Facebook is bad for you: Get a life(economist.com)
economist.com
Facebook is bad for you: Get a life
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21583593-using-social-network-seems-make-people-more-miserable-get-life
29 comments
Sounds like you're a terrible person on Facebook. I'll assume you're not a terrible person and maybe you can adopt some of my practices if you think they're useful to you:
- Don't connect with professional contacts on Facebook. If you do, use Security groups to not let them see anything. Same for easily-offended family members...
- If you're sick of someone's posts you can hide them from your timeline without de-friending them from the context menu. A well curated timeline is essential to having a good signal-noise ratio.
- Do you really want to get laid by girls who check out your Facebook profile for the proper ratio of girls:guys in your photos? Sounds like you'd rather get laid by women who don't care, figure out where they are and hang out there. Then again I'm a gay man in an open/poly relationship so YMMV.
- You can control who sees your posts as well, this can be as fine-grained as you want with Security groups. Personally, I just have one group that can see everything, and everyone else (cow-orkers, distant relatives, Mom) gets nothing.
- I Like stuff even from people I don't really like because hey cool post! If someone is neurotic enough to look through who Like'd what I probably don't reall ycare what they have to say.
- Yeah, ads suck.
- Don't connect with professional contacts on Facebook. If you do, use Security groups to not let them see anything. Same for easily-offended family members...
- If you're sick of someone's posts you can hide them from your timeline without de-friending them from the context menu. A well curated timeline is essential to having a good signal-noise ratio.
- Do you really want to get laid by girls who check out your Facebook profile for the proper ratio of girls:guys in your photos? Sounds like you'd rather get laid by women who don't care, figure out where they are and hang out there. Then again I'm a gay man in an open/poly relationship so YMMV.
- You can control who sees your posts as well, this can be as fine-grained as you want with Security groups. Personally, I just have one group that can see everything, and everyone else (cow-orkers, distant relatives, Mom) gets nothing.
- I Like stuff even from people I don't really like because hey cool post! If someone is neurotic enough to look through who Like'd what I probably don't reall ycare what they have to say.
- Yeah, ads suck.
>Constant reputation management. If I post anything, I need to be vigilant for a few days to make sure no stupid highschool friends post anything.
Now that I've added my parents/grandparents on Facebook (Why did I do that?) I'm constantly doing this. I have college buddies that will post the most immature things on my status/wall.
Now that I've added my parents/grandparents on Facebook (Why did I do that?) I'm constantly doing this. I have college buddies that will post the most immature things on my status/wall.
Facebook is merely a website for messaging and sharing photos. It is because of YOUR friends that you get the experience you do. So if you are having a poor experience then find better friends. Or remove them from your feed. Or setup groups so you can filter content better.
But honestly the problem quite clearly is you. The immature use of the term 'gay' to be derogatory. The fact that you dismiss the uncool people in your group because of fear of what others will think. The anger you have towards people who are merely enjoying their possibly once in a life time trip. You sound like a terrible person in spite of Facebook not because of it.
But honestly the problem quite clearly is you. The immature use of the term 'gay' to be derogatory. The fact that you dismiss the uncool people in your group because of fear of what others will think. The anger you have towards people who are merely enjoying their possibly once in a life time trip. You sound like a terrible person in spite of Facebook not because of it.
It's easy to judge, isn't it? It takes some courage to be honest and introspective, regardless of how you may judge the poster.
What you say about this person says as much about you as it does about them.
Can you show me at what point there was some actual evaluation of why he was doing the things he was ? Because sorry but I don't see anything courageous or introspective there.
I just see a blind rant by somebody who clearly cares way too much about what his friends think.
I just see a blind rant by somebody who clearly cares way too much about what his friends think.
Admitting things that make it obvious that you care too much what your friends think is courageous and introspective. He opened himself up to the inevitable ridicule of people like you (courage) and openly described things about himself that are widely viewed negatively by society (introspection).
I don't know if you should take his post at face value, seems like he's just describing an exaggerated persona to support his conclusion.
He sounds young, and perhaps was a bit rude. In fact his second to last point was a turn-off for me. But, he made some valid points. I don't believe being excessively judgemental helps much.
I did like your advice to find better friends, and lose the others.
I did like your advice to find better friends, and lose the others.
>So if you are having a poor experience then find better friends.
Yes, let's all get different people for friends, so we can have a better FB experience.
Yes, let's all get different people for friends, so we can have a better FB experience.
[deleted]
I thought the list was intended as a joke, a sort of master list of things everyone complains about. It also seems like all of the gripes are basically "I want to do something and I don't want certain people to know about it." In other words, privacy. With Mark Zuckerberg running the company (with his public disdain for privacy), are any of these gripes surprising?
I suppose I'm the only one who read that diatribe with a bit of sardonic whimsy mixed into it?
[deleted]
> I don't want you posting a photo of us together, because that sends the signal to other girls that I'm not available when I would definitely consider myself so.
That's not how girls work...
That's not how girls work...
That's literally three opposite of how they work.
The more "unavailable" you look the more attractive you are to women.
It's called social proof, a demonstration that you've been vetted and determined of value by someone else.
Not posting pictures with women because you don't want to look unavailable is like not putting your current employment on your resume. It is the opposite of what you should do by all means.
The more "unavailable" you look the more attractive you are to women.
It's called social proof, a demonstration that you've been vetted and determined of value by someone else.
Not posting pictures with women because you don't want to look unavailable is like not putting your current employment on your resume. It is the opposite of what you should do by all means.
[deleted]
To be honest, it just sounds like you care far too much about what other people think of you. Life's too short to please everyone, stop filtering your personality to please those on your friends list.
> I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
– B I L L C O S B Y
Facebook as crazy as it is is useful. I just have a few simple rules. I don't post anything that I wouldn't want on the front page of the newspaper.I LET facebook know my interests so it keeps the feed interesting. I only friend people who I want to have a conversation with. That aside, it's a neat Instant messenger, and not a bad place to chat with groups and the like. Everybody has different uses for it, and it's not meant for everyone. I think each social network has a different niche it fulfills.
> Feeling bad for less socially popular people. When the post an update and aren't getting any likes, I really want to click "like" to make them feel better, but then I remember that I'd look uncool for associating with them.
I'd drop this one in particular right in the "over concerned" category.
I'd drop this one in particular right in the "over concerned" category.
Is this really a thing? More often than not less "popular" people on Facebook are the ones actually posting interesting content.
what's funny is that I would keep posting as often as I desired and that I would always get likes (maybe some were sympathy likes as you say) and it was why I kept posting, like a crazed drug addict, it was a never ending cycle. One youtube video after another, your likes drove me.
[deleted]
This person is just the tip of the iceberg..!
Re: photos of you being posted: You can enable manual approval of you-being-tagged appearing in your Timeline in privacy settings.
but you are exactly the type of person that FB thrives on, insecure, tendency to exaggerate one's sex life, social circles, etc., most importantly perceived fear of other's perception of you based on your psyche at the time of posting that totally uncool photo or link that no one cares about.
I would never go back to it but I'm keeping my linkedin because it pretty much solves all of your problems listed with facebook.
Linkedin is a great tool for career advancement, facebook is a great tool for self-aggrandizing one's ego, a constant arms race of photos, links, and every detail of your life that can give you slightest edge over your peers.
I would never go back to it but I'm keeping my linkedin because it pretty much solves all of your problems listed with facebook.
Linkedin is a great tool for career advancement, facebook is a great tool for self-aggrandizing one's ego, a constant arms race of photos, links, and every detail of your life that can give you slightest edge over your peers.
"I have investors and recruiters and these other professional fucks ready to judge me."
Exactly because assuming you are not simply trying to be funny you have a huge attitude problem that would definitely be a red flag.
Nothing wrong with thinking anything by the way, to yourself. I can come up with some pretty inappropriate thoughts from time to time. The difference is I don't share them and if I did I would have to suffer the consequences.
If you say things people will judge you. If you meet your mother in law you aren't going to tell her what you really think of her, are you?
Exactly because assuming you are not simply trying to be funny you have a huge attitude problem that would definitely be a red flag.
Nothing wrong with thinking anything by the way, to yourself. I can come up with some pretty inappropriate thoughts from time to time. The difference is I don't share them and if I did I would have to suffer the consequences.
If you say things people will judge you. If you meet your mother in law you aren't going to tell her what you really think of her, are you?
Since you "hate everything about FB" then what, exactly, do you use Facebook for and how often?
> "Therefore I don't post anything and keep my best photos up".
You don't want pictures of you and girls, and you don't want facebook of you and other guys so.. pictures of just you?
If you have professional contacts, writing about android apps you're working on seems like a good idea - it shows your expertise, shows your productivity.
Overall your post makes me think of this: http://deoxy.org/media/The_Social_Network_Scam
> "Therefore I don't post anything and keep my best photos up".
You don't want pictures of you and girls, and you don't want facebook of you and other guys so.. pictures of just you?
If you have professional contacts, writing about android apps you're working on seems like a good idea - it shows your expertise, shows your productivity.
Overall your post makes me think of this: http://deoxy.org/media/The_Social_Network_Scam
I do not mean to be an ass here, but I am going to sound like one... You must live a shallow and trite life if you're THAT concerned about keeping up appearances.
Are you sure you have friends and not just acquaintances you're tying to impress?
Are you sure you have friends and not just acquaintances you're tying to impress?
The anger and bitterness that comes across in this post suggests that Facebook isn't the problem here.
> I'm tired of seeing your achievements. God damn just wait until I get some, okay?
This a million times. For some people, success is a long process. It makes you feel that you are left behind. Doh, just look at how many my friends have married, and have a child drive me nuts
Under calm, positive circumstances, I didn't really care. Sometimes, I even congratulate them. But when I come home from work, tired as hell, and feel that my accomplishment is so little, I don't want to compare my miserable self to you.
I know that I should be grateful to other people success, but sometimes it makes me jealous.
This a million times. For some people, success is a long process. It makes you feel that you are left behind. Doh, just look at how many my friends have married, and have a child drive me nuts
Under calm, positive circumstances, I didn't really care. Sometimes, I even congratulate them. But when I come home from work, tired as hell, and feel that my accomplishment is so little, I don't want to compare my miserable self to you.
I know that I should be grateful to other people success, but sometimes it makes me jealous.
Wow, that's a huge amount of insecurity balled up into a single post. Way to validate the research mate!
Sounds like you need to practice letting go / not caring about your reputation and what other people think, and just be yourself. It may sound trite, but the way you live sounds horrifying!
Sounds like you need to practice letting go / not caring about your reputation and what other people think, and just be yourself. It may sound trite, but the way you live sounds horrifying!
That sounds awful. You should cut that shit out of your life like it's a bad drug. You don't need it.
Every time Facebook is brought up, some of us attempt to enumerate the reasons why we ostensibly hate Facebook.
But frequently our list just looks like an inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs, bitterness, and narcissism. Perhaps we really hate Facebook so much because it so effortlessly unmasks us and our conflicts with the world.
In an impressive dance of culpability evasion, we come here to re-convince ourselves that the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana instead of acknowledging the possibility that the deactivation button is our only chance to turn the tides of a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves.
But frequently our list just looks like an inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs, bitterness, and narcissism. Perhaps we really hate Facebook so much because it so effortlessly unmasks us and our conflicts with the world.
In an impressive dance of culpability evasion, we come here to re-convince ourselves that the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana instead of acknowledging the possibility that the deactivation button is our only chance to turn the tides of a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves.
Funny how your comment comes across very similarly.
"I have it together, and am so self-aware and capable of keeping a balance with my relationship to Facebook. I mean who are these losers that would have a problem with it? I am so much better than they, and I can still have my FB account as well!"
"I have it together, and am so self-aware and capable of keeping a balance with my relationship to Facebook. I mean who are these losers that would have a problem with it? I am so much better than they, and I can still have my FB account as well!"
His comment didn't come across like that at all. He just pointed out that the bitterness and vitriol directed towards Facebook seems detached from the experience of folks who use it to keep in touch with family and friends quite happily.
If you re-read his comment, its filled with as much vitriol and bitterness.
Sounds like you're projecting, to me. There's no bitterness in his/her post, just an observation.
I'm not trying to be hostile. I switched the pronouns to the first-person plural.
You may not be trying to be hostile, however below are the direct bullet points you make in your post.
Can you read how these would be used as descriptors to ones aversion to Facebook WITHOUT being considered "hostile" evaluations. Not to mention they are UTTER assumptions on your part as to _WHY_ someone is against Facebook.
* inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs [1]
* bitterness [2]
* narcissism [3]
* unmasks us and our conflicts with the world [4]
* impressive dance of culpability evasion [5]
* the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana [5]
* a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves [6]
---
So, if I am against FB, I am 'afraid of my own limitations' (assumption is that this is in contrast to FB's 'greatness'? _in your opinion?_)
---
[1] & [2]: Am I automatically "bitter"? Why? Is it due to points [1] & [2] above? (I think these two points may allude to your youthful? perception that FB is "killing it" and therefore awesome just due to their scale.)
---
[3]: Why am I narcissistic if I eschew the posting of my life to a 1 billion strong shared "HEY LOOK AT ME!" site?
---
[4]: Ill give you this - I have many "conflicts with the world" -- but, Facebook has 0 role in forming these opinions Aside fro mthe fact that it is now proven they are culpable, to use your words, in the spying on the US for the NSA.
---
[5]: This is an interesting one. I'd really like to have a discussion about this one. First of all, the word "culpability" means; To have a hand in... in as much as my being "Tax Cattle" provided the funding for the efforts of various activities of the USG, or my being an "online set of eyeballs to be targeted by Google/Yahoo/Inktomi/Whomever-thefuck... then yes - I am culpable.
However, your use of this term is laying the balme on the users for FBs actions. Seriously - What are you trying to imply.
You are stating that "those who complain about FB being a crappy service to sign up for, are the same people CULPABLE for the service being crappy"
This is a ridiculous claim.
---
[6]: If [5] couldn't be any worse. Now you've just accused anyone of being against FB as being some zealot who is seeking their transcendental hipster orgasm by being against FB - completely ad hominem... this is your arrogance in you're own argument. You think you are above those who claim to not like FB - that you're accusing them as the effective equivalent of "Holy warriors seeking salvation through their denouncement of FB."
---
[6]: I AM SUCH A SYCOPHANT TO FB, I CANNOT EVEN CONTAIN IT:
Lets analyse what you said:
"a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves"
OK; so assume I am against facebook and I vocalize that sentiment. What you, Danneu, are stating is that I am in a personal battle, which I am losing against "ourselves".
I can only believe that you mean a battle against "those who accept FB to be a completely normal, natural evolution of "us" - whereby; if, I am against it, then "I am fighting myself" because how else would I not want to have [whatever facebook/is want(s)]"
You are really saying that "resistance is futile" -- and that is lame. I wrote about this here on HN almost two years ago, you are the reason why the following could be true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237959
Can you read how these would be used as descriptors to ones aversion to Facebook WITHOUT being considered "hostile" evaluations. Not to mention they are UTTER assumptions on your part as to _WHY_ someone is against Facebook.
* inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs [1]
* bitterness [2]
* narcissism [3]
* unmasks us and our conflicts with the world [4]
* impressive dance of culpability evasion [5]
* the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana [5]
* a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves [6]
---
So, if I am against FB, I am 'afraid of my own limitations' (assumption is that this is in contrast to FB's 'greatness'? _in your opinion?_)
---
[1] & [2]: Am I automatically "bitter"? Why? Is it due to points [1] & [2] above? (I think these two points may allude to your youthful? perception that FB is "killing it" and therefore awesome just due to their scale.)
---
[3]: Why am I narcissistic if I eschew the posting of my life to a 1 billion strong shared "HEY LOOK AT ME!" site?
---
[4]: Ill give you this - I have many "conflicts with the world" -- but, Facebook has 0 role in forming these opinions Aside fro mthe fact that it is now proven they are culpable, to use your words, in the spying on the US for the NSA.
---
[5]: This is an interesting one. I'd really like to have a discussion about this one. First of all, the word "culpability" means; To have a hand in... in as much as my being "Tax Cattle" provided the funding for the efforts of various activities of the USG, or my being an "online set of eyeballs to be targeted by Google/Yahoo/Inktomi/Whomever-thefuck... then yes - I am culpable.
However, your use of this term is laying the balme on the users for FBs actions. Seriously - What are you trying to imply.
You are stating that "those who complain about FB being a crappy service to sign up for, are the same people CULPABLE for the service being crappy"
This is a ridiculous claim.
---
[6]: If [5] couldn't be any worse. Now you've just accused anyone of being against FB as being some zealot who is seeking their transcendental hipster orgasm by being against FB - completely ad hominem... this is your arrogance in you're own argument. You think you are above those who claim to not like FB - that you're accusing them as the effective equivalent of "Holy warriors seeking salvation through their denouncement of FB."
---
[6]: I AM SUCH A SYCOPHANT TO FB, I CANNOT EVEN CONTAIN IT:
Lets analyse what you said:
"a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves"
OK; so assume I am against facebook and I vocalize that sentiment. What you, Danneu, are stating is that I am in a personal battle, which I am losing against "ourselves".
I can only believe that you mean a battle against "those who accept FB to be a completely normal, natural evolution of "us" - whereby; if, I am against it, then "I am fighting myself" because how else would I not want to have [whatever facebook/is want(s)]"
You are really saying that "resistance is futile" -- and that is lame. I wrote about this here on HN almost two years ago, you are the reason why the following could be true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237959
[deleted](1)
I don't have a facebook account, and I find the idea of using it for keeping in touch with past acquaintances not very alluring and frankly a diatribe.
You're not supposed to focus so much on other people's lives. Instead of people growing into better people through self defined improvement, people now seek gratification through others and their acknowledgment. Instead of going to a concert with a few choice friends and living in the experience, some just anxiously try to record the moment, which has ironically been lost with the vision of the future.
Don't ask me what the optimum amount of social contact and level is for a person, but suffice to say what people are currently doing is not it.
You're not supposed to focus so much on other people's lives. Instead of people growing into better people through self defined improvement, people now seek gratification through others and their acknowledgment. Instead of going to a concert with a few choice friends and living in the experience, some just anxiously try to record the moment, which has ironically been lost with the vision of the future.
Don't ask me what the optimum amount of social contact and level is for a person, but suffice to say what people are currently doing is not it.
It always surprises me how people are eager to project the foibles of people of all eras, onto modern technology.
Suffice it to say that the right amount of social contact a person wants varies, and finding your place free of loneliness in society has been a challenge since well before Facebook.
Suffice it to say that the right amount of social contact a person wants varies, and finding your place free of loneliness in society has been a challenge since well before Facebook.
I don't think so. Modern technology allows instant gratification for social contracts from anywhere in the world. It makes us more dependent on each other, and it also allows for long term storage when you then put this in junction with recording devices.
You're right that people have also been widely varied in their preferences with social contact, but for lack of a better argument than an appeal to nature, this is different, and we don't know what the consequences are. At least the older ways of contacting people were time tested before the phone.
You're right that people have also been widely varied in their preferences with social contact, but for lack of a better argument than an appeal to nature, this is different, and we don't know what the consequences are. At least the older ways of contacting people were time tested before the phone.
"""living in the experience, some just anxiously try to record the moment, which has ironically been lost with the vision of the future"""
Louis CK illustrated something close : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpAwhSSe7F0
Louis CK illustrated something close : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpAwhSSe7F0
That's why I practically stopped taking photos on vacations. I discovered I am replacing actual experiences with attempt to record the experience for some future myself, thus sacrificing my present enjoyment for the shadow of future recollection of the enjoyment that I didn't actually have because I was too busy trying to record it.
Yeah, a bad analogy would be throwing a party vs being invited. All in all it feels very weird how this 'data' era is twisting our conception of 'existing'. It seems like a gigantic ball of noise, no signal. Too much content of lowered moments. Very unsettling.
Slightly digressing, I'm also having a non-digital reaction. I used to love the unaltered quality of digital data versus fragile analogical mediums. But now I'm far more interested by used objects. We used to see them as flawed or tainted, and with the experience of perfect digital duplicates, I sense a loss of memory (no pun intended). Our perfect bits have no past, no history. An old photo I sense the effect of time. A book with notes on the margin. What was negative has positive value now. And reflecting on how I felt reassured about digital before, I'd say it was an immature fear, a paranoid need to keep things "perfect". Which goes back to what the previous post said, instead of stressing over saving something, enjoy it fully and let it live or die.
I wish you'd say a little more but thank you anyway I forgot that book existed, now I have a stronger desire to read it.
I don't know if this is up your alley, but have you looked into the aesthetic called 'wabi-sabi'?
Never heard the term. Very interesting, except that now I think what we call imperfection is just lack of depth in perception from us, kinda like old music theory that rejected some harmonies, with time you grow to see beauty even in the 'weird and broken'. Thanks for the link.
I think a better idea would be to just limit yourself to a small number of photos. It used to be that you were physically limited to 24 or 48 photos. Limit yourself to that. You'll appreciate having some photos of your vacation without spending the entire time documenting.
I do photos sometimes, I just stopped focusing (pun half-intended) on doing it instead of enjoying the experience. If moment presents itself, I'd snap a pic, but if I didn't or even if I forgot the camera completely - I don't regard it as a problem anymore. It's more about the mindset than the quantity - when I realized my mindset if more about the photos than about myself enjoying the experience, I had to change it. I just resolved not to give too much attention to it, and so far it's working fine.
I switched to taking fewer photos. Now I try to get enough shots to prompt a recollection of what I actually experienced.
Exceptions would be things such as certain architecture or scenery, the details of which I'd never recall well.
Exceptions would be things such as certain architecture or scenery, the details of which I'd never recall well.
Doug Stanhope calls them "tourists of life", a term I like a lot.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtbl2n_doug-stanhope-touris...
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtbl2n_doug-stanhope-touris...
I didn't have a facebook account for a very long time, and now I do and I realized I had no idea what I was talking about.
Yes, old acquaintances posting about minutia of there lives is of no value and can be down right irritating.
But the single most important function facebook provides is it turns acquaintances into friends. You can add people on Facebook that you've only meet once or twice before. You don't need to awkwardly ask for someone number or email or on the spot make future plans to meet up. You just look them up and you're instantly connected to them. You may learn they have a hobby in common with you or that they have an event that you're welcome to come to, and through the connection provided by Facebook you can strengthen your relations with people you find interesting.
For my real friends that I keep in touch with regularly facebook is more or less irrelevant - in fact most aren't even on my facebook. It's a nice platform to upload your photos to I guess, but honestly emailing a dropbox link is kinda nicer tbh.
Yes, old acquaintances posting about minutia of there lives is of no value and can be down right irritating.
But the single most important function facebook provides is it turns acquaintances into friends. You can add people on Facebook that you've only meet once or twice before. You don't need to awkwardly ask for someone number or email or on the spot make future plans to meet up. You just look them up and you're instantly connected to them. You may learn they have a hobby in common with you or that they have an event that you're welcome to come to, and through the connection provided by Facebook you can strengthen your relations with people you find interesting.
For my real friends that I keep in touch with regularly facebook is more or less irrelevant - in fact most aren't even on my facebook. It's a nice platform to upload your photos to I guess, but honestly emailing a dropbox link is kinda nicer tbh.
I'm similar to you. I had an account for a long time, then "deleted it" a couple of months ago.
My entire problem with Facebook has been based around invasions to my privacy. As the years went on, I realised that more and more of my privacy was being eroded. I realised that Facebook really didn't care. I realised that I was helping them to build one big database that was searchable and rampant for abuse by a rogue government agency.
My quitting of Facebook meant nothing really. They already had all of my data, and primarily, my contacts and a profile picture. The "deletion" of my account just meant they switched my account status from "active" to "deactivated" to "deleted".
I'm not naieve enough to believe that they really deleted all that info. I proved several times to the contrary previously through minor Facebook bugs.
At the end of the day, Facebook is company that over time more and more people won't trust. The demographics are already changing and ageing.
The key thing I have taken away from deleting my account t is much like yourself. I realised that I don't actually miss it. The people I was friends with on Facebook weren't my day to day friends. To be perfectly honest I don't have many.
Everyone on Facebook that I knew were exes. Ex work colleagues, ex girlfriends, ex friends. If they want to keep in touch then they can find other ways to contact me.
Maybe we can meet up and have a face-to-face, away from the prying eyes and ears of the snooping governments that we all live under in 2013.
One final thing. I will discourage my kids from having Facebook accounts. I hope I can teach them about their privacy, such that they don't want one in the first place.
My entire problem with Facebook has been based around invasions to my privacy. As the years went on, I realised that more and more of my privacy was being eroded. I realised that Facebook really didn't care. I realised that I was helping them to build one big database that was searchable and rampant for abuse by a rogue government agency.
My quitting of Facebook meant nothing really. They already had all of my data, and primarily, my contacts and a profile picture. The "deletion" of my account just meant they switched my account status from "active" to "deactivated" to "deleted".
I'm not naieve enough to believe that they really deleted all that info. I proved several times to the contrary previously through minor Facebook bugs.
At the end of the day, Facebook is company that over time more and more people won't trust. The demographics are already changing and ageing.
The key thing I have taken away from deleting my account t is much like yourself. I realised that I don't actually miss it. The people I was friends with on Facebook weren't my day to day friends. To be perfectly honest I don't have many.
Everyone on Facebook that I knew were exes. Ex work colleagues, ex girlfriends, ex friends. If they want to keep in touch then they can find other ways to contact me.
Maybe we can meet up and have a face-to-face, away from the prying eyes and ears of the snooping governments that we all live under in 2013.
One final thing. I will discourage my kids from having Facebook accounts. I hope I can teach them about their privacy, such that they don't want one in the first place.
A bit off-topic, but Facebook has always very intentionally been on the cutting edge of eroding privacy and frankly it doesn't really matter what you do. In 10 years people will care even less about privacy than they do now.
Due to Facebook people now-a-days are sharing significantly more than they would ever have been comfortable with even 10 years ago. That trend is only going to continue.
"one big database that was searchable and rampant for abuse by a rogue government agency"
I think this doomsday mentality is going to eventually disappear, and the socio-economical cost of NOT being on social media is going to grow. No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny and all the people that think Obama is going to go fascist and read about how you love tranny porn are not grounded in reality.
Even if tomorrow the government had complete access to everyone's Facebook, life wouldn't change and the world would keep turning b/c ultimately the government doesn't have that much power. Even if Obama hated you personally the best he can do it get your balls fondled at the airport and maybe audit you (though if you pay your taxes, you shouldn't be concerned with that). And yeah, it's important to fight against tyranny and to for instance demand the dissolving of the TSA, but in reality the gov't doesn't care about you and as long as you aren't breaking any laws (and most people aren't) it's not really a big deal.
Due to Facebook people now-a-days are sharing significantly more than they would ever have been comfortable with even 10 years ago. That trend is only going to continue.
"one big database that was searchable and rampant for abuse by a rogue government agency"
I think this doomsday mentality is going to eventually disappear, and the socio-economical cost of NOT being on social media is going to grow. No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny and all the people that think Obama is going to go fascist and read about how you love tranny porn are not grounded in reality.
Even if tomorrow the government had complete access to everyone's Facebook, life wouldn't change and the world would keep turning b/c ultimately the government doesn't have that much power. Even if Obama hated you personally the best he can do it get your balls fondled at the airport and maybe audit you (though if you pay your taxes, you shouldn't be concerned with that). And yeah, it's important to fight against tyranny and to for instance demand the dissolving of the TSA, but in reality the gov't doesn't care about you and as long as you aren't breaking any laws (and most people aren't) it's not really a big deal.
> No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny
What are you talking about? There are advanced societies today that are in the middle of tyranny (Russia and China come to mind) and there are very well known examples of societies slipping into it (Germany and Japan come to mind).
National moods can change surprisingly quickly. Look at gay rights for a recent example in the US--public opinion has done a 180 in a generation. Privacy rights have an interesting partisan dynamic as well, unlike many other issues it does not split down party lines. It could definitely go the way you're saying, but I wouldn't consider it a done deal.
What are you talking about? There are advanced societies today that are in the middle of tyranny (Russia and China come to mind) and there are very well known examples of societies slipping into it (Germany and Japan come to mind).
National moods can change surprisingly quickly. Look at gay rights for a recent example in the US--public opinion has done a 180 in a generation. Privacy rights have an interesting partisan dynamic as well, unlike many other issues it does not split down party lines. It could definitely go the way you're saying, but I wouldn't consider it a done deal.
None of those societies are modern by current standard and none had truly stable functioning democracies(russia and china? you can't be serious).
I don't have a direct link to a study, but I'll quote this article
http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-...
"Statistical analysis shows that authoritarian regimes become progressively more unstable (and democratic transitions more likely) once income rises above $1,000 (PPP) per capita. When per capita income goes above $4,000 (PPP), the likelihood of democratic transitions increases more dramatically. Few authoritarian regimes, unless they rule in oil-producing countries, can survive once per capita income hits more than $6,000 (PPP)."
There are plenty of advanced countries where privacy isn't considered a god given right, and they aren't turning authoritarian. I once tried to explain to a group of japanese businessmen the america idea that guns are meant to counteract the potential tyranny of the government. They looked at me like I was insane.
In my limited experience in France (so I may be wrong here), people didn't seem to really have a concept of police not being allowed on private property.
A quick google search says that in the UK they don't need warrants, not to mention guns are almost completely illegal. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2010033008545...
We in America live in a complete lala-land when it comes to the government going evil - and more broadly the fascination with apocalypse (but that's a larger issue)
I don't have a direct link to a study, but I'll quote this article
http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/13/5-ways-china-could-become-...
"Statistical analysis shows that authoritarian regimes become progressively more unstable (and democratic transitions more likely) once income rises above $1,000 (PPP) per capita. When per capita income goes above $4,000 (PPP), the likelihood of democratic transitions increases more dramatically. Few authoritarian regimes, unless they rule in oil-producing countries, can survive once per capita income hits more than $6,000 (PPP)."
There are plenty of advanced countries where privacy isn't considered a god given right, and they aren't turning authoritarian. I once tried to explain to a group of japanese businessmen the america idea that guns are meant to counteract the potential tyranny of the government. They looked at me like I was insane.
In my limited experience in France (so I may be wrong here), people didn't seem to really have a concept of police not being allowed on private property.
A quick google search says that in the UK they don't need warrants, not to mention guns are almost completely illegal. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2010033008545...
We in America live in a complete lala-land when it comes to the government going evil - and more broadly the fascination with apocalypse (but that's a larger issue)
I can't tell if you're joking to make a point. Japan and Germany aren't "modern" societies?
And now you're just shifting the goalposts. You never mentioned anything about democracy in the grandparent post. I would also note that Germany is democratic.
And now you're just shifting the goalposts. You never mentioned anything about democracy in the grandparent post. I would also note that Germany is democratic.
I guess I don't understand your argument;
I said: "No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny"
I bring up Japan and Germany. I assumed you were not talking about modern Japan and Germany, and you were referring to WW2 Japan and Germany. Japan was a monarchy that turned into some kind of fascist monarchic bureaucracy and Germany was a failed state that turned fascist. Neither represent a modern society turning tyrannical. And yes, when I say modern I mean democratic and with a degree of respect to civil liberties (which is basically true for all wealthy countries in the world, save some oil states). There is no use comparing the US to China - that's apples to oranges.
I said: "No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny"
I bring up Japan and Germany. I assumed you were not talking about modern Japan and Germany, and you were referring to WW2 Japan and Germany. Japan was a monarchy that turned into some kind of fascist monarchic bureaucracy and Germany was a failed state that turned fascist. Neither represent a modern society turning tyrannical. And yes, when I say modern I mean democratic and with a degree of respect to civil liberties (which is basically true for all wealthy countries in the world, save some oil states). There is no use comparing the US to China - that's apples to oranges.
Because unless they're democratic, they're no true Scotsman right?
I guess my problem is that whenever examples are provided which contradict the model as you proposed it you decide to "clarify" the definitions so as to exclude those examples. Maybe that's the argument you originally intended to make, but it's not actually what you said.
I guess my problem is that whenever examples are provided which contradict the model as you proposed it you decide to "clarify" the definitions so as to exclude those examples. Maybe that's the argument you originally intended to make, but it's not actually what you said.
Actually you just aren't reading carefully.
"No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny"
The only reason I need to clarify things is because when I say "advanced society past a certain GDP" you think China and early 20th century dictatorships are great example. Then you pretend that in the original post you were talking about modern Japan and Germany, which given the context made no sense
The only clarification I made that sorta moved the goal posts is excluding oil rich countries from my argument, which frankly is a corner case.
"No advanced society (past a certain GDP) has slipped back into tyranny"
The only reason I need to clarify things is because when I say "advanced society past a certain GDP" you think China and early 20th century dictatorships are great example. Then you pretend that in the original post you were talking about modern Japan and Germany, which given the context made no sense
The only clarification I made that sorta moved the goal posts is excluding oil rich countries from my argument, which frankly is a corner case.
Warrants are required in the UK, though there are special exceptions such as when a serious or dangerous incident, agreed its open ended but the onus is on the Police officer to prove it and entering without one is unheard of in my experience, the source below provides more detail, and is a reliable source:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...
It is always a failure to interpolate the future linear from now on.
History was never linear.
It is more like waves between extremes. Therefore my estimate would be a new Biedermeier period.
You obviously did not study history. Look up Germanys history (Nazis, Stasi) if you want a picture of what a gov't can do with you or your children.
You obviously did not study history. Look up Germanys history (Nazis, Stasi) if you want a picture of what a gov't can do with you or your children.
I do study history, I just don't see the cyclicality of it. I think it's an illusion that people want to see. The late 19th century was a period of extreme nationalism. There wasn't a similar period 100 years before, and there isn't one 100 years later. I think it's very dismissive of the progress we've made intellectually over the past century to think fascism/communism/tyranny is going to come back. I think it's completely unsustainable in our current (and future) society so there is no fundamental reason to militantly guard privacy against some illusory future evil that won't come about.
I guarentee that you discouraging your kids from having Facebook accounts (or whatever their equivalent is) will only do harm. Privacy in the modern era means being selective about the disclosure of content. It doesn't mean completely pulling away from social networks which are increasingly vital to social interaction.
Plus pretty sure you don't understand modern day kids otherwise you would know that private tools e.g. Snapchat are more often the real invasion of privacy.
Plus pretty sure you don't understand modern day kids otherwise you would know that private tools e.g. Snapchat are more often the real invasion of privacy.
> Plus pretty sure you don't understand modern day kids otherwise you would know that private tools e.g. Snapchat are more often the real invasion of privacy.
How is Snapchat more an invasion of privacy than Facebook? Facebook has played fast and loose with user data at every opportunity while Snapchat is based around user data being ephemeral. Maybe I have missed the news stories of kids committing suicide because of private Snapchats, but the two companies have literally opposite goals in terms of data retention.
How is Snapchat more an invasion of privacy than Facebook? Facebook has played fast and loose with user data at every opportunity while Snapchat is based around user data being ephemeral. Maybe I have missed the news stories of kids committing suicide because of private Snapchats, but the two companies have literally opposite goals in terms of data retention.
>I guarentee that you discouraging your kids from having Facebook accounts (or whatever their equivalent is) will only do harm.
Because FB is some kind of inevitable force?
I, for one, also respect parents that don't let their kids watch television crap.
Because FB is some kind of inevitable force?
I, for one, also respect parents that don't let their kids watch television crap.
That is not the only use for Facebook, although sadly I think a lot of people view it that way.
Social media is a great way to find out about new things which have been vetted by your social network, meaning you're much more likely to enjoy them. It's like a curated stream of Things of Potential Interest that you can peruse at your leisure.
The social interaction side of things can be very positive when you feel like there is an active community around the things you're doing, and hell, there's nothing wrong with getting Internet High Fives when you post a good run time or achievement.
Social media is a great way to find out about new things which have been vetted by your social network, meaning you're much more likely to enjoy them. It's like a curated stream of Things of Potential Interest that you can peruse at your leisure.
The social interaction side of things can be very positive when you feel like there is an active community around the things you're doing, and hell, there's nothing wrong with getting Internet High Fives when you post a good run time or achievement.
I think the opposite is true. Girlfriend uses Facebook (I do not). When she says 'got to see this...' I ask if it is on Facebook, and, if so, decline being interrupted to look at whatever it is. As for 'this is really funny!' my response 'is this another Facebook joke?' is how I am able to filter out the lame humour - if it is on Facebook it is rubbish humour, simple as.
To you, perhaps, but I suspect your social circle and group/interest pages would be significantly different to your girlfriends.
Am I the only one who feels the same in technical forums or even in Hacker News?
Of course people will talk about things they know (and I come here to see these), but I can't help but have a feeling that I don't know enough, or that I can't keep with the technology and knowledge. Or worse: that I can't even get a good grasp of established tech, or that I am not smart enough.
At deeper levels, this probably relate to the "impostor syndrome"[1], as we compare our whole knowledge to a curated selection of every other person knownledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
Of course people will talk about things they know (and I come here to see these), but I can't help but have a feeling that I don't know enough, or that I can't keep with the technology and knowledge. Or worse: that I can't even get a good grasp of established tech, or that I am not smart enough.
At deeper levels, this probably relate to the "impostor syndrome"[1], as we compare our whole knowledge to a curated selection of every other person knownledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome
Nope. I feel like that every single day.
But it's not necessarily a feeling you want to get rid of. If you're not surrounding yourself with daily reminders about what you don't know, what are you learning?
But it's not necessarily a feeling you want to get rid of. If you're not surrounding yourself with daily reminders about what you don't know, what are you learning?
HN, proggit, /. are filters with more less connected (and great) communities. I often use HN/proggit search to just get a feeling for some tech, how people talk about it - it's very useful for me, more than FB.
If I understand 25% of the links on the front page of HN (excluding links to the mainstream press) on any given day then I feel like a success. Each time I come here it feels like a learning journey. That's why I keep coming back.
"I can't help but have a feeling that I don't know enough"
Clicked on your profile, and you know Brazil (cool) FPGAs (cool) and EE stuff (cool). We have some common background (well, other than the Brazil thing).
Observationally those subjects do not come up very much in the stereotypical HN "yet another coffeescript release" stories, but when those topics do come up, the discussion is interesting.
I get a huge rush out of finding something new that I don't know anything about. Exactly like how I felt as a kid opening presents. Addictive.
Clicked on your profile, and you know Brazil (cool) FPGAs (cool) and EE stuff (cool). We have some common background (well, other than the Brazil thing).
Observationally those subjects do not come up very much in the stereotypical HN "yet another coffeescript release" stories, but when those topics do come up, the discussion is interesting.
I get a huge rush out of finding something new that I don't know anything about. Exactly like how I felt as a kid opening presents. Addictive.
>> Am I the only one who feels the same in technical forums
Sort of. I used to have a forums addiction and have probably 300,000 posts across about 5 forums that I regularly used.
In most cases forum threads are just re-hashing the same things over and over. The same arguments. The same recommendations. Jeff Atwood wanted to fix this real bad.
Especially when you're talking about something like a vintage Apple computer or 80's Ford Mustangs. Nothing has changed with these things in years so why do we need to make thousands of posts with people asking the same fucking questions as they were in 1995?
Tech news sites were another thing. Refreshing AnandTech, HotHardware, ArsTechnica, The Verge, (the list goes on) only to find out that yes, Virginia, the new widget is 20% faster than the old widget!
After a while I realized none of it matters. When I buy a new laptop, I'll spend an hour reading the reviews. If I need to recommend some hardware at work, I'll look at it (and not have to look over my shoulder to see if my boss is wondering why I'm reading SSD articles all morning).
Sort of. I used to have a forums addiction and have probably 300,000 posts across about 5 forums that I regularly used.
In most cases forum threads are just re-hashing the same things over and over. The same arguments. The same recommendations. Jeff Atwood wanted to fix this real bad.
Especially when you're talking about something like a vintage Apple computer or 80's Ford Mustangs. Nothing has changed with these things in years so why do we need to make thousands of posts with people asking the same fucking questions as they were in 1995?
Tech news sites were another thing. Refreshing AnandTech, HotHardware, ArsTechnica, The Verge, (the list goes on) only to find out that yes, Virginia, the new widget is 20% faster than the old widget!
After a while I realized none of it matters. When I buy a new laptop, I'll spend an hour reading the reviews. If I need to recommend some hardware at work, I'll look at it (and not have to look over my shoulder to see if my boss is wondering why I'm reading SSD articles all morning).
Nope, guess I'm just that smart. ;)
But seriously, everyone comes to tech forums with different levels of ability, experience, understanding, and skill in getting these things across. Geeks are especially prone to under-valuing their talents as most of us are introverts, and tend to self-judge quite harshly.
The best life lesson I've had on this problem (which I've definitely struggled with) was from a very intelligent guy, who came to work at the same company as me when we were both quite new. I was crossing over from my field to a new field which he was very experienced in, and he was doing the same (crossing over into my old field). We naturally connected, and he was completely unconcerned about asking me questions which a person in his new position should have had down in muscle memory by that stage. He didn't care though - he accepted that he didn't know them, and did his best to learn as quickly as possible.
The takeaway: don't tie your self-esteem to your level of knowledge in any particular area. It's definitely the easy path, but it's also a precarious ledge once you're 'there', especially in the tech field. Just accept that your value lies in being able to reason through things, and that you'll always be less knowledgeable about something than someone else (but also conversely, quite likely to be more knowledgeable about something, however esoteric or seemingly useless).
In short, have fun and don't sweat it. Most people are in the same boat. :)
But seriously, everyone comes to tech forums with different levels of ability, experience, understanding, and skill in getting these things across. Geeks are especially prone to under-valuing their talents as most of us are introverts, and tend to self-judge quite harshly.
The best life lesson I've had on this problem (which I've definitely struggled with) was from a very intelligent guy, who came to work at the same company as me when we were both quite new. I was crossing over from my field to a new field which he was very experienced in, and he was doing the same (crossing over into my old field). We naturally connected, and he was completely unconcerned about asking me questions which a person in his new position should have had down in muscle memory by that stage. He didn't care though - he accepted that he didn't know them, and did his best to learn as quickly as possible.
The takeaway: don't tie your self-esteem to your level of knowledge in any particular area. It's definitely the easy path, but it's also a precarious ledge once you're 'there', especially in the tech field. Just accept that your value lies in being able to reason through things, and that you'll always be less knowledgeable about something than someone else (but also conversely, quite likely to be more knowledgeable about something, however esoteric or seemingly useless).
In short, have fun and don't sweat it. Most people are in the same boat. :)
Well that's funny, considering that I constantly meet cool people in person and then add them on Facebook to keep in touch.
The constant "Facebook is evil" makes no sense to me, as it's the easiest way to keep in touch with a wide variety of people around the world. If I deleted my Facebook, I'd lose touch with dozens of people worldwide. Could I email them? Sure, but that's broken and impersonal.
The constant "Facebook is evil" makes no sense to me, as it's the easiest way to keep in touch with a wide variety of people around the world. If I deleted my Facebook, I'd lose touch with dozens of people worldwide. Could I email them? Sure, but that's broken and impersonal.
I think the problem relies on getting curated updates of other people's lives through Facebook.
It gives a very biased impression on how life should be.
It gives a very biased impression on how life should be.
I just made a Chrome extension to turn off Newfeed, partially inspired by this thread: https://github.com/derwiki/NoNewsIsGoodNews
Could I email them? Sure, but that's broken and impersonal.
How much more personal can you get than one person writing a message specifically to one other person?
How much more personal can you get than one person writing a message specifically to one other person?
Because I have to look up their email ([email protected]) and deliberately send them an email length message. On Facebook, I see their real name, their photo, their about page, and various recent things about their life. If I want to talk to them, I tap the chat bar and say two words.
Email is extremely cold and impersonal compared to Facebook chat. Most "normal" people don't use email outside of business or more specific uses.
Email is extremely cold and impersonal compared to Facebook chat. Most "normal" people don't use email outside of business or more specific uses.
Whereas to me, what you describe sounds fantastically superficial and impersonal, whereas in sending a personal eMail I've had to actually, deliberately think about my interaction with them. I suppose context goes a long way.
And yet to me it does sound more personal. Because by adding someone on Facebook you have opened up your life to them on a semi-permanent basis.
With email there is the assumption that the relationship will be more intermittent and flippant.
With email there is the assumption that the relationship will be more intermittent and flippant.
you have opened up your life to them on a semi-permanent basis
You have opened a lifetime of impersonal comments directed at a disinterested crowd. By its very nature, it won't be personal.
"I'm having beans for dinner."
"Beans a legend lol"
"I'm getting divorced and I've told you and the other five hundred 'friends' here at the same time, in the same way"
You have opened a lifetime of impersonal comments directed at a disinterested crowd. By its very nature, it won't be personal.
"I'm having beans for dinner."
"Beans a legend lol"
"I'm getting divorced and I've told you and the other five hundred 'friends' here at the same time, in the same way"
You don't have an address book? When I email someone I see their real name and photo too. I do miss out on where they had dinner last night or that they went to the beach, but that has nothing to do with anything.
The problem with your world view is that it doesn't take into account any major negative influences.
What if you gained 20 pounds? Or lost your boyfriend to your close friend? What has normally be associated with the family is now associated with the village, and that adds a lot of stress to people's lives.
Another problem is the us versus them that this group has enforces on people like me. I think I'm a pretty cool person, but if we met, I wouldn't have a facebook account to share with you. Would that affect your opinion of me? Maybe not, but I've had people comment negatively to it, and have even read articles proclaiming it affecting people economically due to potential social expectations now set by employers.
To me, it's a destructive force and a tool. A real-time chatting/messaging service that connects to an address list. And a new social experiment leading people down a path of "true" social alienation and narcissism.
I don't doubt that some people can use the tool responsibly, but it also leaves much to be desired for.
What if you gained 20 pounds? Or lost your boyfriend to your close friend? What has normally be associated with the family is now associated with the village, and that adds a lot of stress to people's lives.
Another problem is the us versus them that this group has enforces on people like me. I think I'm a pretty cool person, but if we met, I wouldn't have a facebook account to share with you. Would that affect your opinion of me? Maybe not, but I've had people comment negatively to it, and have even read articles proclaiming it affecting people economically due to potential social expectations now set by employers.
To me, it's a destructive force and a tool. A real-time chatting/messaging service that connects to an address list. And a new social experiment leading people down a path of "true" social alienation and narcissism.
I don't doubt that some people can use the tool responsibly, but it also leaves much to be desired for.
I wouldn't think less if you for not having a Facebook, but i'd probably become less of a good friend to you simply because of logistics.
I (as anyone who had traveled, I'm sure) have a lot of friends on Facebook whom I met on a trip. Maybe we only had a beer and hung out for 3 hours. But since we added each other on Facebook, we're able to keep in touch. I talk to foreign friends via Facebook all the time.
So instead of my buddy in Brazil that I met in NYC, you'd just be some random cool guy I knew once.
I (as anyone who had traveled, I'm sure) have a lot of friends on Facebook whom I met on a trip. Maybe we only had a beer and hung out for 3 hours. But since we added each other on Facebook, we're able to keep in touch. I talk to foreign friends via Facebook all the time.
So instead of my buddy in Brazil that I met in NYC, you'd just be some random cool guy I knew once.
Well if you name someone a friend you have talked to 3 hours and you are sharing FB links with, than you have a totally different understanding of the meaning of the word "friend" than me.
Dr. Stallman also reminds us that Facebook is bad. It doesn't respect the users and their freedom against mass surveillance. http://stallman.org/facebook.html
Stallman's criticisms are accurate, but irrelevant. Real people tend to like and want the service that Facebook offers (frictionless connection to loved ones), and they deliver. Any anti-Facebook sentiment from the FOSS community that is not an attempt to create a free and humane disruption is merely wasted breath (or worse, an in-group shibboleth).
Real people
Yes, because Stallman is fictional. I'm fictional. Anyone who isn't on Facebook doesn't count as a person.
Yes, because Stallman is fictional. I'm fictional. Anyone who isn't on Facebook doesn't count as a person.
> that is not an attempt to create a free and humane disruption
See https://diasporafoundation.org
See https://diasporafoundation.org
The Dr. salutation threw me off, I don't think he's technically a doctor. However he has been awarded a bunch of honorary doctorates.
By now, it is pretty clear there's no freedom from mass surveillance, at least if you're living in the US and using telephones or the internet. So singling out facebook is useless - for any site, if they have any info on you, assume the government has it, and they don't need court order for it either, and they won't allow the site to tell you about it.
I singled out, and deleted my account from, Facebook because of one of the recent news stories that showed that they actively tried to build profiles of people that their users know who are NOT on Facebook. It's one thing for me to voluntarily hand over information about myself, but it's quite another for Facebook to sneakily try to access information about my contacts.
Does it make any practical difference? I'm not sure. Being totally invisible to surveillance may be next to impossible, but I found that action on the part of Facebook to be needlessly over the top.
Does it make any practical difference? I'm not sure. Being totally invisible to surveillance may be next to impossible, but I found that action on the part of Facebook to be needlessly over the top.
Every lock can be cracked, but nevertheless I am locking my house.
I guess I'm in the minority, but I genuinely enjoy Facebook. Sure, it has its annoyances, and ads are a much more prominent part of the experience. However, it lets me connect with my friends back in Seattle (I live in Brooklyn now) and gives me an outlet for cool photos of my life here in Brooklyn and fun stuff I'd like to share with my friends. I've built a reasonably fun little discussion group around my content and the content of my friends, and we all seem to have a fairly good time with it. I tried Twitter, G+, and everything else, but nothing gets as much "interesting discussion per post" except FB.
Before I yell "Get off my lawn", I'd like to remind what seems to be the main demographic here on HN (you know, the 20 something "me me me" short pants crowd) that people, businesses, start-ups, families, friends, entrepreneurs, new ideas, etc - all got along (and flourished) just fine before all this social media crap.
So stop using the social media drivel, there's many better ways of staying in touch - none of which are facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc.
Now get off my lawn.
So stop using the social media drivel, there's many better ways of staying in touch - none of which are facebook, twitter, linkedin, etc.
Now get off my lawn.
So how do you update or replace facebook with more meaningful interaction?
And no snarky, just delete it, comments. I mean seriously?
There are many people on my facebook whose content I consume but dont interact with. And I know that it happens to me as well and is where the loneliness comes from.
How do you fix that without being creepy and showing all who've seen everything you post (which facebook tracks as it is surfaced in groups)?
And no snarky, just delete it, comments. I mean seriously?
There are many people on my facebook whose content I consume but dont interact with. And I know that it happens to me as well and is where the loneliness comes from.
How do you fix that without being creepy and showing all who've seen everything you post (which facebook tracks as it is surfaced in groups)?
I tend to invite people out for beers or coffee on occasion.
Short answer? You appreciate context over content. Anything and everything can be content. But not everything can be contextually meaningful.
Take what I had for diner. Should I post that on HN? Absolutely not. Not contextually relevant. What about a blog post on Angular JS modules? Now that makes sense.
If facebook has a context like HN, or a meaningful way of identifying it like Reddit, then it has been lost on me. I mean, facebook's context is that it's an address book for your local social group right? So that must mean the context is contextually dependent on that right? I don't think that's 100% true. Facebook imparts it's own context. Which is basically sharing is caring. So it's context is basically content!
Long answer? Not sure...
Take what I had for diner. Should I post that on HN? Absolutely not. Not contextually relevant. What about a blog post on Angular JS modules? Now that makes sense.
If facebook has a context like HN, or a meaningful way of identifying it like Reddit, then it has been lost on me. I mean, facebook's context is that it's an address book for your local social group right? So that must mean the context is contextually dependent on that right? I don't think that's 100% true. Facebook imparts it's own context. Which is basically sharing is caring. So it's context is basically content!
Long answer? Not sure...
>>If facebook has a context like HN, or a meaningful way of identifying it like Reddit, then it has been lost on me.
Facebook's context can be perfectly described using the idiom, "Keeping up with the Jonases."
Just like people in real life try to impress their friends and coworkers with nice cars, big houses, fast motorcycles, shiny gadgets, etc. people on Facebook try to impress their Facebook friends with pretty pictures, funny videos, interesting articles, and clever status updates.
Facebook's context can be perfectly described using the idiom, "Keeping up with the Jonases."
Just like people in real life try to impress their friends and coworkers with nice cars, big houses, fast motorcycles, shiny gadgets, etc. people on Facebook try to impress their Facebook friends with pretty pictures, funny videos, interesting articles, and clever status updates.
Sigh... The study is focused on teens and people in their young 20's - only 82 of them. How could that be enough data given that demographic has already been largely influenced these social networks while growing up? I'd be curious to see this study done on older more mature people.
I am not using Facebook for the last 2-3 months and I must say, it is a positive change in my live.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the gain isn't measured in time - I think it's about the quality of the time spent.
We need free time - its the best way to "always work by choice", isn't it? Having the "power" to start and stop whenever you want, is a smart trick to make your work a lot more satisfactory as a process. Maybe if I had this perfect discipline in me and I didn't need such psychological tricks to help me, I could be as efficient without any free time what so ever, who knows ...
Yet as a regular human being, I need to feel free to work or not to.
But to make the most of my free time I've decided to distil the choices how to spend it down to a "better" list, so I don't need to try ripping this "pleasure" out of my schedule.
So I read random stuff, but on the top pages of Hacker News, I read random stuff but in my not-so-randomly selected list of blogs that I've subscribed or twitter feed, etc.
At the end, it's the same time I am away from my work, but the quality of that time, measured as helpful information I've digested is substantially higher, at the same (often higher) level of delight.
Nevertheless, I would argue that the gain isn't measured in time - I think it's about the quality of the time spent.
We need free time - its the best way to "always work by choice", isn't it? Having the "power" to start and stop whenever you want, is a smart trick to make your work a lot more satisfactory as a process. Maybe if I had this perfect discipline in me and I didn't need such psychological tricks to help me, I could be as efficient without any free time what so ever, who knows ...
Yet as a regular human being, I need to feel free to work or not to.
But to make the most of my free time I've decided to distil the choices how to spend it down to a "better" list, so I don't need to try ripping this "pleasure" out of my schedule.
So I read random stuff, but on the top pages of Hacker News, I read random stuff but in my not-so-randomly selected list of blogs that I've subscribed or twitter feed, etc.
At the end, it's the same time I am away from my work, but the quality of that time, measured as helpful information I've digested is substantially higher, at the same (often higher) level of delight.
Once the taboo of "I saw this person's update on Facebook, but I can't just jump into a conversation with them referencing that update without qualifying it with a: 'I saw your update on Facebook'" then Facebook will begin to advertise itself as timeshifting social interaction. You can "catch up" with your friends without having to actually talk to them. Here's one use case (sorry for anybody seeing me reference this car crash multiple times):
I got in a car crash. If I had Facebook, I could have made a post about it and explained it once. I've explained what happened to 20 people it feels like, all of whom have Facebook. After the first few times of realizing I had basically drafted a script of the accident, I began not going into too much detail with everyone, only for them to ask more questions until I returned to the script. All-in-all though, timeshifting social interaction sounds really bad for everyone, but really good for increasing how much a single person can consume overall (which is again, probably bad for everyone).
I got in a car crash. If I had Facebook, I could have made a post about it and explained it once. I've explained what happened to 20 people it feels like, all of whom have Facebook. After the first few times of realizing I had basically drafted a script of the accident, I began not going into too much detail with everyone, only for them to ask more questions until I returned to the script. All-in-all though, timeshifting social interaction sounds really bad for everyone, but really good for increasing how much a single person can consume overall (which is again, probably bad for everyone).
Facebook is boring after so many years. The problem will be solved by itself.
I don't get the griping over having to share stuff with people you don't want to - current second ranked comment complaining about professional contacts.
There's no law that says you have to Facebook friend people. I make it clear there's a simple delineation - Facebook is for family and long established friends (going back to elementary level in some cases). LinkedIn is for professional contacts. I publish most things on Facebook for friends only or for public depending on audience. I don't need more granularity than those two options.
Done.
Now I get to keep in touch with old friends and family from all over the world and it makes me smile. It makes me happy to see them happy in their lives.
You don't have to add people who aren't, like ya know, your friends to your Facebook friends list. If you are doing this you need to look at yourself not Facebook for failings.
There's no law that says you have to Facebook friend people. I make it clear there's a simple delineation - Facebook is for family and long established friends (going back to elementary level in some cases). LinkedIn is for professional contacts. I publish most things on Facebook for friends only or for public depending on audience. I don't need more granularity than those two options.
Done.
Now I get to keep in touch with old friends and family from all over the world and it makes me smile. It makes me happy to see them happy in their lives.
You don't have to add people who aren't, like ya know, your friends to your Facebook friends list. If you are doing this you need to look at yourself not Facebook for failings.
Note: Title is verbatim from the economist article.
I'm no huge fan of facebook.
But I'm less a fan of 'news' articles with sensational headlines that boil down to "The way it was was good, so new stuff must be bad." It's not hard to imagine (or find) similar articles about basically anything that's new and popular, especially when it happens to be popular with 'young' people.
It seems to me that this article plays on the fact that most people prefer established norms over change, and most people glorify "how things were" in relation to "how things are". There's very little meaningful here, only link-bait.
But I'm less a fan of 'news' articles with sensational headlines that boil down to "The way it was was good, so new stuff must be bad." It's not hard to imagine (or find) similar articles about basically anything that's new and popular, especially when it happens to be popular with 'young' people.
It seems to me that this article plays on the fact that most people prefer established norms over change, and most people glorify "how things were" in relation to "how things are". There's very little meaningful here, only link-bait.
I bet the outcome of the study changes over time. Sure, Facebook can be a mean place, like the school playground, but you tune it out (both mentally and with software) over time.
If you look at how national populations react to internet ads over time, behavior changes, and the same goes with Facebook. In the case of ads, people mostly just become desensitized, and I bet the same goes for the bile on Facebook. Not to mention how the website changes over time, in response to measured user behavior.
If you look at how national populations react to internet ads over time, behavior changes, and the same goes with Facebook. In the case of ads, people mostly just become desensitized, and I bet the same goes for the bile on Facebook. Not to mention how the website changes over time, in response to measured user behavior.
Too bad Facebook actively punishes third-party client-side software distributions that modify its behavior or function according to user preferences.
* Social network - good.
* Facebook - very bad implementation of the social network.
* Facebook - very bad implementation of the social network.
It's because you only see the highlights. And compounded it looks like everyone is traveling and so on when in fact if each one friend did at most one trip a year and you had 200 friends it would look like there are four trips each week. So you think people are traveling all the time, and so on.
[deleted]
Facebook is essential where I live (Estonia) for promoting the band I;m in, and for being hooked into music events. Back in my 'home' country (Australia), it's used less for this purpose, but it is still used this way.
Like all tools - judge it's usefulness, and use it appropriately.
Like all tools - judge it's usefulness, and use it appropriately.
Am I the only one that gets value out of facebook? It's a decent way to share the photographs I take and a pretty good way of organizing events with friends. That said, I almost never scroll through my feed as I don't get much value from it.
Am I going nuts or this is like the 5th or 6th article in a couple years that reports the same thing? Lately I feel like I'm living through a big deja-vu.
Someone writes an article about Facebook being bad once every couple months....but more recently it's been more like once every couple of weeks.
Did I miss something or is there a massive correlation vs causation issue with this article?
I actually agree with the premise, but I also know that my lowest-value, highest-boredom moments are spent on Facebook, so it seems like there could be a pretty large variable in the analysis that is getting ignored (underlying boredom levels).
I actually agree with the premise, but I also know that my lowest-value, highest-boredom moments are spent on Facebook, so it seems like there could be a pretty large variable in the analysis that is getting ignored (underlying boredom levels).
did the author say something we all didn't already know?
I've deactivated facebook permanently (I changed my password to something impossible to remember before deactivating). This works very well, since facebook is about having higher number of friends, when there's zero, there's no point in going back to it. It's value at one point was very high (when I could still tolerate the level of bullshit amongst my peers on fb; most are insecure little instagram addicts) but now it's worthless as I can never gain back some 300+ friends on FB.
What's happening now is that I feel much more free. If someone is not there for you in real life to talk to face to face or on the phone once in a while, then I wouldn't have otherwise dealt with them but it was facebook that made all these uncessary contacts seem suddenly necessary, out of hoarding friends and contacts on FB to show other insecure FB friends that you are sociable and awesome.
Now I chuckle whenever I hear some idiot snapping shots of their receipt or food, it's not the camera shutter, it's the sound of insecurity.
However, I still keep my linkedin account because it's intrinsic value as a social network tool is immensely more valuable than sharing stupid cat videos and your "friends" who are nothing more than just a few rows of data stored somewhere by an entity trying to show the right ads for you to click on. They might as well tell people to start wearing tshirts that display ads that matches your previous staring habits (were you just checking that chick out, time to bombard you with dating site ads on your friends t-shirt!)
What's happening now is that I feel much more free. If someone is not there for you in real life to talk to face to face or on the phone once in a while, then I wouldn't have otherwise dealt with them but it was facebook that made all these uncessary contacts seem suddenly necessary, out of hoarding friends and contacts on FB to show other insecure FB friends that you are sociable and awesome.
Now I chuckle whenever I hear some idiot snapping shots of their receipt or food, it's not the camera shutter, it's the sound of insecurity.
However, I still keep my linkedin account because it's intrinsic value as a social network tool is immensely more valuable than sharing stupid cat videos and your "friends" who are nothing more than just a few rows of data stored somewhere by an entity trying to show the right ads for you to click on. They might as well tell people to start wearing tshirts that display ads that matches your previous staring habits (were you just checking that chick out, time to bombard you with dating site ads on your friends t-shirt!)
I was off Facebook for a year and felt as free as you described. The problem is that girls use FB as a vetting tool. It's weird to not have FB and introduces a barrier to entry in the dating world (pun absolutely intended).
If she uses FB, I'd end the relationship right there. Other things include taking off heels during sex.
> Now I chuckle whenever I hear some idiot snapping shots of their receipt or food, it's not the camera shutter, it's the sound of insecurity.
It's common to take photos of receipts for business purposes. Is there a situation where that type of behavior indicates insecurity?
It's common to take photos of receipts for business purposes. Is there a situation where that type of behavior indicates insecurity?
> It's common to take photos of receipts for business purposes. Is there a situation where that type of behavior indicates insecurity?
Yes, such as when you are at a fancy restaurant you frequent but your friends wants to let his social network know that they just dropped a large portion of their salary on some fish on rice by taking picture of the receipt because it's "ballin"
Yes, such as when you are at a fancy restaurant you frequent but your friends wants to let his social network know that they just dropped a large portion of their salary on some fish on rice by taking picture of the receipt because it's "ballin"
Facebook needs community moderators, who can ban users from certain networks.
Get creative about the job market.
Get creative about the job market.
- Professional contacts. I can't share anything I consider "funny" (in the stupid, I'm-in-my-early-20s way) with friends because I have investors and recruiters and these other professional fucks ready to judge me.
- I'm tired of seeing your achievements. God damn just wait until I get some, okay? I don't care if you just started med school and are posting pics of your doctor ceremony thing. I'm busy making crappy Android apps and trying to quit pornography... Can't exactly brag about that.
- If I post something not cool or impressive, it dilutes my "brand". My reputation is important for getting laid. Therefore I don't post anything and keep my best photos up.
- Speaking of getting laid, too much girl drama whenever I add them on facebook. I don't want you posting a photo of us together, because that sends the signal to other girls that I'm not available when I would definitely consider myself so. I also don't want pics of me and a bunch of my guy friends, because that's "gay" for not having girls in the group.
- Constant reputation management. If I post anything, I need to be vigilant for a few days to make sure no stupid highschool friends post anything.
- Fuck you for backpacking through Europe and taking photos of everything.
- The chat generally only allows for simple and content-lacking conversations (because that's what state your brain is in as you browse FB). Doesn't anyone sit down once in a while and write out emails to those important to them?
- Real-time status updates. "I don't want to see this" is my favorite feature of FB.
- Feeling bad for less socially popular people. When the post an update and aren't getting any likes, I really want to click "like" to make them feel better, but then I remember that I'd look uncool for associating with them.
- Advertisements. I almost feel sorry for FB, because unlike Google (who knows what I'm looking for), they don't have much to work with aside from looking at people instagramming their food or sharing links from news sites such as this one. As a result, their ads always suck. I actually don't mind well-targeted ads that I receive in my gmail inbox.
In short, I hate everything about FB, and it makes me feel like a terrible person everytime I use it.