[betterunix]

I am not sure it is accurate to call Facebook a "technology," any more than it is accurate to call driving from your house to work a "technology." Facebook is built on technology, but you are using that same technology when you post a comment on HN. Not using Facebook is kind of like only driving to pick up groceries, and riding a bicycle to work.

[clavalle]

Facebook is a technology. Someone designed and built it.

[betterunix]

Only in a pedantic sense. Facebook is a use of technology, not really a technology in its own rite.

[freehunter]

Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP? But PHP isn't a technology because it requires an OS to run it on. But an OS isn't a technology because it requires a server to be installed on. But a server isn't a technology because it requires steel machining. But steel machining isn't a technology because it requires electricity. But electricity isn't a technology because it requires electrons. But electrons aren't a technology because it requires a universe. But the universe isn't a technology because...

[lutusp]

> Facebook isn't a technology because it requires... PHP?

Straw man. Facebook is a company whose purpose it is to make money by offering social connections. The fact that Facebook does this by having a network presence is coincidental -- the network aspect of Facebook's business is a means to an end, and the means could be something else with no change in the company's goals.

In principle, Facebook could accomplish its ends with two cans and a string across the back fence. Different technology, same goal.

> But the universe isn't a technology because...

Do try to think this through.

[freehunter]

Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Facebook the company could use a different technology for their business, but the technology they do have is called Facebook the product.

My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself. If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.

[lutusp]

> Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company.

So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company?

> It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company.

That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software application. It's a company that uses applications -- software -- to accomplish its purposes.

> My point was just because something is built on top of a technology does not mean it's not a technology itself.

So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules.

> If you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe.

No, actually, if you follow that all the way back, you find yourself defining the universe in an absurd way. Companies and software applications aren't the same thing -- unless you think a chestnut horse is the same as a horse chestnut. And why not? They're described using the same words.

[clavalle]

Limiting technology to refer only to things not built on top of other technology is defining the term too narrowly.

Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.

[lutusp]

> Facebook is a tool designed and built to solve a set of problems. If that is not technology in a core sense, I don't know what is.

Facebook's purpose (sell social connections) and its method (networking) are distinct and separate. Facebook could accomplish its objectives in any number of ways -- networking is coincidental to the company's purpose.

[clavalle]

So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?

A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other?

I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.

[lutusp]

> So that means Facebook as an application is not technology?

Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods.

> I just don't see how your argument makes any sense.

Yes, I can see that. You also think Facebook is an application, like Excel. It isn't, it's a company.