[zestyping]

I really enjoyed reading this article. Many of the ideas in it were already familiar to me, but the act of reading it was like a meditation, and putting those ideas all together in that beautiful form created a different frame of mind for me. Thank you.

When I got to the very bottom, I read the postscript, which led me to your About page. I was shocked to learn that you work at Facebook.

How is this possible, I wondered. Facebook is continually pouring enormous resources into getting us all to keep scrolling, to generate "that hollow feeling" you refer to, billions of times every day. It's a strong contender for the most effective destroyer, at planetary scale, of the consciousness and ability to connect with ourselves to which Being Alone is an ode.

What a strange mystery this is!

[ankitshah]

> the act of reading it was like a meditation

What a beautifully put comment. Means the world to me that you felt so.

RE: Facebook

I too have many feelings about what FB's position in the world is, and I know that there's lots of work to be done in steering the (very large) ship in a direction that is more generative and also less destructive.

I also know that if the right people aren't doing that steering, well, then the right people aren't doing the steering. It may be hard to imagine a reality in which the employees of a social media giant sincerely care for creating deep, meaningful interactions online, but, indeed, it's true. There are a lot of people who are working hard to create the infrastructure for connection that is both deep and wide.

Of course, there's plenty of nuance to be dissected here, and a Hacker News thread is probably not the best venue for that conversation, but I will share this about my own vantage point:

I think of what I might be able to contribute to the world through the lens of 3 levers/inquiries:

1. How can I make it easier for people to get in touch with themselves, to understand and act on their agency?

2. How can I bring people together to see one another more wholly, with greater understanding and generosity?

3. How can I create systems that enable more people to find their people, to bring them together across similarities and differences, and in so doing, systemically increase the likelihood of #1?

"Being Alone" might move the needle on #1. The work I do at Facebook may move the needle on #3. Building Tea With Strangers (http://www.teawithstrangers.com) hits #2 on the head.

Just my 2c. Might not work or make sense to everybody, but it's how I've leveraged myself to do something that I feel is meaningful in the world.

I'd be happy to discuss more directly. Feel free to email me, text me (my number is available on the essay itself), or stay connected over Twitter (where I talk more about these nuances often).

[newswasboring]

Facebook helps in #3 only for similarities, I see no feature of facebook which allows people to come "together across similarities and differences". In fact I would say by optimizing over similarities it contributes to creation of information silos and actively discourages even acknowledging anything different as valid. Thus, by partially helping with #3, it actually does more harm than good.

[ankitshah]

FWIW, I don't believe that any feature explicitly designed to help people come together over differences would be one that would see much use, despite its positive intentions.

It's a well trodden hypothesis that Facebook optimizes for similarities, but I don't know if it's that straightforward.

Something that might be worth considering is what kinds of interactions are enabled by Facebook for any given person—who they are between, what the substance of the interactions are, etc. For example:

- I communicate with my friends, family, and extended network of people I've met over the course of my life (college, work, travel, projects, etc.) with my profile, News Feed, and Messenger

- I buy and sell random products on Marketplace

- I engage with communities of people over shared interests, identity, causes, initiatives, etc. on Groups, with Fundraisers

- I read news and updates from publishers I subscribe to on Pages

- (This list isn't exhaustive, but you see my point...)

In a way, it's a wide ranging social infrastructure—like a digital city. In some of those interactions, you meet people who are similar to you (and you _want_ that). In others, you meet people who you wouldn't ever imagine yourself communicating with, but you've found a context that you share some kind of edge that brings you together. By exposing yourself to people different from yourself on vectors that actually bring you together, you also expose yourself to their perspectives, worldviews, and lives.

Of course, I'm not naive into believing that every person's experience on Facebook mirrors this diverse, multi-faceted exposure to people both similar and different from oneself. For some people, the experience might just be a big reflection and validation of their worst instincts, but this isn't actually as frequent as people think. There _are_ ways to build product that enable people to find an experience that is expansive to their lives instead of constraining of it, and as much as it may not seem to be the case, I do think Facebook consistently moves in that direction as it continues to grow and evolve.

[newswasboring]

> By exposing yourself to people different from yourself on vectors that actually bring you together, you also expose yourself to their perspectives, worldviews, and lives.

Your premises do not lead to this conclusion. In fact it leads to the opposite. Facebook does its best that people I meet today are exactly the people I already know and like (pun intended). I don't see a single initiative where facebook even attempts at bringing together people who have only 20% shared views. In fact, at least from what I gather in the news and conferences, facebook wants to match people who have 100% shared views. Because that will drive engagement. People like to see their beliefs repeated and to be frank most social media sites prey on that. The algorithm is matching me to stories which I would like to hear, to people who I would most likely be friends with and groups where I am by default in the in-group. I fail to see how any of this helps me have a diverse exposure.

[ankitshah]

Didn't mean for this to turn into a back and forth or debate about FB, but I don't get the sense that you and I are working off of similar bases of information. I do think the matter is a little more nuanced than you're suggesting though.

[newswasboring]

I was infact mostly going by the premises you established. By selectively feeding you information, and optimizing over information you want to see, coupled with the inherent human bias of deriving enjoyment from getting your views repeated, I don't think there is any other conclusion we can lead to apart from silos. Which has happened and I don't see it stopping. You can't just insert nuance by claiming it, if you intend to, present the nuance.

[wasmitnetzen]

That's a bit too black-and-white, though, isn't it? Facebook (the company) is not just bad. I made some real friends through Facebook (the website) which I now meet offline, Instagram let's me keep up with friends on the other end of the world I can rarely meet in person, WhatsApp let's me talk to my family two countries over...

[newswasboring]

If we want to not think in black and white we will have to think on balance. Just because facebook allows some people to derive some value, it does not make it a value adding thing. In fact, it destroys more value by creating information silos. If you think on balance, at least the way I see it, facebook is a destructive force.

[meagher]

Wow. I came here to write the exact same thing after following the same path.

You call it a “strange mystery,” I call it cognitive dissonance.

[neilparikh]

It's possible the author is experiencing cognitive dissonance, but you should consider that maybe they've thought about the issue for a while, and come to conclusion that working at Facebook really is the best to achieve the goals they care about. They've worked on Tea With Strangers for 6 years, so I think it's very unlikely they haven't thought about this consciously, and just "deluding themselves", as another commentator suggests.

Now, I'm guessing that it's an obvious conclusion to you that working at Facebook goes against the goals the author suggests, and hence you dismissed it as cognitive dissonance fairly quickly. So then question becomes, why is obvious to you while not to the author? My suggestion is the author is starting from a different set of axioms than you are, which leads to a different conclusion.

I was able to come up with multiple axiom sets[0] that allow coming to the conclusion that working at Facebook is a positive way to achieve the author's goal, within about 5 minutes of thinking, so I think your conclusion is far from obvious.

[0] - I don't necessarily agree with most (or any) of these. My point is more that these sets do exist.

[ankitshah]

Thanks for jumping in here Neil (and for doing your homework on my background :)

I wrote a little bit more about this in these comments:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23597561

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23601253

[pwdisswordfish2]

Cognitive dissonance, in addition to self-delusion.

[termy]

money and ego