[jusben1369]

All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society. (I'm fine with rebuttals; just make sure your argument couldn't also be used to rebut people having access to the internet in general)

[AndrewUnmuted]

> All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall.

I like the spirit of this idea, but I don't believe it's correct in this context. Facebook, after all, is a service that bases its experience around togetherness and being "connected" to the people you "care" about. It encourages an all-inclusive behavior from its users, instead of a selectively-inclusive, or even exclusive, behavior.

This is a unique trait of the Facebook service, which much of the web absolutely did not copycat with success until Facebook's IPO. To compare Facebook and its particularly vicious UX which ruthlessly looks to capture the attention spans of the world's lowest-common-denominator, to the overall internet is an insult to people who had better plans for the internet than this.

[jusben1369]

Yes I think it would fail if you tried to get too literal. But the original thread was the "I wonder how much more productive our lives would or would not be without FB" It was in that broader context that I made my comment.

[AndrewUnmuted]

I, too, was attempting to make the comment in this broader context.

The point I probably failed to elaborate upon adequately is that Facebook's model is all about sucking productivity from individual users and then streamlining this service for technological and industrial innovation. Yes, the latter half of this equation means more "productivity" caused by the output of new jobs in development, tech startups, ads, etc., but at the cost of a total reversal of the values and goals set forth by the original web.

[eatonphil]

I respect what you're saying and the contrasting views here are good. At the same time, what you're saying reminds me a ton of the ultra (politically) conservative Americans who freak out over changes to a document defining our country set 240 years ago. I don't know that they are wrong or that they are right. But it certainly comes off super close-minded (or maybe even lazy?) to think that original ideas and values are somehow intrinsically purer than current ones.

My point being, if "the values and goals set forth by the original web" (whatever that means because "the original web" was a quarter hackers, corporations, academics, and government with very diverse goals and values), who cares?

Edit: left out "reminds" in the second sentence.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> But it certainly comes off super close-minded to think that original ideas and values are somehow purer than current ones.

Facebook looks to use technology to trick people into allowing the collecting of huge swarms of data from every user to feed its new features and cheapen its bottom line. There are many ways to make a profit, and in fact, I have no ethical quandary with Facebook doing this (I choose not to use Facebook because I am a discerning consumer. If you want to not be discerning in your internet use, I think that's your right.)

However, my _moral_ quandary with this premise is enormous. Of all the great ways to make a profit, why choose this cynical and disturbing model? Most great products help people, but Facebook does not make life easier or more enjoyable for its users. It's really just a blogging and chat platform riddled with "features" that exploit its users at every turn. I do not wish to engage in such activities myself, but I won't tell others not to do it. Ultimately, it is the consumer who needs to individually realize that these products are bullshit, not the companies making them. The only reason Facebook is successful is because its users are foolish enough to adopt it. If people didn't agree to these travesties, Facebook would not exist in its current form.

The "old" internet made up of hackers, academics, and government types, was far too discerning to allow something like Facebook to just happen.

[eatonphil]

To be clear, I didn't mean to accuse you of close-mindedness - I was referring to this behavior in general. Still, isn't completely irrelevant what the "old" internet thought? How does that make any difference here? I don't think it's exactly looking back with rosy glasses, but I don't see how it's a productive line of thought.

When there are opportunities to profit, someone will exploit it. There's no sense of morals, just a decision by the person who sees the opportunity whether to use it.

Out of curiosity though, do you (and how do you) plan on acting on your frustration? Do you see there being a need for people lobbying against Facebook like some lobby against junk food and obesity? I just wonder what's the point of having that opinion (and telling people about it) unless you wanted to do something.

[oldmanjay]

Offtopic, but just so you're clear on something, people "freak out" because the document is utterly ignored or worked around, not because it's been changed. It's not conducive to the respect of law when the lawmakers and enforcers don't respect it themselves.

[eatonphil]

That is an interesting thought; thanks for pointing it out. I'll be a little clearer and use a specific example: gun control. We have a right to bear arms, but at this point it is such a huge part of American culture (or a major subset of it) that any potential (legal) changes to the right are met with hostility. People use our Constitution to defend the fact that our culture has evolved (around it). But it is a circular argument I think.

Now maybe the changes that are proposed to be made against aren't actually legal (which is what you are suggesting if I understand you correctly). I can't speak to that, I really don't know enough. I've just assumed changes would be legal. But your point is that I shouldn't just assume that and maybe I shouldn't.

[hobs]

The demand for heroin is overwhelming.[0]

An argument from popularity is not an argument that something is a net positive for society. Obesity is becoming more popular.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw

[knodi123]

Your point is valid, but the specific instance of obesity is worded poorly. Popular means "liked, admired, or enjoyed by many people or by a particular person or group", and obesity is not popular.

[ljk]

> obesity is not popular

depends on who you ask, really https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_acceptance_movement

[hemdawgz]

The existance of a movement still doesn't mean it's popular at large.

[ljk]

good point, hopefully it stays that way

[jusben1369]

Wait, heroin isn't popular the way FB is. There aren't a billion heroin users (or whatever) on the planet. _For those people who use heroin_ it might be very popular but by far the majority of people are deciding not to use it. Unlike FB.

[hobs]

Because its more difficult to deliver, don't worry, they are trying.

You can argue whatever numbers you want, but the core principle is not assailed, which is that more != better than.

Between the years 1999 and 2010, sales for prescription painkillers to hospitals, doctors and pharmacies increased fourfold. By 2010, the number of pain medications prescribed was enough to keep every single American medicated for one month’s time.[0]

[0]http://www.addictions.com/opiate/10-opiate-addiction-statist...

[jusben1369]

Heroin and FB seems like a super tough stretch, at least for me.

[imgabe]

I don't agree with the logic that just because something is popular it must be a net positive. Drinking a pint of gin every day was really popular at one time. It wasn't generally a positive thing.

[VLM]

"Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society."

War, genocide, torture, brainwashing, we could list historically popular and widely used concepts all day that turn out to be bad ideas.