Citation needed? Most people I know happily use it to communicate and post funny (or at least trying to be funny) posts, or are older people who post lots of family pictures. The views of people on Hackernews don't seem very representative of those of the general population, maybe because hating on Facebook is an excellent excuse for people to feel superior to the general population. "I know better than those ignorant proles, I wish they'd do what I think is best for them instead of what they want to do."
Since you disagree with the parent and are claiming the opposite as him (also without a citation), I decided to Google around for some actual data.
Here are some findings from a NBC/WSJ poll [0]...
> 57 percent of Americans say they agree with the statement that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter do more to divide the country
> Fifty-five percent believe social media does more to spread lies and falsehoods, versus 31 percent who say it does more to spread news and information
> Sixty-one percent think social media does more to spread unfair attacks and rumors against public figures and corporations, compared with 32 percent who say it does more to hold those public figures and corporations accountable.
> 82 percent say social media sites do more to waste people’s time, versus 15 percent who say they do more to use Americans’ time well.
> 60 percent saying they don’t trust the company at all to protect personal information
> 36 percent of adults view Facebook positively, while 33 percent see it negatively. And Twitter’s rating is 24 percent positive, 27 percent negative.
> 36 percent of adults view Facebook positively, while 33 percent see it negatively. And Twitter’s rating is 24 percent positive, 27 percent negative.
Am I correct in reading here that more adults view Facebook positively than negatively?
Interestingly, it also shows 68% of respondents agreed with "The federal government should not break these companies up because competition should be left to the free market without government choosing winners and losers", vs only 28% disagreeing, and for all such breakup questions asked there was 59% that totally agree with not breaking up, vs 30% that agree with breaking up. This is a clear majority in favour of not breaking them up, whereas the majority on HN seem to favour breaking thhem up.
I primarily responded because I disagree with your opinion:
> The views of people on Hackernews don't seem very representative of those of the general population, maybe because hating on Facebook is an excellent excuse for people to feel superior to the general population.
I agree with the part that HN isn't representative of the general population. But I don't think the reason for disagreeing is because we on HN want to feel superior to everyone else (maybe some people do, but I don't think most people here actually think that way..).
The data from the poll shows that a negative opinion of Facebook is not particularly uncommon. It might not be the majority opinion, but it's also not an uncommon opinion among the general public.
>But I don't think the reason for disagreeing is because we on HN want to feel superior to everyone else (maybe some people do, but I don't think most people here actually think that way..).
Maybe people don't explicitly think that, but people who demand a Facebook ban must at least implicitly believe they're somehow superior to the billions of Facebook users, otherwise how could they justify the notion that they way they want those people to spend their time is better than the way those people have demonstrated they want to spend their time? If I were to say to a grown adult "I demand you stop smoking pot, it's bad for you!", I can't imagine a way I could do that without coming across as believing I knew better than them.
>hating on Facebook is an excellent excuse for people to feel superior to the general population. "I know better than those ignorant proles, I wish they'd do what I think is best for them instead of what they want to do."
Ironic; that's the same ethos being espoused and implemented by those who run Facebook.
Its inherent in the business model: profiting off making people think, do, and buy things they otherwise would not have. Ever since the news feed ceased to be chronological, FB has become increasingly forceful with their filtering and sorting of people's minds primarily in accordance with what increases FB's profits.
Blocking a communication platform doesn't sound right in a free society. There's nothing inherently wrong with connecting people. On the other hand, there should be heavy regulation and enforcement in place so that users don't get their data unknowingly exploited for commercial interest.
>Blocking a communication platform doesn't sound right in a free society.
Collecting data on the citizenry under the guise of a communication platform doesn't sound right in a free society either.
You obviously transition and acknowledge/consider the same in your second sentence.
Maybe if the companies primary goal was to provide a communication platform government regulation may be concern, but their primary goal is to collect and monetize user data, the premises upon which they get the users to contractually give them that data being secondary should give the government more latitude without any free speech concerns.
Facebook has turned out to be a potential threat to free society. I’m not just talking about the mass manipulation that goes on mostly unregulated, but also the fact that it has quite a lot of personal information on our citizens.
Maybe that wouldn’t be an issue if Europe was the best of friends with America, but as that’s obviously not the case. I don’t think our relationship will fully deteriorate, but we can’t ignore the fact that we may have to prepare for a Europe which is less reliant on American tech companies.
All problems from big tech stem from their centralization.
If Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook were broken up into collections of smaller, independent companies... a lot of the ills would simply disappear, and the market as a whole would be a lot healthier.
Since big tech companies seem to have an advantage over smaller ones (otherwise smaller ones would already be dominating the market), presumably they'd just be replaced by large Chinese equivalents, which wouldn't be broken up as they have much more cooperative relationships with their government. TikTok is already quite popular in the west, proving it's possible. Unless the west tries to ban all Chinese social networks, which would require some kind of national firewall, in which case it'd lose any moral high ground it had over China for China's banning of WhatsApp, Facebook and Twitter.
Amazon - See data hoarder [1]. Other than that, debatable because Amazon organizationally seems to optimize for efficiency (e.g. compressing margins). However, by cracking it into a logistics company and an online retail company, users would benefit from broader access to Amazon's efficient supply chain. Furthermore, the incentive for Amazon to abuse its logistics advantage to muscle out competition (e.g. Amazon Basics + first-party product offerings) would be lessened.
Apple - Probably the most debatable of the group. See first-party app store [2]. The biggest case for Apple would be about how lazy they've recently been for non-margin generating offerings. Since iTunes, and then the app store, they've gotten lazy about relentlessly innovating. You've seen it in the iPhone and the MBP. To say nothing of their server offerings.
Google - See data hoarder [1]. See first-party app store [2].
Facebook - See data hoarder [1]. See first-party app store [2].
Google and Facebook are essentially the Valves of everything. They're spitting out cool things here and there, while rolling in the mountain of cash they're taxing from the rest of the economy. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that cash wouldn't better be spent by other companies.
[1] Data hoarder. By centralizing collection of user / customer data (usually by first-mover advantage, leveraging that to buy any existential threats), these firms have created a dominant market position. They control the platforms, so they collect the data, so they have more data, so they can more efficiently monetize that data, so they can afford to buy competitors (repeat). This cycle is unlikely to be broken without regulatory intervention.
This is firstly a sub-optimal state of affairs because it allows these companies to rent seek from all downstream consumers of this data (most clearly: advertising). By leveraging their position as the sole source of an ongoing data feed for "their" users, they position themselves as the only place to obtain that data in a functional manner. Ergo, all downstream consumers are compelled to purchase it from them, or do without.
The counter-argument is that they perform this function more efficiently than a hypothetical freer market of numerous competitors. However, I leave it to you to decide how often an entity without external competitive pressure has chosen to operate in the most globally efficient manner for their customers.
Secondly, this impacts product development, whereby the data owners may choose at their sole discretion not to share this data with competitors. As a result, there are products that only these parties are capable of creating. Because of the scale of these organizations, there are many opportunities they will not see as worth their time. Consequently, those opportunities will never be pursued, as the smaller companies interested in doing so simply can't without access to that data.
One might argue that that's sub-optimal, and that eventually the data owners would awaken to the profit opportunity in selling that data to the interested companies. To which I would retort something along the lines of "GM, Ford, and Kodak all recognized new market opportunities, and did they pursue them?" Institutional conservatism and inertia at scale is a lazy thing.
[2] First-party app store. By owning the underlying hardware platform / presentation interface (in Facebook's case), there's a clear conflict of interest. First-party app store owners face a substantially lesser incentive to innovate, secure, or respond to customer demands than they would in a free marketplace. As a result, app store management practices and technical functionality rot in comparison to a free market in which they were forced to compete with competitor's app stores.
Without going in depth, there is an obvious financial component, whereby first-party app stores with a monopoly are able to rent seek and extract a greater-than-optimal cut of app revenue. In a free market of alternatives, greater portions of app revenue would flow through to developers (note: in individual, the aggregate case is admittedly more complex).
Additionally, this extends to app censorship and policies. By controlling app stores as the gateway to "their" customers, the underlying owners can shape the kinds of apps they allow to exist. This produces negative outcomes in at least two ways. (1) Apps' responsiveness to actual customer demand is suppressed, as they must first and foremost satisfy app store rules. This can be seen in censorship policies (e.g. issues with distributing open source or "PR sensitive" apps), as well as functional abilities (e.g. the variety of always-on / background execution use cases precluded for all but first-party apps). (2) The app market is distorted to optimize for revenue in the current system, as opposed to revenue from actual customer demand. If there were a freer app store market, I offer that you wouldn't see 1,000 clones of "flashlight w/ ads" apps.
Don't know about friendship, but there's certainly a point of contention in that the US has allowed breeding the monopolies we have, without any action whatsoever by US antitrust enforcement (eg Fb/Whatsapp and Google/DoubleClick acquisition). It stands to reason that the EU must take action here in order to protect the common market. Another upcoming conflict is EU's underfinanced banks becoming easy targets after years of Draghi zero-interest ECB policies.
I think you should make all major publishers responsible for the content they present, and we actually do for news papers in Denmark. It's illegal for them to lie, and their editorial staff is held responsible. It's a little more complicated than that one line of course, and it's governened by an independent free speech party.
The manipulation that goes on on facebook and similar platforms would be illegal in our news papers, and it's exactly because we have a history of mass manipulation damaging society that we have those laws.
They've just not caught up to the modern platforms yet.
Facebook is an addictive social reinforcement casino first, communication platform second. Though I don't disagree with you. I think banning it is too far.
There are different ways to connect people. I'm don't think the way facebook drives engagement does it's a net plus for society.
Bullfighting for example is also a social activity, nobody pays to see a bull getting killed, but to connect to people; and there's enough good reasons to outright ban the practice.
Is that a bad thing? Regardless of the fraction, if something really does cause more harm than benefit, we will by definition be better off without it, no?
If something causes more harm than good, then we would be better off in a hypothetical world where it was magically erased from existence. In the real world, the negative effects of trying to forcibly ban it can easily be worse. See: drugs.
They also don't account for the fact that Facebook usage is correlated with screen usage, which is correlated with happiness, so the effect they measured could just be the effect of screen use.
"We found that teens who spent more time seeing their friends in person, exercising, playing sports, attending religious services, reading or even doing homework were happier. However, teens who spent more time on the internet, playing computer games, on social media, texting, using video chat or watching TV were less happy.
In other words, every activity that didn’t involve a screen was linked to more happiness, and every activity that involved a screen was linked to less happiness. The differences were considerable: Teens who spent more than five hours a day online were twice as likely to be unhappy as those who spent less than an hour a day." - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kzn9d3/cell-phones-linked...
Why not Google then, too? Corporation of evil and all that. Or, right, it is too big to fail and it's privacy destroying applications are so useful and nice...
It has caused people more pain than good