog to check my sisters news, etc... It will become very difficult.
I think Facebook is a great platform, but over the years it filled up with too many ads. They are attempting too much to maximize profit, which is a crappy goal. If I would control Facebook, I would reduce the ads to a minimum survivable. And then I would offer a premium option with no ads.
I did, too. But I found that the marketing power of Facebook is just too good to ignore. I made an account again, just to have a few Pages dedicated to my projects. I didn't even reconnect with friends. Even without paid ads... just sharing my content on Facebook with related groups, my site traffic increased by 15% and my revenue by 25%.
More evidence that on facebook, the user is the product. If you're buying, it's a good market.
Ah, the mandatory comment.
Relevant: https://youtu.be/md4kM9AKjHs
>I found it to be mental pollution at best and and a total waste of time.
I've tried to express the same idea to friends and family who pester me about not being on FB, but I never came up with a phrase as simple and succinct as "mental pollution." Thanks!
I've tried to express the same idea to friends and family who pester me about not being on FB, but I never came up with a phrase as simple and succinct as "mental pollution." Thanks!
> call or text them
There is no difference between a call or text and a message on FB, the medium doesn't change the context.
There is no difference between a call or text and a message on FB, the medium doesn't change the context.
Of course the medium changes the context. It has a huge effect!
Phone calls are typically person-to-person communication where you can hear the tone of voice of the person you are talking to, so you can better read their meaning. Also, you typically call people you already know well enough to disturb. It's a very personal form of communication.
Facebook is different in all those areas. You are thrown into meaningless conversations with people you don't know where you can't hear anyone's one of voice. Some parts of facebook seem to be designed specifically to encourage more conversation instead of meaningful conversation - things like how you really have to dig to read earlier comments in a thread. They just want you to keep posting instead of following the actual discussion in a coherent way.
Likewise, posting on this site is different than having a conversation in person. You can't tell that I'm writing all this in a friendly tone. Instead, it might come across as an angry argument when I don't mean it that way. That's a disadvantage of this medium and a way in which it changes communication.
Phone calls are typically person-to-person communication where you can hear the tone of voice of the person you are talking to, so you can better read their meaning. Also, you typically call people you already know well enough to disturb. It's a very personal form of communication.
Facebook is different in all those areas. You are thrown into meaningless conversations with people you don't know where you can't hear anyone's one of voice. Some parts of facebook seem to be designed specifically to encourage more conversation instead of meaningful conversation - things like how you really have to dig to read earlier comments in a thread. They just want you to keep posting instead of following the actual discussion in a coherent way.
Likewise, posting on this site is different than having a conversation in person. You can't tell that I'm writing all this in a friendly tone. Instead, it might come across as an angry argument when I don't mean it that way. That's a disadvantage of this medium and a way in which it changes communication.
You can send voice messages over facebook. [1]
[1] https://www.facebook.com/help/377884675632666
[1] https://www.facebook.com/help/377884675632666
A call or text is a different interaction than scrolling through an infinite newsfeed designed to keep you addicted.
A facebook message doesn't force you to scroll forever. It's a message, just like a text message.
yeah but only the NSA will be tracking it if you use text, not some multinational conglomerate that is using it to continually build its profile about you while simultaneously selling that information to other parties.
And if you do it right (meaning using the right app), your messages can be fully end-to-end encrypted so that no one can read them but the intended recipients.
EDIT: it is widely known that the NSA has direct lines into places like Google and Facebook so using Facebook Messenger still routes your messages through the NSA indirectly. The only logical course of action, if someone cares about that sort of thing, is to not use Facebook Messenger and limit the amount of eyes that can see your communications.
And if you do it right (meaning using the right app), your messages can be fully end-to-end encrypted so that no one can read them but the intended recipients.
EDIT: it is widely known that the NSA has direct lines into places like Google and Facebook so using Facebook Messenger still routes your messages through the NSA indirectly. The only logical course of action, if someone cares about that sort of thing, is to not use Facebook Messenger and limit the amount of eyes that can see your communications.
I find it a bit ridiculous that on HN you are damned both ways: if you rarely use fb to contact folks, you are still contributing to fb stats and still addicted (actual claims from other threads regarding fb), and if you aren't you're ignoring a (valuable) message channel.
Are you insinuating that the many commenters here might have differing even - dare I say - contradictory opinions?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you meant, "the medium doesn't change the message". I disagree that everyone feels this way, based on evidence of how I feel when receiving a text message vs. a phone call.
Maybe it's because it personally takes me more effort to make a phone call, or the added tone of voice, or maybe it's just the instant dialogue that the call creates. Calls will always be more special to me than a facebook message. Just as a handwritten birthday letter in the mail is more special than the same message in a text.
Maybe it's because it personally takes me more effort to make a phone call, or the added tone of voice, or maybe it's just the instant dialogue that the call creates. Calls will always be more special to me than a facebook message. Just as a handwritten birthday letter in the mail is more special than the same message in a text.
The medium is not the message?
Marshall McLuhan would beg to differ.
I wonder if, in the future, being able not to be on any social media will be an higher class privilege.
I think it already is. I recently deleted my FB and Twitter accounts. I had to keep my LinkedIn account because a recruiter told me that if I didn't have at least some online persona then I was weird and wouldn't be hired. I guess I'm not rich enough to delete all my social media.
Fascinating that a recruiter actually told you that. I wonder if it's actually true or if the recruiter was saying that because...they are a recruiter and having people on LinkedIn makes their life easier.
Do not underestimate the lengths recruiters (or anyone in charge of hiring for that matter) will go to in order to paint a picture of who they think you are solely based on the social media content they are able to find (or not find) on you.
I have a common name, and have been passed over for job opportunities because someone else in my city with my same name at one point had a facebook account full of obscenities.
I have a common name, and have been passed over for job opportunities because someone else in my city with my same name at one point had a facebook account full of obscenities.
To clarify, the recruiter is more specifically a transition specialist for military members and usually finds jobs in project management. Finding a first job out of the military is a little different because you're old but don't have the same work history as your competition. Employers are less likely to take a risk on your non-standard background if you seem like a "wierdo."
It could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If all recruiters think the same way...
That's BS, I haven't had a LinkedIn account in ages and have not had any trouble when on the job market. I have a Twitter account, but it's dormant - I should probably just delete it, actually...
Tell them what I tell them ("You have to climb the mountain to reach the guru. Otherwise you won't appreciate his advice!")
That usually gets the recruiters out of my hair.
That usually gets the recruiters out of my hair.
Look at it the other way. Do you want to join a company that judges its employees based on online presence? And denies entry to employees who lack such presence?
Recruiters say stupid shit all the time. They are like attorneys nothing they say matters :)
That recruiter is full of shit. A GitHub presence should be enough to get hired for any decent job.
For software specific jobs, that's probably true. But your
GitHub would count as your online persona. But for any job outside of software, the hiring manager doesn't know what GitHub is.
I wondered this awhile back. albeit I took it in a different direction...
I think that social media already gives you opportunities to do things when you login with your social media account. I think in the future (and probably already happening) you get discounts for sharing your social media data and that higher classes (or wealthier people) can afford to not share that information which is why they will not use it. I do not think it will get to the point like it did in 15 million merits (see Black Mirror episode) but something along those lines, specifically money allows you to save time and 'purchase' privacy by not having to use these things that require your privacy in order to use because you can afford not to.
note: I deleted my facebook in 2008. I lost touch with a number of people, but the time I saved has been immeasurable.
I think that social media already gives you opportunities to do things when you login with your social media account. I think in the future (and probably already happening) you get discounts for sharing your social media data and that higher classes (or wealthier people) can afford to not share that information which is why they will not use it. I do not think it will get to the point like it did in 15 million merits (see Black Mirror episode) but something along those lines, specifically money allows you to save time and 'purchase' privacy by not having to use these things that require your privacy in order to use because you can afford not to.
note: I deleted my facebook in 2008. I lost touch with a number of people, but the time I saved has been immeasurable.
This is already happening. I have seen one media company pitching the same idea. They argue data is already sold. They want to make the process transparent and two way so when you share you get credits like things like streaming music etc.
Edit: minor grammar
Edit: minor grammar
I'd say that more than 1 company would be delighted to implement the black mirror episode: live in a box, 1-click order stuff delivered to your box, Pay if you Do Not want... some stuff.
Am I lower or upper class by not being on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram or Twitter?
I am on last.fm tho ;) but not with my real name.
I am on last.fm tho ;) but not with my real name.
You sound awesome and are, in this regard, better than me. I never had WhatsApp, Instagram, or Twitter, but I still have my Facebook account. However, I am not active. I log in only when I receive a message or some alert I actually care about (which is exceedingly rare these days). I see no reason to actually delete my account since I haven't posted anything in years and have barely communicated privately on the platform.
You are avant-garde.
We're already there.
You can get a lot more accomplished by not spending time on Facebook. But for many people, vicarious living and social media validation are some of the few things that bring them joy in their lives.
You can get a lot more accomplished by not spending time on Facebook. But for many people, vicarious living and social media validation are some of the few things that bring them joy in their lives.
The real privilege that derives from this is being able to live without being bombarded with advertising. To be able to have a meaningful conversation with a business that isn't predicated on them trying to analyze your behavior as part of a demographic group. To not be bucketed into a predefined economic segment based on your life experiences.
Agreed. Physical privacy (gated communities, SFH's) have long been a higher class privilege. If you're elite enough you can buy part of a Hawaiian island.
A large part - 97% per
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanai
Would the future then not hold social media that were invite-only in some way?
[deleted]
Professional bodies and company information getting posted only on Facebook is the issue I have.
I dropped all my social networks in the beginning of the year. I did for two main reasons.
First, for privacy concerns. FB, specially was getting to creepy for me. I felt, every action I did was being analyzed and filtered, I felt like I was a lab rat. The fact that these companies know so much about us is pretty scary, I felt like I needed to regain my privacy, fight the system somehow.
Second reason was because, I wasn't getting anything substantial that could improve my life overall. All I saw was dumb-ass posts, ignorant comments, the passive aggressiveness, the "look at me doing this really mundane thing, but please like my picture so I can feel validated", etc... feels like a mouse-cat race to see which of us has a better life or something. I honestly feel bad for how much time I spent there when I could apply that time to learn new things.
After more than 6 months without FB, here's what I've learned:
- I still keep in touch with my closest friends, we chat on slack/iMessage every day. It's actually a good way to know who really misses you, during this time, only about 5% of my FB friends reached out to me through message or phone to ask how were things in life. The other 95%, I really don't even remember most of their names anymore. Just ask yourselves, why do we have to share so much of our lives with so many "friends"? I know we can filter, and create groups, etc.. but damn...do you really want to spend your life "managing" relationships, to see who sees what? I find that tiresome.
- I don't feel left out of anything, because I keep track of local events using other sources, I read news from faithful websites, and if I need to share anything I just use the old email or show face-to-face any pictures I need of my latest vacation from my phone without having to share anything with anyone.
- I gain more time, less stress, I don't feel overwhelmed to keep track of every social media update. I just don't care. If something important happens I will know it sooner or later.
- I no longer have this need to constantly keep posting photos of what I'm doing outdoors or whatever. I don't have the need to feel validated by anyone but myself.
- But most importantly, I regained my privacy, or at least my social footprint is bare none at this point. I'm using uBlock, Firefox, DuckDuckGo and other tools to keep trackers at bay.
I may never completely win this war, but at least my habits aren't being recorded and feed to any ML algorithm.
First, for privacy concerns. FB, specially was getting to creepy for me. I felt, every action I did was being analyzed and filtered, I felt like I was a lab rat. The fact that these companies know so much about us is pretty scary, I felt like I needed to regain my privacy, fight the system somehow.
Second reason was because, I wasn't getting anything substantial that could improve my life overall. All I saw was dumb-ass posts, ignorant comments, the passive aggressiveness, the "look at me doing this really mundane thing, but please like my picture so I can feel validated", etc... feels like a mouse-cat race to see which of us has a better life or something. I honestly feel bad for how much time I spent there when I could apply that time to learn new things.
After more than 6 months without FB, here's what I've learned:
- I still keep in touch with my closest friends, we chat on slack/iMessage every day. It's actually a good way to know who really misses you, during this time, only about 5% of my FB friends reached out to me through message or phone to ask how were things in life. The other 95%, I really don't even remember most of their names anymore. Just ask yourselves, why do we have to share so much of our lives with so many "friends"? I know we can filter, and create groups, etc.. but damn...do you really want to spend your life "managing" relationships, to see who sees what? I find that tiresome.
- I don't feel left out of anything, because I keep track of local events using other sources, I read news from faithful websites, and if I need to share anything I just use the old email or show face-to-face any pictures I need of my latest vacation from my phone without having to share anything with anyone.
- I gain more time, less stress, I don't feel overwhelmed to keep track of every social media update. I just don't care. If something important happens I will know it sooner or later.
- I no longer have this need to constantly keep posting photos of what I'm doing outdoors or whatever. I don't have the need to feel validated by anyone but myself.
- But most importantly, I regained my privacy, or at least my social footprint is bare none at this point. I'm using uBlock, Firefox, DuckDuckGo and other tools to keep trackers at bay.
I may never completely win this war, but at least my habits aren't being recorded and feed to any ML algorithm.
I'm here to fix some ignorance, since the source of the "you are the product" idea is not these books.
Metafilter user blue_beetle first put this idea online when he said "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold" in response to the Digg revolt of 2010. The idea apparently existed for a few decades prior regarding TV advertising. I prefer to think blue_beetle was the one who brought it into the zeitgeist.
http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/16/product/
Edit: Alex3917 posted a similar idea on HN on 6 May 2010, beating blue_beetle by a couple months. Gotta give credit where it's due: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15030959
Metafilter user blue_beetle first put this idea online when he said "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold" in response to the Digg revolt of 2010. The idea apparently existed for a few decades prior regarding TV advertising. I prefer to think blue_beetle was the one who brought it into the zeitgeist.
http://www.metafilter.com/95152/Userdriven-discontent
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/07/16/product/
Edit: Alex3917 posted a similar idea on HN on 6 May 2010, beating blue_beetle by a couple months. Gotta give credit where it's due: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15030959
That may be the origin of this particular phrasing, but the idea is much older:
In 1973, the artist Richard Serra made a film called Television Delivers People which declares "You are the product of TV" [0]
Key to Noam Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_ (1988) is the idea that advertising-supported media caters to the desires of the advertiser, not the media consumer [1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Delivers_People [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
In 1973, the artist Richard Serra made a film called Television Delivers People which declares "You are the product of TV" [0]
Key to Noam Chomsky's _Manufacturing Consent_ (1988) is the idea that advertising-supported media caters to the desires of the advertiser, not the media consumer [1]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_Delivers_People [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
One of the main points underpinning the thesis of Manufacturing Consent's Propaganda model is news organizations selling audiences to corporations via their advertising arms.
So I would say the notion goes back at least to Chomsky and Herman.
Edit: Maybe it needs to be clarified that I'm in agreement with Olympus's comment and trying to expand on it.
So I would say the notion goes back at least to Chomsky and Herman.
Edit: Maybe it needs to be clarified that I'm in agreement with Olympus's comment and trying to expand on it.
Quote from Conclusions chapter of Manufacturing Consent (from edition published in 2002, but I don't think this part changed at all since first edition published in 1988).
"A propaganda model has a certain initial plausibility on guided free-market assumptions that are not particularly controversial. In essence, the private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers). The national media typically target and serve elite opinion, groups that, on the one hand, provide an optimal “profile” for advertising purposes, and, on the other, play a role in decision-making in the private and public spheres. The national media would be failing to meet their elite audience’s needs if they did not present a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world. But their “societal purpose” also requires that the media’s interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions dominated by these groups."
"A propaganda model has a certain initial plausibility on guided free-market assumptions that are not particularly controversial. In essence, the private media are major corporations selling a product (readers and audiences) to other businesses (advertisers). The national media typically target and serve elite opinion, groups that, on the one hand, provide an optimal “profile” for advertising purposes, and, on the other, play a role in decision-making in the private and public spheres. The national media would be failing to meet their elite audience’s needs if they did not present a tolerably realistic portrayal of the world. But their “societal purpose” also requires that the media’s interpretation of the world reflect the interests and concerns of the sellers, the buyers, and the governmental and private institutions dominated by these groups."
This explains Chuck Lorre's career. Touch just enough segments of society and keep them just entertained enough (there have probably been focus groups on optimal laughs per minute), and you will have the widest number of advertisers wanting to buy time. This is a fact of all mainstream media, it's just that in TV you have to keep coming up with new combinations of people for the audientce to relate to, which is hard. "Everybody Loves Raymond" is essentially "I Love Lucy," but also different.
I really don't like that phrase; you are NOT the product that facebook creates.
Facebook creates a product which is a social media network. You PAY for that product with your data and your eyeballs. Facebook takes your payment, turns around, and sells it to advertisers and others interested in the data.
That is not the same as saying you are the product.
Facebook creates a product which is a social media network. You PAY for that product with your data and your eyeballs. Facebook takes your payment, turns around, and sells it to advertisers and others interested in the data.
That is not the same as saying you are the product.
"you are NOT the product that facebook creates"
Right, of course.
But I believe the point here is you are, in terms of the sum of your data and your attention, the product facebook sells
You don't explicitly and consciously pay with your data and attention in exchange for a social networking service, you are tricked into a "free" service that you implicitly pay with your data and attention.
Right, of course.
But I believe the point here is you are, in terms of the sum of your data and your attention, the product facebook sells
You don't explicitly and consciously pay with your data and attention in exchange for a social networking service, you are tricked into a "free" service that you implicitly pay with your data and attention.
Advertisers use terminology that matches the user as the product. They talk about "inventory" and that means page views. They talk about "supply side" and that means people who come to gawk. They talk about "demand side" and that means advertisers.
Facebook knows who pays the bills, and they kowtow to those people.
The system is entirely set up to sell users to advertisers. Content is merely there to allow them harvest users. That's how the whole chain operates.
Facebook knows who pays the bills, and they kowtow to those people.
The system is entirely set up to sell users to advertisers. Content is merely there to allow them harvest users. That's how the whole chain operates.
It's a pithy saying that gets across that you as the user and the proprietor's interests may not align. We are manipulated with low doses of pleasure, nostalgia, etc. This often involves some level of deception. Sophisticated psychology is used in advertisers. When you pay with money the incentives and transactions are more clear. I'm most aware of this through my children's interactions with entertainment where YouTube and "free" mobile games frustrate me the most.
Yeah, but it's mostly wrong, and it's a sophomoric commercephobic understanding of business (also, it's an arrogant and misanthropic view of Facebooks two billion actual users as ignorant victims of something that sounds almost like a scam).
The exact same argument can be made for supermarkets: they are conduits for putting you in front of goods from suppliers (supermarkets invest a lot more in their relationship with powerful suppliers than they do with individual customers!) - your desire to buy food and go home and make dinner is entirely orthogonal to the supermarket, their interests aren't aligned with yours! Yet, despite this, in more than half a century of supermarkets being wildly popular, serving billions of people, the number of times when the supermarket failed to satisfy the customers actual desire is a rounding error next to the times they did.
Adam Smith saw and understood this 250 years ago: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
And so it is with Facebook. If it does not fundamentally provide some value that you care about, you will stop using it, and in that important aspect their interests are aligned with yours.
The exact same argument can be made for supermarkets: they are conduits for putting you in front of goods from suppliers (supermarkets invest a lot more in their relationship with powerful suppliers than they do with individual customers!) - your desire to buy food and go home and make dinner is entirely orthogonal to the supermarket, their interests aren't aligned with yours! Yet, despite this, in more than half a century of supermarkets being wildly popular, serving billions of people, the number of times when the supermarket failed to satisfy the customers actual desire is a rounding error next to the times they did.
Adam Smith saw and understood this 250 years ago: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
And so it is with Facebook. If it does not fundamentally provide some value that you care about, you will stop using it, and in that important aspect their interests are aligned with yours.
> If it does not fundamentally provide some value that you care about, you will stop using it
This isn't quite true, where addiction / compulsive usage can be implicated. Still, it's true that FB isn't completely in the pocket of advertisers and such. To the extent that they do make transgressions against their users, they will tend to not be overt.
FB doesn't have to make its users happy (whatever that means) so much as not piss them off.
This isn't quite true, where addiction / compulsive usage can be implicated. Still, it's true that FB isn't completely in the pocket of advertisers and such. To the extent that they do make transgressions against their users, they will tend to not be overt.
FB doesn't have to make its users happy (whatever that means) so much as not piss them off.
It's really great that you present the example of supermarkets. You mention that the group that holds the most power over the supermarkets are the suppliers, not the consumers - a counterpoint to the Facebook situation.
An extreme difference in the situation is that what is being sold by the supermarket is a physical commodity, and in the Facebook case, what is being sold is highly personalized data, the understanding of which could be used to affect the Facebook user far into the future.
Buying lettuce from a store does not bind you as tightly to the store.
What is the same in both cases, is that the larger, more organized entity with more money is being catered to, and the needs of the mass of consumers is being given less weight.
That seems like a natural outcome of how the incentives are set up - the corporations have more at stake, and have more veto power per organization. Therefore, they are going to bargain harder, at a higher level.
One way that you cannot compare the two ("If it does not fundamentally provide some value ..."), is that I can go to any supermarket to get curry ingredients. I may only be able to go to see what a particular person has to say, for example my mom, or the hot person I just met.
A great example. Thank you.
An extreme difference in the situation is that what is being sold by the supermarket is a physical commodity, and in the Facebook case, what is being sold is highly personalized data, the understanding of which could be used to affect the Facebook user far into the future.
Buying lettuce from a store does not bind you as tightly to the store.
What is the same in both cases, is that the larger, more organized entity with more money is being catered to, and the needs of the mass of consumers is being given less weight.
That seems like a natural outcome of how the incentives are set up - the corporations have more at stake, and have more veto power per organization. Therefore, they are going to bargain harder, at a higher level.
One way that you cannot compare the two ("If it does not fundamentally provide some value ..."), is that I can go to any supermarket to get curry ingredients. I may only be able to go to see what a particular person has to say, for example my mom, or the hot person I just met.
A great example. Thank you.
> it's an arrogant and misanthropic view of Facebooks two billion actual users as ignorant victims of something that sounds almost like a scam)
Do you really think most of Facebook's users have any idea of the value of what they're handing over, or of how it's being used, or of the potential for abuse?
> And so it is with Facebook. If it does not fundamentally provide some value that you care about, you will stop using it, and in that important aspect their interests are aligned with yours.
Yes in the same sense that a heroin dealer's interests are aligned with the addict's.
Do you really think most of Facebook's users have any idea of the value of what they're handing over, or of how it's being used, or of the potential for abuse?
> And so it is with Facebook. If it does not fundamentally provide some value that you care about, you will stop using it, and in that important aspect their interests are aligned with yours.
Yes in the same sense that a heroin dealer's interests are aligned with the addict's.
I tried to ignore your accusations, ad hominem attacks and attempts to paint me into an extremist corner. Where as I'm being sophomoric, your arguments are not reductionism? Adam Smith's comments do not age well when applied to convoluted multi-party interests in the virtual world.
"Value" is a low bar. Do you have thoughts on Facebook's moral responsibilities to their actual users particularly given the sophisticated psychology experiments it's known to run? Is reduction to engagement and economic value appropriate for what is the social platform monopoly?
I have every confidence that the psychological manipulation used today will be found to be unethical in the decades ahead as we gain understanding of the brain and establish science that supports morality.
"Value" is a low bar. Do you have thoughts on Facebook's moral responsibilities to their actual users particularly given the sophisticated psychology experiments it's known to run? Is reduction to engagement and economic value appropriate for what is the social platform monopoly?
I have every confidence that the psychological manipulation used today will be found to be unethical in the decades ahead as we gain understanding of the brain and establish science that supports morality.
I think you are essentially right, but I want to make a distinction. Just because a product or service is perceived as valuable, does not mean they benefit the consumer. Examples include products laced with sugar or other drugs (legal/illegal). Sure consumers want them, but they also hurt consumers (addiction of one type or another).
I guess what I am saying is, sure their interests may align with ours, but are our interested aligned with us to begin with? If our interests leads to self destructive tendencies, is that still ok?
I guess what I am saying is, sure their interests may align with ours, but are our interested aligned with us to begin with? If our interests leads to self destructive tendencies, is that still ok?
I think it is indeed a distinction: Facebook is no doubt a bad habit for some portion of its users, just like many other things are. But casting doubt on the legitimacy of their business model by using the "you are the product" trope is really a different matter. The things that are actually worrying about Facebook would still be worrying even if we paid for it, and suddenly weren't "the product" anymore.
"Benefit" is a fraught word. History is littered with those campaigning against presumed vices. I can't find the quote right now, but I'm pretty sure Dr Kellogg, the cornflakes guy, had some things to say about young women reading fiction that IIRC wasn't all that different from what critics have to say about Facebook today.
Whatever is wrong with Facebook is analogues to what's wrong with any number of vices, from sugar to alcohol to weed (and Facebook is probably in the very light end of that spectrum). They all benefit users, but also potentially do harm. The solution isn't moral zealously, it's being responsible, being aware of not letting it get to you and helping a friend before they get in too deep.
"Benefit" is a fraught word. History is littered with those campaigning against presumed vices. I can't find the quote right now, but I'm pretty sure Dr Kellogg, the cornflakes guy, had some things to say about young women reading fiction that IIRC wasn't all that different from what critics have to say about Facebook today.
Whatever is wrong with Facebook is analogues to what's wrong with any number of vices, from sugar to alcohol to weed (and Facebook is probably in the very light end of that spectrum). They all benefit users, but also potentially do harm. The solution isn't moral zealously, it's being responsible, being aware of not letting it get to you and helping a friend before they get in too deep.
[deleted]
So my data are the product but not me? Where's the distinction?
> sells it to advertisers and others interested in the data
Advertisers don't care about the data, they care about converting you into a customer. Data happens to be the medium in which the exchange happens. Just like I don't buy a whole convenience store - I buy a soda from a convenience store - I am buying customers from Facebook's social media network. So, yes, it's appropriate to say "YOU are the product".
Advertisers don't care about the data, they care about converting you into a customer. Data happens to be the medium in which the exchange happens. Just like I don't buy a whole convenience store - I buy a soda from a convenience store - I am buying customers from Facebook's social media network. So, yes, it's appropriate to say "YOU are the product".
You are not _the_ product, but your are _a_ product of theirs.
Different phrasing, but I had posted basically the exact same idea on HN and gotten tons of upvotes a few weeks earlier:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1325103
I only posted it because one of my friends told me about hearing a speaker bringing up the idea at a conference, but it's an idea that's been around for decades.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1325103
I only posted it because one of my friends told me about hearing a speaker bringing up the idea at a conference, but it's an idea that's been around for decades.
Few days? HN bug?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1325103 > 2659 days ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1325103 > 2659 days ago
He meant that he posted it prior to blue_beetle's comment in 2010. I had claimed that blue_beetle was the first person to put it on the internet, and he posted proof that he had posted a similar idea before blue_beetle did.
Alex3917 is either a time traveler or he's got superhuman memory. Speculation: 3917 is his mother year.
The reason I remember it is because I posted it as a HN comment, and then a few weeks later someone basically rewrote it into a blog post and got tens of millions of page views and tons of mainstream media coverage. Had that not happened, there's no way I'd remember now.
The source of that article was posted 2659 days ago. Maybe Alex3917 is a time traveler? (Welcome to 2017 Alex, sorry about everything).
[deleted]
As much as I give blue-beetle credit for having one of the earliest print references for that exact turn of phrase, I had definitely heard it before then. I don't think he really brought it into the zeitgeist, but then again I haven't talked to the entire zeitgeist about it yet.
[deleted]
Sorry - I want to make clear that the point of sharing this article on HN is not to give credit to who came up with this concept. I simply want to start (or continue) discourse on this particular subject.
To be honest, this isn't even just about Facebook, I'm sure you could have the same argument about the majority of today's tech companies who are commoditizing information about users and using that to monetize.
Generally, though, this is a trend that is not slowing down, instead it's rapidly speeding up. In addition to that, the methods have become increasingly worse. I'd like to continue discourse on methods of combating this particular phenomenon.
To be honest, this isn't even just about Facebook, I'm sure you could have the same argument about the majority of today's tech companies who are commoditizing information about users and using that to monetize.
Generally, though, this is a trend that is not slowing down, instead it's rapidly speeding up. In addition to that, the methods have become increasingly worse. I'd like to continue discourse on methods of combating this particular phenomenon.
In essence that's a concept worth spreading. For example see how the Google memo debacle, or how Trumps president run news were formed to fit the particular outlets readership for maximum rage-views and/or confirmation sympathy.
As for combating this - there are no golden bullets. Even Google's search starts to lean towards sources that a given user visits more oft... or actually my search patterns fit to a given scheme that's abused by media outlets in their SEO.
I've had an idea for aggregating time-ordered news headlines for analysis to get a broad comparison of author and company leanings. This could be then shaped to a browser extension informing the user about that. The problem is that then it would be accused of labeling stuff with broad strokes.
(This mainly comes from me not remembering which news site likes which politicians and social issues.)
As for combating this - there are no golden bullets. Even Google's search starts to lean towards sources that a given user visits more oft... or actually my search patterns fit to a given scheme that's abused by media outlets in their SEO.
I've had an idea for aggregating time-ordered news headlines for analysis to get a broad comparison of author and company leanings. This could be then shaped to a browser extension informing the user about that. The problem is that then it would be accused of labeling stuff with broad strokes.
(This mainly comes from me not remembering which news site likes which politicians and social issues.)
A universal system of micro-payments could help change the system or at least provide support to alternative systems. I want to pay for things I use to support the creator and to signal that it is valuable. Unfortunately, all the efforts in creating micro-payments have failed (in the US?). Seems to me this is a place where the controller of the local currency (in the US, the Fed/Federal government) should set up a system. It would only take one nation with a floating exchange rate to set up a working micro-payment system and it could become the defacto global online currency. Many nations would quickly follow. Come on Canada, do this.
It would have to be an opt-out system, like advertising is (blockers), otherwise profit from micropayments wouldn't accumulate to anything sensible.
Arguably it doesn't even matter () because it's more profitable to run advertising along with donations/micropayments to diversify revenue streams. This also doesn't solve the issue of views as currency and the optimizations it drags along.
Arguably it doesn't even matter () because it's more profitable to run advertising along with donations/micropayments to diversify revenue streams. This also doesn't solve the issue of views as currency and the optimizations it drags along.
OP, I didn't mean to imply that you did. This was me shouting stuff out to the HN crowd because I think it's interesting and it's tangentially related to the article.
That, plus there's sure to be a young whipper-snapper on HN that will read the article and think, "what a neat idea that nobody has ever thought of..."
That, plus there's sure to be a young whipper-snapper on HN that will read the article and think, "what a neat idea that nobody has ever thought of..."
"Television Delivers People" (1973) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfnm5XHsHkc
Adbusters 1999 "the product is you" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xtAX0HfsBtk
I'm using Facebook to earn my "fuck you money".
The advertising tools are so powerful it is downright scary, the level of targeting one can do using it is just insane.
That's partly the reason why I stopped posting updates. After seeing the depth of the advertising tools.
I don't use Facebook for posting personal updates anymore but only to fuel my business. I realise that the only way I can "choose" to stay out of all these services that track and sell our identity to advertisers is if I have "fuck you money" (money is the currency you exchange for your limited time in order to survive in this world).
The advertising tools are so powerful it is downright scary, the level of targeting one can do using it is just insane.
That's partly the reason why I stopped posting updates. After seeing the depth of the advertising tools.
I don't use Facebook for posting personal updates anymore but only to fuel my business. I realise that the only way I can "choose" to stay out of all these services that track and sell our identity to advertisers is if I have "fuck you money" (money is the currency you exchange for your limited time in order to survive in this world).
So you don't like Facebook tracking and advertising to you but you happily make your money using those tools you describe as downright scary on others?
Does this not scream hypocrisy to you?
Does this not scream hypocrisy to you?
I've been using Facebook for years, awesome tool, I'm in contact with friends, relatives and parters, it is awesome.
That's all so great. But how does it relate to the article?
Why the mod downs? It makes you angry that I find Facebook useful?
The echo chamber disenjoys dissonance.
I use FB to keep in touch with family and friends, and as a way for them to invite me to events. I avoid the "news" feed like the plague, and strongly prefer Imgur's User Submitted for a feed of "what's going on in the world today".
I use FB to keep in touch with family and friends, and as a way for them to invite me to events. I avoid the "news" feed like the plague, and strongly prefer Imgur's User Submitted for a feed of "what's going on in the world today".
I think it's because the downvoters feel like it doesn't add anything to the discussion, because you don't really address the concerns in the article.
Perhaps your comment didn't add anything useful to the discussion other than a lightweight opinion?
However, HN downvotes do seem to be trending toward "I disagree" recently too, in my experience.
However, HN downvotes do seem to be trending toward "I disagree" recently too, in my experience.
As if these constant digs at Facebook amount to deep nuance?
By all means, if you can't use a website without becoming addicted to it, disconnect.
But there's no need to damn everyone else with the "that's exactly what an addict would say" kafkatrap rhetoric that seems to be so popular every time the topic comes up.
By all means, if you can't use a website without becoming addicted to it, disconnect.
But there's no need to damn everyone else with the "that's exactly what an addict would say" kafkatrap rhetoric that seems to be so popular every time the topic comes up.
It's of the same amount of value as the canned "delete facebook" comments we see in every thread on it (including the current top-ranked comment, which has zero value and is factually wrong).
Facebook isn't new anymore so it's not cool to like it. I also find it vastly more useful than other social media sites.
Cal Newport has been saying things like Facebook and other SM are engineered to be addictive and we've constantly seeing Youths falling for it. Adam Alter made a similar comment that when we've got a proper regulation for substances, why not for something like social media?
Fb is not just making us another node in a vast network graph but also ensuring a worst boring grown-ups who can't do anything worthy but post an Fb post condemning something and feeling great about their social responsibility.
Fb is not just making us another node in a vast network graph but also ensuring a worst boring grown-ups who can't do anything worthy but post an Fb post condemning something and feeling great about their social responsibility.
Indeed.
Any service online, where you do not explicitly pay money for goods/services rendered, you can rest assured that you are paying with data or influence (advertisement).
HN is no different. They control the news, and how the news is displayed. They run the YCombinator venture capital fund. You do not pay them, but they control influence (advertising). I would expect different if I paid YC for news access... But I dont.
Any service online, where you do not explicitly pay money for goods/services rendered, you can rest assured that you are paying with data or influence (advertisement).
HN is no different. They control the news, and how the news is displayed. They run the YCombinator venture capital fund. You do not pay them, but they control influence (advertising). I would expect different if I paid YC for news access... But I dont.
That line is increasingly blurred. Premium(payed) services also data mine, and I find it increasingly difficult to tell to what extent. As long as you collect a trove of data, and that data has market value, I generally expect it to be sold/used for profit.
Edit: grammar
Middleground alternative is to have a non profit behind the "free service". This works relatively well for some opensource critical resources like rubygems.org which has a foundation paying the bills, sponsored by companies. I think there are other good examples.
Problem is that social networks are hard to build, and tech people behind efforts like Diaspora, while they may understand the tech part, can't make something appealing enough for grandma or everage joe.
Problem is that social networks are hard to build, and tech people behind efforts like Diaspora, while they may understand the tech part, can't make something appealing enough for grandma or everage joe.
> Whatever comes next will take us back to those two pillars of the company, growth and monetisation. Growth can only come from connecting new areas of the planet.
This is a questionable assertion. Giant tech companies like Oracle and IBM don't tend to expand in this way, they make acquisitions of smaller companies, and use them to enhance the platform capabilities of the larger product.
I'm sure Zuck will be delighted if the "bottom billion" do all sign up and use Facebook, but they're never going to be massively profitable accounts.
Imo the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp show the way that Facebook will go - Instagram adds a new and lucrative ad format, a profitable user segment and a base for adding in ideas from other platforms, such as Snapchat. WhatsApp builds out Facebook's graph and can be mined for intel.
This is a questionable assertion. Giant tech companies like Oracle and IBM don't tend to expand in this way, they make acquisitions of smaller companies, and use them to enhance the platform capabilities of the larger product.
I'm sure Zuck will be delighted if the "bottom billion" do all sign up and use Facebook, but they're never going to be massively profitable accounts.
Imo the acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp show the way that Facebook will go - Instagram adds a new and lucrative ad format, a profitable user segment and a base for adding in ideas from other platforms, such as Snapchat. WhatsApp builds out Facebook's graph and can be mined for intel.
I don't understand the problem, you can use Facebook for adding friends and messaging them and it's free. You can use Facebook Messenger, not use the app and use website for adding people and getting their information. The newsfeed there can be turned off or customised, if you do install the app, all notifications can be turned off. This is a good and free service, but if people don't know hot to use it, maybe there is a point in writing about it. Messages about deleting Facebook account seem counterproductive, because why throw away a good tool if you use it rarely and it's useful?
It seems you didn't read the text. The point the article is making is not about how to use the Facebook and its set of features. I will not try to create a TL;DR in a comment as that would not do justice to the article, but please read it.
It might help you understand why it is "free". You be the judge of if that is good or bad.
It might help you understand why it is "free". You be the judge of if that is good or bad.
The real problem with Facebook is that it causes depression. No one posts anything bad about their lives so your life looks terrible in comparison to the image everyone is posting.
I log in whenever I need to use messenger, about once every three months. Was greeted with a notification telling me it had been 258 weeks since I last updated my profile. :)
Facebook has been slowly making messenger worse though. They have added the stupid status updates which nobody in my circle uses. Before I knew that when I got to messenger I would only have conversations, now I dread that they will slowly transform it into yet another "platform".
It would be a right move for them probably, going mobile first like WeChat did in China, still it is probably the only "messaging only" platform which people around me use.
It would be a right move for them probably, going mobile first like WeChat did in China, still it is probably the only "messaging only" platform which people around me use.
I haven't used FB in the last 6 months or so. I'm mentally healthier.
[deleted]
There is a certain irony in an article criticizing of Facebook as a data-retailer disguised as a free service being "free with exchange of an email address".
I think every adult who uses FB is aware of this and they don't care. FB users self-select for people who don't care that a company productizes them.
I read more and more articles and comments about things we've been saying for years. How come you wake up now and say that like it's a surprise ?
I agree that this particular article probably doesn't introduce any new ideas into conversation. However, I think it's important to continue dialogue on methods of action to combat this phenomenon. Realistically, while there are more and more articles and comments like this, the fact of the matter is that Facebook's growth and monetization is not slowing at an appreciable rate at all, and their methods have not substantially changed (if anything, they have changed for the worse as they concentrate more and more on monetization).
Every time I think something like this, I remember that xkcd [1] about people learning things you already know, especially the mouseover text.
[1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/
[1]: https://xkcd.com/1053/
On the comics front, I've seen this comic since at least 2013
http://computerfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/facebook...
http://computerfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/facebook...
Fair enough :) And probably wiser.
I just felt frustrated that so much people discarded the arguments years ago only to read it everywhere now.
I just felt frustrated that so much people discarded the arguments years ago only to read it everywhere now.
It's been years since I deleted my Facebook account, I do use WhatsApp though, and I don't feel like I am missing up on anything.
Deleted my Facebook account two months ago, but kept the Messenger for keeping up with a handful of friends. Haven't missed the newsfeed spam a day since! Rest assured you're not missing out
Is it actually possible to keep messenger without Facebook? Because Facebook is a complete time wasting, spam filled, mind dulling echo chamber platform that I keep going back to due to habit. If I log out or deactivate I completely don't care after a few days, but messenger is essential to me.
Yes, and I didn't know that either until I tried it out. My regular FB account is "deactivated", but Messenger works just fine. They seem to have decoupled both products some time ago.
They removed that possibility some time ago. Now if you disable your Facebook account, it's reactivated as soon as you log into Messenger. Tried it just a few days ago.
I just tried deactivating, and upon logging in to Messenger (which works) it logged me into Messenger, but not FB.
Sweet!
Sweet!
Wait, that's awesome. I've been using news feed eradicator but now you're telling me that I can delete my Facebook account and still have a messenger account?
Does that messenger account work for "sign in with facebook" buttons? For example, the only way to authenticate with Tinder is a Facebook account.
Does that messenger account work for "sign in with facebook" buttons? For example, the only way to authenticate with Tinder is a Facebook account.
No, you can't use the Messenger account for authentication. At least for Tinder I can confirm it doesn't work, maybe there's an OAuth provider for Messenger that no one uses, idk
No you cant sign into any other accounts with facebook, well you cant without reactivating it. If you sign into a deactivated facebook account even into a game, or something similar, it will count that as a account sign in and reactivate your account. If you fully delete your account, you wont be able to sign in at all.
Most people I know dislike FB. But there are hundreds of millions out there for whom FB had become an addiction. B
Research shows that most people use FB to keep in touch with their close friends and family. I don’t think it’s bad to be addicted to that.
Edit: Some references for the people who downvoted:
Edit: Some references for the people who downvoted:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0193397308000701 (also talks about how FB is a good help for people with low self-esteem)
http://www.cairn.info/revue-sociologie-2017-1-p-57.htm (French)
http://www.cairn.info/revue-sociologie-2017-1-p-83.htm (French, talks about how people in their 40s use FB - spoiler: to keep in touch with close friends and family)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.002
http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/Facebook wants you to believe that it "enables" communication with friends and family, but in practice they work hard to maintain a stranglehold upon that vector, excluding or absorbing alternative tools to ensure that they can gather personal information and insert advertising.
Communication isn't a problem, but communication mediated by a predatory middleman and augmented with addictive mechanics absolutely is.
Communication isn't a problem, but communication mediated by a predatory middleman and augmented with addictive mechanics absolutely is.
That's my experience. I use it to keep in touch with friends and family, and to keep on top of events being held in my community and by my friends. I'm not sure what I would do without the Event and Group parts of facebook, as many of my friends and communities I'm a part of use those to plan/organize social activities and it works pretty well. One of my close friends who never checks his facebook is constantly out of the loop on that stuff.
In my experience most people idly browse through the news feed for a couple minutes a few times a day. I doubt that a large portion are actually addicted to it.
In my experience most people idly browse through the news feed for a couple minutes a few times a day. I doubt that a large portion are actually addicted to it.
I think the more dangerous problem than being addicted to it, is the affect it can have on you even if you are only on it for a few minutes a day. I find social media causes people to only see the best parts of other people lives and therefore wonder why their life is not that great, and than theres a nice downward spiral of discontent and depression.
Social media, used by some only to keep in contact is okay, but the subconscious comparison of your real life to others social media life, can be really harmful.
Social media, used by some only to keep in contact is okay, but the subconscious comparison of your real life to others social media life, can be really harmful.
> but the subconscious comparison of your real life to others social media life, can be really harmful.
Do you happen to have some papers on that subject? I’ve seen papers on how people present themselves on FB; not on how they "judge" others’ feeds.
Do you happen to have some papers on that subject? I’ve seen papers on how people present themselves on FB; not on how they "judge" others’ feeds.
Not anything more than various blog posts or web articles that I've read. I should have been more clear that I was mainly speaking from a personal perspective and what I, and those around me, have discussed and experienced. Sorry for being misleading.
That's what it was supposed to be for me, at least in the beginning.
Then I realized that I keep in touch with the people who I want to keep in touch using direct messages, phone calls, email, etc.
Then I realized that I keep in touch with the people who I want to keep in touch using direct messages, phone calls, email, etc.
Yes; I wonder how the separation of Messenger and FB itself has changed the general user’s FB usage.
I agree that FB is a valuable tool to reach to individuals and communities and keep in touch with friends
I hope people are ready for Facebook to be fully integrated into Zuckerberg's political campaign.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Messenger bot platform is the only reason I turned back to facebook.
i am not using facebook actively, but still have my account. have been so much happier since i started doing this.
Isn't it also true for Google ?
If you want to 'keep in touch' with people, call or text them. Make an effort to actually interact with the people who matter to you.