[delegate]

I generally try to avoid these services, but it's impossible to not use some of them, because of their monopolistic position.

I have to use Facebook sometimes because people use it to organise events, concerts and other things which are now inaccessible to me unless I use Facebook. Which is terrible.

These services are bad because they are popular and successful and because they try to offer more and more services on top of the 'social' aspect.

>it seems people like that

That's exactly my point. By catering to what the masses 'like', we're slowly closing the door to the 'free Internet', replacing it with a hegemony of "social" networks, owned by big corps.

And people don't just 'like' that - otherwise companies wouldn't have sales and marketing and advertising departments.

They're unwitting players in complex games of chess between these companies and their value to these companies is the tendency to accept subliminal suggestions and then act on those suggestions when they make purchasing decisions. Also called advertising.

[Feuilles_Mortes]

I'm in a similar position to you in regards to facebook. My strategy is to use custom CSS to remove the elements of the site that only serve to distract me (newsfeed, etc.). I still get notifications for events, chat, etc. so it works out alright.

[walterbell]

Are there example open-source stylesheets to accomplish this filtering?

[blacksmith_tb]

Many of the user styles (e.g. for Stylish) are purely cosmetic[1], but you can see what elements they're matching on and roll your own.

1: https://userstyles.org/styles/browse/facebook

[794CD01]

If tech people dream about a product that real people have no desire to use, is it really the consumers' fault for "liking the wrong things", or is it the inventors' fault for dreaming about a product that doesn't meet people's needs?

Assuming that the rest of the world is wrong because it's moving in a direction you personally disagree with doesn't make you courageous or visionary, it makes you Principal Skinner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik

[unclebucknasty]

OTOH, is it always true that "the masses" do what's best for the individuals that comprise the masses, even when measured by their own standards?

If so, I'd imagine we'd have no use for a word like visionary.

Reminds me of the famous quote from Henry Ford, that if he'd asked the people what they wanted, they'd have answered "faster horses".

[794CD01]

Just because the masses want the wrong thing doesn't mean that your different thing is better. The way I see the difference is that, after saying that, Ford gave them automobiles. He didn't fail to sell people ferret-poop rockets and then blame them for wanting faster horses.

[unclebucknasty]

Well, you'd originally asked whether it's the customer or inventor's "fault" and pretty much suggested that it was the inventor's. I was, merely indicating that it can go either way, depending on the scenario.

But, yeah, if you further qualify it by saying that the inventor was trying to sell ferret-poop rockets, then that marks a scenario that's pretty clear-cut.

[794CD01]

It's no further than my initial statement, it was just clarifying how your quote applied to the situation. The inventor is the one at fault if they envision a product people don't want. That's all. Maybe you can blame their marketing team too.

[oldmanjay]

Your point doesn't really make any logical sense. It requires an intense envy for experiencing "everything" that simply isn't universal.

That your emotional reasoning leads you to believe that people are being controlled by social networks doesn't make your point any stronger, either.