All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall. Given the undeniable popularity and usage of FB I think it's pretty clear it's been a net positive on society. (I'm fine with rebuttals; just make sure your argument couldn't also be used to rebut people having access to the internet in general)
> All arguments for and against FB can pretty much be applied to the internet overall.
I like the spirit of this idea, but I don't believe it's correct in this context. Facebook, after all, is a service that bases its experience around togetherness and being "connected" to the people you "care" about. It encourages an all-inclusive behavior from its users, instead of a selectively-inclusive, or even exclusive, behavior.
This is a unique trait of the Facebook service, which much of the web absolutely did not copycat with success until Facebook's IPO. To compare Facebook and its particularly vicious UX which ruthlessly looks to capture the attention spans of the world's lowest-common-denominator, to the overall internet is an insult to people who had better plans for the internet than this.
I don't agree with the logic that just because something is popular it must be a net positive. Drinking a pint of gin every day was really popular at one time. It wasn't generally a positive thing.
Since ancient times it's been fashionable to diss the newest media. "This invention will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory" -- Socrates, on writing. Facebook, as a synecdoche for "how the hoi polloi use the internet" is just another example of this. The reality is that my Facebook is a news feed tailored to my interests and reflecting what's happening to the people I care about and as such it's useful.
Socrates wasn't wrong. The adoption of new media should reflect a rational analysis of its benefits and drawbacks.
Writing enables us to store, transmit, and reflect upon information in ways that surpass speech. One negative consequence is that we get less practice in exercising memory, and we encounter more information than we could commit to memory in any case.
Social media enables us to get current information on the doings of people whose lives interest us. One negative consequence is that the information users encounter is subject to manipulation by those who dictate the content of the website, with the result that most users have reduced intellectual autonomy. What's more, much of the information presented is not relevant to users, which wastes much of the finite attention they possess. Data collected about users can be and is used to advance interests contrary to their own. Some of these issues are intrinsic to social media as a concept, others specific to the platforms that currently dominate.
Either way, it cannot reasonably be presumed that those opposed to the use of social media are simply Luddites.
Facebook requires my real name and pesters me for private information that can be used against me in a variety of ways (harassment, phishing, discrimination, etc). Posts on my feed can also hurt me if a potential employer doesn't like things I say or reveal. In the past, this wasn't a problem. In fact, FB is mostly liabilities if we consider the narrow range of things that are socially acceptable, especially to business culture.
My social identity not only has value but is also extremely fragile and can open me up to liabilities if it isn't curated properly. This is just exhausting. We are willfully handing over this valuable thing to FB for free. I don't think we can just dismiss this or compare it to old media.
Personally, I think we've reached the point where most people are starting to understand this. FB, past one's teen/college years, becomes a 'vacation and baby pics' only type thing. People know this information can be used against them and don't post anything that could be used against them. There's even a name for this "Real job radio silence."
On top of that, we're starting to see research that reveals social media anxiety. That's very different than picking up a copy of the New York Times or watching TV.
Minor nitpick - hoi polloi means the masses/people so the additional 'the' is redundant.
On your actual comment though, I feel I have to disagree; at least based on anecdotal evidence from people I know who use Facebook. It is a news feed if you count news as being only what people you know are talking about, which to me sort of misses the point of the internet. Surely you want to know about stuff that everyone else is talking about?
This wouldn't be a huge issue if people generally made the effort to seek out other things, but I find that this isn't the case.
Anyway, yeah, anecdotal and based on feeling rather than fact so feel free to discount.
I'm pretty sure writing had existed for millennia by the time Plato came around. And Plato knew that, so I have my doubts that you cited this quote with proper context.
Facebook's hardly "the newest media". Great grandparents are using it. It's become as mundane as the telephone, and with its neverending autoplaying videos, as inane as television.
I found that uninstalling television also saved a lot of time or at least "stopped" me watching random crap.
Anecdotally we had a 2-3 week period where the whole family had no TV/Internet access. I was quite disappointed when it all came back on and the board game nights and even the ad-hoc charades stopped. We do however have weekly game nights. I still consciously choose to only watch "planned" TV programmes.
One of the big benefits I've seen as a cord-cutter: I've stopped mindlessly surfing. Without channels, and having to select what I want from an app, I have to decide what I want, instead of seeing "what's on". Now I still watch crap from time to time, but it have to choose it, which has made me go to it a lot less.
It makes it a lot easier to keep in contact with family members and to know when there are concerts or other events in the area that I'd be interested in being at. That saves me quite a bit of time.
Wasted? Are you implying that their time might be better applied elsewhere? People should be free to do whatever they want to. If you are talking about FB on the job, well perhaps those employees haven't been given enough work.
I honestly can't answer that but I cold-turkey'd my fb account about 2 years ago and I will never look back. You have to be a god damned fool to keep them posted on your day to day life.
> You have to be a god damned fool to keep them posted on your day to day life.
That's a little much. There is one important usecase that I have: messenger. A lot of people (even the ones that I regularly meet) prefer to use messenger and that's the only reason I am sticking with it for now.
jusben1369|10 years ago
AndrewUnmuted|10 years ago
I like the spirit of this idea, but I don't believe it's correct in this context. Facebook, after all, is a service that bases its experience around togetherness and being "connected" to the people you "care" about. It encourages an all-inclusive behavior from its users, instead of a selectively-inclusive, or even exclusive, behavior.
This is a unique trait of the Facebook service, which much of the web absolutely did not copycat with success until Facebook's IPO. To compare Facebook and its particularly vicious UX which ruthlessly looks to capture the attention spans of the world's lowest-common-denominator, to the overall internet is an insult to people who had better plans for the internet than this.
hobs|10 years ago
An argument from popularity is not an argument that something is a net positive for society. Obesity is becoming more popular.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDylgzybWAw
imgabe|10 years ago
tdkl|10 years ago
[deleted]
VLM|10 years ago
War, genocide, torture, brainwashing, we could list historically popular and widely used concepts all day that turn out to be bad ideas.
JulianMorrison|10 years ago
rtl49|10 years ago
Writing enables us to store, transmit, and reflect upon information in ways that surpass speech. One negative consequence is that we get less practice in exercising memory, and we encounter more information than we could commit to memory in any case.
Social media enables us to get current information on the doings of people whose lives interest us. One negative consequence is that the information users encounter is subject to manipulation by those who dictate the content of the website, with the result that most users have reduced intellectual autonomy. What's more, much of the information presented is not relevant to users, which wastes much of the finite attention they possess. Data collected about users can be and is used to advance interests contrary to their own. Some of these issues are intrinsic to social media as a concept, others specific to the platforms that currently dominate.
Either way, it cannot reasonably be presumed that those opposed to the use of social media are simply Luddites.
CPLX|10 years ago
drzaiusapelord|10 years ago
My social identity not only has value but is also extremely fragile and can open me up to liabilities if it isn't curated properly. This is just exhausting. We are willfully handing over this valuable thing to FB for free. I don't think we can just dismiss this or compare it to old media.
Personally, I think we've reached the point where most people are starting to understand this. FB, past one's teen/college years, becomes a 'vacation and baby pics' only type thing. People know this information can be used against them and don't post anything that could be used against them. There's even a name for this "Real job radio silence."
On top of that, we're starting to see research that reveals social media anxiety. That's very different than picking up a copy of the New York Times or watching TV.
deathcakes|10 years ago
On your actual comment though, I feel I have to disagree; at least based on anecdotal evidence from people I know who use Facebook. It is a news feed if you count news as being only what people you know are talking about, which to me sort of misses the point of the internet. Surely you want to know about stuff that everyone else is talking about?
This wouldn't be a huge issue if people generally made the effort to seek out other things, but I find that this isn't the case.
Anyway, yeah, anecdotal and based on feeling rather than fact so feel free to discount.
kolbe|10 years ago
beedogs|10 years ago
andrepd|10 years ago
awjr|10 years ago
Anecdotally we had a 2-3 week period where the whole family had no TV/Internet access. I was quite disappointed when it all came back on and the board game nights and even the ad-hoc charades stopped. We do however have weekly game nights. I still consciously choose to only watch "planned" TV programmes.
CaptSpify|10 years ago
lghh|10 years ago
rogeryu|10 years ago
awesomerobot|10 years ago
macspoofing|10 years ago
martin-adams|10 years ago
dazc|10 years ago
Tepix|10 years ago
tomp|10 years ago
bitserf|10 years ago
Tyr42|10 years ago
rloc|10 years ago
I use an Android phone that lasts consistently more than 2 days (Sony z3 compact). Of course I don't have Facebook installed...
themoonbus|10 years ago
bottled_poe|10 years ago
coderdude|10 years ago
pc86|10 years ago
Absolutely the biggest form of hyperbole I've ever seen in my entire life, bar none.
Seriously though, some people use FB sparingly once or twice a day. Some people actually make money from FB or use it for marketing.
There are a lot of people that get more out of it than making snarky election posts.
vowelless|10 years ago
That's a little much. There is one important usecase that I have: messenger. A lot of people (even the ones that I regularly meet) prefer to use messenger and that's the only reason I am sticking with it for now.
nkrisc|10 years ago