[habith]

Excuse the poor pun but.. are you serious?

Facebook excluded several of your friends based on their terrible name policy. They run their walled garden however they want to. Your participation in it makes you (in your own words) a "peasant".

Yet, you're not trying to go all RMS about it and you continue to use it daily to give them more money/power?

Do you see anything wrong with this picture?

Say what you want about RMS, but at least he's principled and does/says what he thinks instead of conforming to social norms.

[scrollaway]

It's not reasonable to expect people to "just not use facebook". Not that it's not possible - it is (and I don't use it), but it doesn't mean facebook can just do whatever. Reposting an old comment of mine:

For a lot of people, Facebook is "The Web". That's all or almost all they use. The less tech-literate ones don't even know "the web", they connect to Facebook. They get their news from Facebook. They communicate on Facebook. Everything they do online, they do on Facebook.

Like someone mentioned above, when you get big enough you start to have responsibilities. When your actions affect and your voice is heard by billions of people, you're no longer "some random privately-owned website"... you're a supergiant with the ability to affect the entire world.

[ryandrake]

> It's not reasonable to expect people to "just not use Facebook".

Huh? Nobody used Facebook before 2003. Now people simply can't avoid using it?

[pgodzin]

And in 2015 everyone is on Facebook. If everyone moves off of Facebook then we're back in the "good old days" but until then, there are many social aspects, such as event planning, that are being done entirely on the site. You can't point to a time when FB wasn't around and say that everyone didn't have FB then and can just as easily not have it again when reality has changed so much since then.

[icanhackit]

there are many social aspects, such as event planning, that are being done entirely on the site

I haven't had a Facebook account for 3 years and while that was my main concern, I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there. People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

Canning your account is also a good way to cull relationships not worth maintaining. In my case it was around 70% of my contacts, leaving 30% who I gave a damn about. The ultimate tool for social networking is still at my disposal - the mobile phone. Facebook is a middle-man. A relationship broker.

Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape any photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone numbers and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has a birthday and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list.

[nitrogen]

I haven't had a Facebook account for 3 years and while that was my main concern, I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there. People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

Based on the comments people make about how essential Facebook is, it seems that not everyone has the luxury of such friendships. Maybe it's because they grew up in a military family that moved around frequently, or they came from a small town where nobody shared their interests, etc. They still might want the company of the fair weather friends who only invite them to do stuff via mass events on Facebook.

[TeMPOraL]

> Maybe it's because they grew up in a military family that moved around frequently, or they came from a small town where nobody shared their interests, etc. They still might want the company of the fair weather friends who only invite them to do stuff via mass events on Facebook.

Or maybe they're just... normal, regular adults? The kind that met their friends in school and university, and then had to split with most of them because some were from out of town, other moved; everyone now has a job and responsibilities and any tool that lets you maintain relationships without crazy amount of micromanagement is a very useful thing?

Some comments try to marginalize Facebook as if it was something weird. It isn't. It's normal to use it. That's what regular folks do.

[TeMPOraL]

(Please don't take it personally; I want to comment on a generic phenomenon.)

There is a pattern I see in every HN thread about Facebook. It consists of comments structured like this: "I haven't had a Facebook account for [1 year - ever]. I don't see what's useful about it. I think relationships maintained by it are bad / artificial / unnecessary." Am I the only one who notices that comments of the form "I don't use X therefore I have an opinion on X" are of... limited usefulness?

--

> I found that any event worth going to the organizer would simply call, message or email you because they wanted you to be there.

Facebook invitations are equivalent to the forms above.

> People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network

Facebook is as real as any other social network.

> and what friendship or love can do to motivate people to maintain relationships.

If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

> Some advice for anyone who plans on closing their Facebook account: scrape any photos with you in them (and anyone you have an affinity for), phone numbers and the big one: birthdays. My calendar reminds me when someone has a birthday and their phone numbers sit in my contacts list.

One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook (and before that, into the IMs they were using), to see who actually remembers the real date. It always makes me wonder, what they're trying to prove this way? That some people don't care about them enough to remember the date? Well guess what, nobody is that fucking important. Your parents and your spouse may remember the date, but why should anyone else? Do you remember the birth dates of people you expect to remember yours?

[bigbugbag]

> Facebook is as real as any other social network.

This has been proven otherwise.

> If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

exactly! why do you force me to register an account on a known privacy invader website that don't respect its words nor its users to get in touch with you ?

>One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook to see who actually remembers the real date.

The people I know who do that are doing it just because they don't want to give away their real birth date. This is sensitive info.

[icanhackit]

Please don't take it personally; I want to comment on a generic phenomenon.

I don't and I appreciate your reply. The amount of years wasn't a penis-measuring contest, it was to add context to the rest of my statement. The subtext was with time your attachment to the thing lessens. I can see that my statement follows a formula that regularly appears in response to popular topics.

> People vastly underestimate the power of their real social network

Facebook is as real as any other social network.

I feel like this was the most important part of what I was trying to say - Don't underestimate human needs or desires. Don't underestimate the power of real friendship. This is what humans have used for a long time. If someone wants to see you, they will. If someone likes you, they'll like you whether you're on MyFace or only accessible by phone. Facebook is only a recent phenomenon, yet people act like they're severing a limb if they don't participate on it.

But! You make a good point and force me to add a caveat: Facebook did add value because I became good friends with people through weak initial bonds. Because of its ease of use, its casualness and how noncommittal you can be with people over it. It helped me produce some valuable relationships which now happen outside of it. It was a catalyst of sorts. But only for a very narrow selection of friends and later in life.

One of the most pathetic things people do on-line is putting a fake birthday into Facebook (and before that, into the IMs they were using), to see who actually remembers the real date.

I don't know anyone like that. They'd be culled from my circle if that's the kind of bullshit they pulled.

[scrollaway]

I agree with you on the gist of your comment but wanted to address this:

> If you're my friend or love interest, why are you making it more difficult for me to contact you?

If you're my friend or love interest, I will immediately lose interest in you if you require me to use something I dislike simply for maintaining an online relationship. I don't make it particularly hard for people to contact me. Email, phone, IRC, gtalk, even shudders skype. If you can't use any of these, or simply talk in real life, you'll need to be quite the snowflake for me to actually use facebook just for you.

[bigbugbag]

I'm not on facebook never will be, many people are not. Some do not have broadband internet access, other do not have internet access at all or even a computer. Can you believe this, there are people who do not have consistent electricity.

Obviously not everyone is on facebook in 2015 and this is something that will simply not happen.

[ryandrake]

Being "on Facebook" does not imply that one loses access to other forms of communication. I'm not a Facebook user, but a few of my friends are (presumably). They still respond to E-mails and they still answer phone calls. I've never encountered anyone who claimed that as soon as they signed up for Facebook, they lost Grandma's phone number.

[aaronmhatch]

"And in 2015 everyone is on Facebook"

Not even close. Check some statistics on how many (or few) teenagers use it.

[ctdonath]

And in 2010 "nobody" will be in Facebook.

I've been watching this social media lifecycle for 30 years. No, Facebook isn't "too big to fail" any more than the dozen other "too big to fail" forums, all of which failed.

[onewaystreet]

It's easy to say Facebook will eventually fail, but given its size it will take a major shift in Internet usage for it to happen. People compare Facebook to AOL. AOL started to decline because of the shift from dial-up to broadband. What will cause Facebook to decline? A shift to mobile? Facebook owns four of top social apps (Facebook, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram). VR? Facebook owns Oculus.

[ctdonath]

AOL bought Time-Warner, major broadband supplier. How could the monster dominating social media site lose market share in the shift to broadband when they practically owned broadband? But...they did, completely.

[grumblestumble]

Please tell me more about all these historical "too big to fail" "forums" where across the globe, all of my non-technical friends and their entire families, including grandma, were signed up and active.

[bigbugbag]

So basically you are asking "tell me about those online places where I couldn't find those people who had no internet access at the time."

Internet penetration increases through time and with that more non-knowledgeable people get on board and go to the lowest common denominator, lower branches. See AOL, eternal september.

The point being that those site such as facebook and those who came before have no proper value. Value and content comes from the users, who can shift it around quite faster than expected. -edit- sorry, allow me to correct myself here, facebook has value in that it succeeded in linking real names with online profiles. Something that was unthinkable and contrary to common sense and netiquette. -/edit-

Follow the trail of 13 years old and you'll know which site is gonna succeed in the near future.

[ctdonath]

CompuServe. AOL. Both dominated social media so much that anyone new had practically no choice but sign up because everyone they knew who was on any social media was on there.

Wasn't long ago here on HN we were bantering about Facebook disappearing because everyone was leaving in droves.

[Squarel]

There was a time..so I hear, where nobody used email.

How come people simply cannot avoid using it?

If you have a non-internet way for my computer illiterate parents to see photos of their grandchildren on different continents, please let me know

[pmoriarty]

"If you have a non-internet way for my computer illiterate parents to see photos of their grandchildren on different continents, please let me know"

It's called "mail".

[briandear]

Have you ever sent a letter from Shanghai to Houston? By the time it arrives, the grandkids are already grown. You also neglect the cost: going to the photo lab, having film developed and printed. Buying a stamp, putting things in the envelope. Writing the address. Because since we're talking about not using digital tools, we might as well go back to using darkrooms.

Then you also have the scalability of physical mail: must you now send photos to all concerned participants? You have to make copies of everything and send letters to everyone? Technology improves social relationships; despite the whining about Facebook. In the old days, families living across the world actually communicated less. I live a continent away from my Dad, but each day we are still able to interact via digital means, including seeing each other via video. Facebook is just an implantation detail (that you may not like,) but the overall power of the Internet makes life better, regardless of Luddite complaints to the contrary. It's supremely ironic that some in the HN community have gone from being digital pioneers to being less technologically enthusiastic than our grandmothers.

I really think it comes down to snobbery -- the same attitude that leads people to proudly proclaim "I don't even own a TV,) despite working for a company that has an "-ly" at the end of the name. "Kill your Television" has been replaced with "Kill Facebook." Ned's Atomic Dustbin ought to update their lyrics.

[EGreg]

There was a time we didn't take photos. Why do you need them? By the time the recipients meet you in person, the photos will have been outdated. It's just a newfangled thing that people are used to.

PS: Okay, I can see how they MAY be useful for things like news or seeing other planets up close. But that's it.

[scrollaway]

Not everyone, but yes absolutely. Sure, they won't die if facebook disappears tomorrow, but their social life would - and haven't we learned by now that social life is a core component for a healthy mind? Or did we stop caring about healthy minds at all? (After all, in the US, mental health is a taboo and anything that isn't "work" or "country" is massively belittled).

So yeah - telling people to "just stop using facebook" is akin to telling smokers to "just stop smoking", and will net the same results.

I find it incredibly sociopathic that some people around here simply can't picture a world in which others care about Facebook more than they do. And like I said, I don't have a facebook account - but I also am ready to admit I'm not the main demographic for that site. I dislike the site and have no use for most of what it offers. I'm less social than the average, and I don't have grandparents or family in general using it.

But there's a lot of people who aren't in this situation. For some, facebook is a social/family requirement; for some others, it's even a prerequisite to getting a job. And I actually see people saying "Just don't get that job"... yes, well, that's easy for you to say, what with your skills being in demand and your parent's house and massive cushion of money in the bank to catch you if you fall.

Get some perspective, please.

[d23]

> So yeah - telling people to "just stop using facebook" is akin to telling smokers to "just stop smoking", and will net the same results.

I have no problem with that. Want to not have the damaging effects of smoking? Don't smoke. Seriously. You're addicted, I get it. But the fundamental unhealthiness of smoking isn't going to change any time soon.

I don't really disagree with you in general (though I don't think Facebook has gotten to the necessity point of being required to have a social life). That metaphor is just way off.

[TeMPOraL]

The metaphor is way off mostly because Facebook doesn't really have negative / damaging effects to its users, besides things constantly invented by people not using it to rationalize why they're not using it.

It really sounds like "reasons not to have a cellphone" sounded 15 years ago.

[bigbugbag]

>The metaphor is way off mostly because Facebook doesn't really have negative / damaging effects to its users, besides things constantly invented by people not using it to rationalize why they're not using it.

You sound like a drug addict.

A first study shows that the longer people are active on Facebook, the more negative is their mood afterwards. The second study provides causal evidence for this effect by showing that Facebook activity leads to a deterioration of mood compared to two different control conditions. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that this effect is mediated by a feeling of not having done anything meaningful. With such negative outcomes for its users, the question arises as to why so many people continue to use Facebook on a daily basis. A third study suggests that this may be because people commit an affective forecasting error in that they expect to feel better after using Facebook, whereas, in fact, they feel worse. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563214...

[scrollaway]

> I have no problem with that. Want to not have the damaging effects of smoking? Don't smoke. Seriously. You're addicted, I get it. But the fundamental unhealthiness of smoking isn't going to change any time soon.

OK, and what did that just achieve?

Really, what's the point of telling people to do or not to do stuff? What if I tell you to stop putting sugar/milk in your coffee, will you? What's my say in it?

There's solid reasons preventing people to leave facebook or quit smoking. Work with that, and you'll make a meaningful difference. Or don't, stay on your lawn at kids and their facebooks, you'll be less relevant than an ant in china.

[ryandrake]

Amazing how my little one-liner has blown up into this huge thread full of people attacking and defending Facebook. My only point (which I still stand by) is that Facebook is a web site. It's not food or water. You don't need it to survive. You don't need it to have a social life. Some people choose to use it to help facilitate communication with friends and family and whatnot, but if it went away tomorrow, they'd just use other means to do the same thing. It's totally replaceable, and the idea that it is some essential human need and that people just can't possibly not use it is ridiculous.

[briandear]

I kind of agree with you on the sociopathic comment, but your anti-American quip is just wrong. Sports are neither work, nor country and they aren't belittled. Music isn't belittled and mental illness isn't taboo any more than anything else. People where their anxiety, ADHD and depression almost as a point of pride. Talk to any middle class New Yorker and inevitably the conversation veers to.. "My therapist told me.."

[cheez]

FWIW, I stopped using it years ago, and the thing I noticed is that FB is a good way to keep you fresh in peoples minds. Other than that, it's a great way to have something to talk about when you meet, since your life is a mystery to them.

[tallerholler]

> but it doesn't mean facebook can just do whatever.

It all comes down to this; Facebook can do whatever the fuck they want.

[pmoriarty]

"Like someone mentioned above, when you get big enough you start to have responsibilities. When your actions affect and your voice is heard by billions of people, you're no longer "some random privately-owned website"... you're a supergiant with the ability to affect the entire world."

Facebook should be nationalized.

[kobayashi]

Are you being serious? Poe's Law at work right here.

[yazaddaruvala]

To which nation?

[mirimir]

Facebook ;)

[Natsu]

I dunno, I've never once had an account there, so it can't be that bad to just not use it. As far as I can tell, I'm missing... cow clicker? Farmville? I don't even know any more.

[PhasmaFelis]

It would be nice if I had the luxury of completely disconnecting from modern society in order to stay true to my principles. But I don't. Modern corporations have gone to great to make it extremely inconvenient to not use their services--which is exactly the problem we're talking about, isn't it? If we didn't rely on them for our daily activities, we wouldn't care if they had abusive policies.

I admire RMS' ideals, but he famously doesn't actually use the internet like anyone else does--he won't purchase or pay for anything online, he won't browse the web except via wget--which makes his pronouncements about as useful in day-to-day life as a celibate priest giving sex advice.

[briandear]

Corporations don't make you use Facebook. Your grandmother does.

[PhasmaFelis]

And you think that wasn't Facebook's intention?

[SwellJoe]

I am human, and my flaws are many.

[habith]

Likewise :)

My apologies if that was over the top, I meant no disrespect.

[SwellJoe]

No apology needed. I understand where you're coming from.

[davedx]

Personally I use Facebook with AdBlock and Privacy Badger enabled. They don't make very much money from me. ;)

[bigbugbag]

Yes they do, even better you probably gave them from your own pocket. You don't understand advertising do you ? It goes like this:

company has a product to sell, pays money for ads (may pay money to adblock to circumvent filters), factor the cost in the product price.

You buy the product, you pay for the advertising.

[ionised]

How does that work if he never sees the ads on Facebook?

I can't personally remember the last time I saw one on there.

Then again, I barely login these days, but when I do it's NoScript'd, uBlock'd, DNT'd, Self-Destructing Cookie'd, Protect Local Storage'd and Better Privacy'd out of the arse.

[bigbugbag]

Doesn't change that fact that the company factors the cost of advertising in their product price that the consumer pays regardless of the ads being seen or not.

Only way not to pay for ads is to buy product sold by a company that does not advertise. Good luck with that.

[briandear]

That's cool, but having you on the service increases the network effect, thus you really are helping them make more money.