Not only that, Facebook is designed to lock users inside their services as long as possible. The web, to billions of users now, is simply Facebook. The only way to make people leave Facebook and visit your website or app is to PAY Facebook to promote your page and posts so that users visit your services. It's the biggest carefully designed theft of time and effort of all time. Facebook must be destroyed or at least weakened by the power of governments now or never.
Also most social websites were designed on free labor by users like Quora and Reddit (at least the new corporatist reddit)
Just stop using it then. I’ve never used it as they are amoral, and don’t feel I missed much. Facebook will fade away in time, like MySpace,yahoo,aol,etc.
Various companies from AOL to Apple tried this in the 90’s (e.g. eWorld) - it’s the natural tendency for large corporations to corral their users. Arguably the windows attenpt to kill the web, and later mobile app stores are a continuation of this trend.
They all failed in the end, as the open web is more attractive, but there will always be gatekeepers, because most people don’t want to build their own platforms, they just want to read and share their stuff.
At least reddit lets you get some pageviews without forcing you to pay. Facebook's pages and likes are a total scam. It's impossible to reach users without paying, while it takes a lot of effort to create the network of likes. That's double effort for zero benefit.
I would have wholeheartedly agreed with this post had its thesis been "Don't use Facebook, Twiter, Youtube, etc.", but instead I got "Use Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, but complain to your govt. because they make too much money".
You don't like how they make money(X)? Don't use it. No one is forcing you.
> but if I don't use them I'm at a disadvantage
Then they are useful for you, use them.
I don't use fb, twitter, reddit, etc. I only use Google search, Youtube and Hacker news, and do so voluntarily. I'm happy with the value I get, I take measures to diminish the amount of data they get (use fake names, use VPN, etc.)
Living in a system based on freedom means that if someone succeeds through their own effort, they are entitled to that success. You can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person, or how much money they make.
(X) If your copyrighted content is being used without your permission, there are legal mechanisms to stop it. But I doubt reddit users posting in a humor sub care about their joke being used in a Youtube video.
> You don't like how they make money(X)? Don't use it. No one is forcing you.
This narrative would be compelling if there was a way to stop Facebook from collecting data on me and using it anyways. There is not. Facebook trackers, pixels, and plugins exist on a huge number of popular sites and apps. The legislative gap is that Facebook is allowed to collect data from me even if I explicitly don’t want them to through dark patterns and their myriad partnerships. Not to mention that they may, at any moment, acquire whatever alternative to Facebook’s products I choose to use and drag me in again (see WhatsApp).
Edit: by the way, I’ve been using computers for ~25 years and would describe myself as “extremely online”. If I feel helpless in the face of Facebook’s and Google’s tracking technology I have no idea how the average user must feel.
You will realise that "don't use it" quickly becomes "use elaborate methods to block it wherever possible" and even if you do that, your data is still being misused through third parties who sell it. FB, Google etc. are not simply opt-in websites with obscene privacy policies. They are data dealers and advertising businesses whose reach extends far beyond their own web properties to a large part of the Internet.
It's next to impossible to opt out of various entities (data brokers, internet companies, merchants, etc.) vacuuming up as much information about you as they possibly can in order to monetize it.
If you're unfortunate enough to have used Facebook, the situation gets worse since Facebook's anti-privacy settings are a continuing nightmare and they routinely deceive their users and misuse personal information (for example collecting phone numbers for 2FA and then using them as keys to connect you with advertisers.)
Quitting Facebook does nothing to remove their tracking assets from the web, or to regulate their partnerships with data brokers and advertisers, or to remove the contact lists that they've ingested from people you may have interacted with at some point.
The problem is that people want to converge on one system, so opting out often isn't viable. I don't use Facebook, for example. But when my school makes an announcement, or creates some kind of bulletin board or sign up, they often use Facebook. Most people are on it. If I want to advertise a mobile app it is really hard without using Facebook or Instagram.
You say "you can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person". This is not about animosity toward any person or company (or it shouldn't be). We have stopped people or issued government control when people are close to having monopolies over oil, monopolies over power, telecommunications, etc.
The production of the shows my kids enjoy goes something like this: Unpaid redditors post original material to amuse their online friends. Unpaid moderators keep the subreddit functioning by cleaning out spam and abuse. Reddit gets a little money from ads posted on the subreddit. Then a YouTube channel called Sorrow TV—apparently a one-man operation run by a 20-something guy—harvests the best posts and creates the video. YouTube, which is part of Google, runs more ads, while collecting valuable data about the viewing patterns of users like my kids. YouTube shares some of the money it makes with SorrowTV, based on a formula that Google controls and can alter at any time.
Except that:
The barriers to entry to breaking-out in the screen writing or acting biz are much higher than it is to upload YouTube videos. Anyone can post to Facebook or Reddit, so why should the pay be higher than more selective and prestigious jobs that have a more rigorous screening processes?
YouTube allows content creators to profit from their work through ad revenue sharing, premium subscriptions, and super-chats.
Facebook allows content creators to post external links to their websites, such as stores.
Reddit moderators, especially for popular subs, have an enormous amount of power and influence, and such postilions are highly sought after. If being a Reddit mod is so bad, why is there so much competition for mod spots? They are not the victims at all. The users are much more likely to be victims by having to adhere to arbitrary rules and censorship imposed by mods.
I think what pisses me off the most about FB is they used to be legitimately good, then over time slowly boiled the frog, less and less privacy, more features people don't want, so people begrudgingly put up with it now rather than truly enjoy it. They can't leave, not that everyone they know is on FB due to the first mover phenomenon. And if they were honest with themselves or us, they'd admit that. And even if people get sick of FB and migrate to another platform, guess what, they own Instagram and Whatsapp.
Someone in Facebook at a high level is a psychopath, or maybe multiple people
I would argue they were never good. He called people who gave FB data "... dumb f#@$s" back when he was 19. It was just that in the beginning they weren't pushing the monetization yet. Now that is all it is about and people are starting to understand how they are being exploited. The only thing that has changed is that you are aware. I still don't think any of the people in my family give a crap. They are more than happy in their echo chamber and free service.
Agreed. Back when FB started, it was a convenient way to keep in touch with school friends. You could go over to their pages and see what they were up to lately. Then they added a chronological news feed, and while some people objected, I didn't mind. By the time I left last year, it was an inscrutable Skinner box full of ads.
The thing that really pisses me off, though, is the way Google has gone downhill. I remember when they launched, in a world of Lycos and Alta Vista, how refreshing it was to have a simple text box for search, that took you to a list of blue links. After awhile, there were clearly-labeled text ads along the right side, which was much better than the flashing banners on other sites. Now, the ads are mixed in with the search results and designed to confuse, and Google boosts its own properties into the carousel on top. I still sometimes use Google, but always vaguely dreading what new clutter or dark pattern they have added to the SERP since my last visit.
In both cases, a once-useful product was A/B-tested to within an inch of its life, maximizing engagement/surveillance while keeping it just bearable enough for not too many users to leave.
The important detail about the story concerning boiling frogs, is that to stop them from jumping out, first of all their brains were removed. Though I am not sure whether in this instance it makes the metaphor more accurate, or less.
Why can't they leave? Lots of us have and have continued to lead successful lives. I've been off and on Facebook for a number of years, but left last year and have absolutely no desire, or need, to subscribe again.
I don't think that's true. The history of Facebook and Zuckerberg really makes it hard to make the case that either of them were ever anything approaching ethical or good.
“Facebook makes just a hair under $635,000 in profit for each of its 25,000 employees. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, makes about $158,000 per worker. (At Walmart, it’s $4,288.) These calculations often get spun as representing a victory for automation and algorithms—machines, rather than humans, creating value. But the truth is, these media companies have billions of people working for them—they’re just not on staff.”
If you want to know why people use Facebook it is for all of the positive it brings, rather than the negative which is portrayed consistently on HN. Check out this FB page where FB accumulates stories that show FB making a meaningful and positive impact on people’s lives.
Why are your only comments on this site rebutting negative stories about Facebook?
As a follow-up question, what are your thoughts on this longitudinal study from 2017[1], which found that "the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being", such that any form of engagement with Facebook was negatively correlated with a wide range of self-reported mental, emotional, and physical health indicators? Does the Facebook PR page you linked contradict that somehow?
One can always cherry pick good or bad elements of FB use, but the vast majority of users and the average use case would not have anything to do on the Community Voices page.
Most people use facebook to satisfy vices such as outrage addiction, vanity, and jealousy/noseyness.
Even cable news runs an uplifting story every now and then, but for the most part simply magnifies and profits from the worst in society.
Facebook and other social media rely on that heavily and make their users do as much work for them as possible.
The constant stream of notifications makes it easier. Instructions can be presented as „tips”: upload a new photo, greet new users on your fanpage, reply to this message.
Some users are getting paid in just likes, but an increasing number receives very tangible business opportunities or direct compensation.
This is getting very close to employment territory. But unlike real employment, social media get to set the rules.
This is completely backwards. I get free, undisturbed, superb quality communication with all my friends and family via WhatsApp. I used to pay a fortune for that and now it's FREE. So OP suggests I should be paid for the suffering of using a 100% free super useful service?
What? WhatsApp was $1/yr before Facebook bought it, which is hardly a "fortune." A lifetime of WhatsApp would have cost you less than one month's internet bill.
I would certainly like Facebook the company to completely fail, but the WagesforFacebook website is probably the most idiotic thing I have seen in a long time.
It is like turning into a penniless bum by spending all your money partying, and then blaming all the party hosts for your predicament and asking them to pay you money for each visit so you can keep partying forever into the future.
Why not stop attending the parties?
Why not a) remove the mobile app and use it only on a desktop/laptop to reduce the amount of time you spend on Facebook b) monitor how much time you spend on FB and slowly cut it down c) pick up the phone and pay a few damn dollars to talk to close friends - in case you don't have a way to call for free d) meet people in real life and put your mobile phone away and actually pay attention to the other person e) spend your time educating everyone you know about the problem of FB addiction f) volunteer for some community service where you actually get to meet your friends and neighbors?
But NO! "I want to bum around on Facebook, I want my minute-by-minute dopamine hit, and I want to distort the issue so no one figures out that my FB addiction is actually my fault in the first place"
This is HN, where it is presumed that people who absolutely have the willpower to exert personal responsibility instead convince themselves that they don't, so that they can play the victim.
If you don't like Facebook, don't use Facebook, try not to run their code, try not to connect to their hosts, and don't send data to their partners. Most importantly, live the life that makes the people around you not want to use Facebook either.
Bumming around on Facebook is how Facebook makes money. It's a form of labor and has monetary value for Facebook. Yes, that's ridiculous, but that's how capitalism works.
I used to post photos on google maps, sometimes at the prompting of the Maps app. It was cool to get emails saying a 100,000 people had seen my photo. But I quit “contributing” when it finally occurred to me that I was doing free work for a billion dollar company.
I think Facebook is toxic for some people I know personally. I decided that by posting on Facebook I’m helping create reasons for those people to keep checking Facebook. A while back I deleted everything from my profile except my phone number and email address. In the rare occasions I look at the news feed I never like or interact with posts. I miss the good things about Facebook but it just isn’t worth the cost.
I still do however work for Google because their "solve 10 machine learning challenges or be well tracked" service is integrated by so many fucking idiotic services.
> I still do however work for Google because their "solve 10 machine learning challenges or be well tracked" service is integrated by so many fucking idiotic services.
I don't, for the most part. If I have to solve a captcha for something, I usually don't use that thing. I will make the occasional exception for captchas that are part of signing up for a service if it's important enough to me, as long as the captcha never appears again.
Yep, all these services basically exist off the back of their userbases, and practically all their value comes from the content submitted by the people that use them for free.
And this makes it rather interesting to hear complaints about working for exposure or free or what not. Yes, that's a bad deal, but it's really also the same deal you're agreeing to when you heavily use these 'social media' sites and platforms. You're saying you'll provide a ton of content for free on the assumption that just maybe, some of those millions/billions of users will check it out on your own site and help you make money.
And YouTube and other sites with monetisation requirements may actually be worse in some extent. Think about it, YouTube's basically like a bad internship; work for free for a few months, then if you're good enough maybe we'll decide to pay you.
But hey, I guess those millions/billions of users are too tempting for many.
Every post about Facebook comes with the same lynch mob in the comments and it's getting tiresome.
Yes, you all hate Facebook and want Mark Zuckerberg's head on a pole (literally). You also want every single employee to be executed for treason against humanity. HN has really lost any chance of sensible discussions around this.
At least not me, as I don't use facebook at all, life is good without it.
I have to use google for daily searching, along with gmail, I now migrate my primary email to outlook and my goal is to use google only for searching under anonymous mode, i.e. not all eggs in one basket, to mitigate privacy concerns
This reminds me of Matt Webb's piece titled "Instagram as an island economy"[1] where he writes about the concept of encoded labour: "Every "user" of Instagram is a worker. There are some people who produce photos -- this is valuable, it means there is something for people to look it. There are some people who only produce comments or "likes," the virtual society equivalent of apes picking lice off other apes."
I feel the entire post is missing the two main points:
1) No one would bother creating these free services if they could not draw massive revenue streams out of it. If the returns disappear, it'd all be shut down.
2) If you create content on an online platform, you get paid in emotions you feel, the popularity you might get or the money you get through your own advertising if you are popular. If you contribute the data, you also benefit from a better service which is free.
P.S. I am thinking of building an RSS reader app with the built-in discussions. If it sounds interesting, please fill out a survey https://forms.gle/9V85Eb8PZnBXKaFr6
> 1) No one would bother creating these free services if they could not draw massive revenue streams out of it. If the returns disappear, it'd all be shut down.
You may have missed all the free forums on the Internet, financed by hobbyists or a few unobtrusive banner ads. It used to be the norm. Surely most of the development efforts of FB go into maximizing revenue through use(misuse?) of private data, but this is a "free service" nobody asked for.
At the end of the day, your contribution to a site, any site, any contribution has a finite limited time value to you, but has a much longer, and multidimensional value to the receiving site. The value shared is asymmetric.
I’m hoping people can come to an agreement over the degree of asymmetry.
This reminds me of a parallel discussion of how much businesses leaders should benefit vs employees, the spectrum ranging from full socialist worker control to naked capitalism.
Maybe a hint lies in the ranges of accepted offers in the ultimatum game
Whether Facebook should be paying people to work or not, the decision should be made by Facebook and those people voluntarily, not imposed on them by the government. If some people think they should be paid for the work, they should refuse to do it for free...the fact that in such a case other people might do the same work for free instead doesn't still entitle the government to dictate the terms of a voluntary relationship.
That sounds fair but nothing the government does works that way. If you asked us all we would pay zero taxes ourselves and enjoy social benefits paid by others.
FB's biggest problems are about market saturation and maintaining that position. If they lose the youngest generation then they will gradually decrease in value as their legacy userbase ages. This is why FB constantly has to buy up and coming social media style tech so that they can constantly reinvigorate the youth demographic into the fold. It's a constant battle for FB to avoid becoming obsolete.
[+] [-] trpc|6 years ago|reply
Also most social websites were designed on free labor by users like Quora and Reddit (at least the new corporatist reddit)
[+] [-] grey-area|6 years ago|reply
Various companies from AOL to Apple tried this in the 90’s (e.g. eWorld) - it’s the natural tendency for large corporations to corral their users. Arguably the windows attenpt to kill the web, and later mobile app stores are a continuation of this trend.
They all failed in the end, as the open web is more attractive, but there will always be gatekeepers, because most people don’t want to build their own platforms, they just want to read and share their stuff.
[+] [-] noarchy|6 years ago|reply
I weakened Facebook in my life by reducing my reliance on it, to the point where I stopped using it entirely.
The last thing I'd want is for governments to get involved in choices that I should be making for myself. This one is too easy.
[+] [-] return1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Aeolun|6 years ago|reply
I wouldn’t know what to do with my life if Facebook suddenly disappeared.
/s
[+] [-] Kiro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lone_haxx0r|6 years ago|reply
You don't like how they make money(X)? Don't use it. No one is forcing you.
> but if I don't use them I'm at a disadvantage
Then they are useful for you, use them.
I don't use fb, twitter, reddit, etc. I only use Google search, Youtube and Hacker news, and do so voluntarily. I'm happy with the value I get, I take measures to diminish the amount of data they get (use fake names, use VPN, etc.)
Living in a system based on freedom means that if someone succeeds through their own effort, they are entitled to that success. You can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person, or how much money they make.
(X) If your copyrighted content is being used without your permission, there are legal mechanisms to stop it. But I doubt reddit users posting in a humor sub care about their joke being used in a Youtube video.
[+] [-] AlexandrB|6 years ago|reply
This narrative would be compelling if there was a way to stop Facebook from collecting data on me and using it anyways. There is not. Facebook trackers, pixels, and plugins exist on a huge number of popular sites and apps. The legislative gap is that Facebook is allowed to collect data from me even if I explicitly don’t want them to through dark patterns and their myriad partnerships. Not to mention that they may, at any moment, acquire whatever alternative to Facebook’s products I choose to use and drag me in again (see WhatsApp).
Edit: by the way, I’ve been using computers for ~25 years and would describe myself as “extremely online”. If I feel helpless in the face of Facebook’s and Google’s tracking technology I have no idea how the average user must feel.
[+] [-] lazyjones|6 years ago|reply
You're excused for this ignorant opinion if you are naive enough to actually believe this is going to work.
I do have some reading material for you though
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/31/facebook-...
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/10/15-ways-g...
You will realise that "don't use it" quickly becomes "use elaborate methods to block it wherever possible" and even if you do that, your data is still being misused through third parties who sell it. FB, Google etc. are not simply opt-in websites with obscene privacy policies. They are data dealers and advertising businesses whose reach extends far beyond their own web properties to a large part of the Internet.
[+] [-] musicale|6 years ago|reply
If you're unfortunate enough to have used Facebook, the situation gets worse since Facebook's anti-privacy settings are a continuing nightmare and they routinely deceive their users and misuse personal information (for example collecting phone numbers for 2FA and then using them as keys to connect you with advertisers.)
Quitting Facebook does nothing to remove their tracking assets from the web, or to regulate their partnerships with data brokers and advertisers, or to remove the contact lists that they've ingested from people you may have interacted with at some point.
[+] [-] georgeecollins|6 years ago|reply
You say "you can't just come and take it away because you don't like that person". This is not about animosity toward any person or company (or it shouldn't be). We have stopped people or issued government control when people are close to having monopolies over oil, monopolies over power, telecommunications, etc.
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
Something can be extremely useful but still too expensive to justify. Facebook, etc. count as "too expensive" in my book.
[+] [-] paulpauper|6 years ago|reply
The production of the shows my kids enjoy goes something like this: Unpaid redditors post original material to amuse their online friends. Unpaid moderators keep the subreddit functioning by cleaning out spam and abuse. Reddit gets a little money from ads posted on the subreddit. Then a YouTube channel called Sorrow TV—apparently a one-man operation run by a 20-something guy—harvests the best posts and creates the video. YouTube, which is part of Google, runs more ads, while collecting valuable data about the viewing patterns of users like my kids. YouTube shares some of the money it makes with SorrowTV, based on a formula that Google controls and can alter at any time.
Except that:
The barriers to entry to breaking-out in the screen writing or acting biz are much higher than it is to upload YouTube videos. Anyone can post to Facebook or Reddit, so why should the pay be higher than more selective and prestigious jobs that have a more rigorous screening processes?
YouTube allows content creators to profit from their work through ad revenue sharing, premium subscriptions, and super-chats.
Facebook allows content creators to post external links to their websites, such as stores.
Reddit moderators, especially for popular subs, have an enormous amount of power and influence, and such postilions are highly sought after. If being a Reddit mod is so bad, why is there so much competition for mod spots? They are not the victims at all. The users are much more likely to be victims by having to adhere to arbitrary rules and censorship imposed by mods.
[+] [-] annadane|6 years ago|reply
Someone in Facebook at a high level is a psychopath, or maybe multiple people
[+] [-] snarf21|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username223|6 years ago|reply
The thing that really pisses me off, though, is the way Google has gone downhill. I remember when they launched, in a world of Lycos and Alta Vista, how refreshing it was to have a simple text box for search, that took you to a list of blue links. After awhile, there were clearly-labeled text ads along the right side, which was much better than the flashing banners on other sites. Now, the ads are mixed in with the search results and designed to confuse, and Google boosts its own properties into the carousel on top. I still sometimes use Google, but always vaguely dreading what new clutter or dark pattern they have added to the SERP since my last visit.
In both cases, a once-useful product was A/B-tested to within an inch of its life, maximizing engagement/surveillance while keeping it just bearable enough for not too many users to leave.
[+] [-] inflatableDodo|6 years ago|reply
The important detail about the story concerning boiling frogs, is that to stop them from jumping out, first of all their brains were removed. Though I am not sure whether in this instance it makes the metaphor more accurate, or less.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2009/07/guest...
[+] [-] welly|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
I don't think that's true. The history of Facebook and Zuckerberg really makes it hard to make the case that either of them were ever anything approaching ethical or good.
[+] [-] mindgam3|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polskibus|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trpc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1sttimeposter|6 years ago|reply
https://wwww.facebook.com/CommunityVoices/
[+] [-] cribbles|6 years ago|reply
As a follow-up question, what are your thoughts on this longitudinal study from 2017[1], which found that "the use of Facebook was negatively associated with well-being", such that any form of engagement with Facebook was negatively correlated with a wide range of self-reported mental, emotional, and physical health indicators? Does the Facebook PR page you linked contradict that somehow?
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28093386
[+] [-] 50656E6973|6 years ago|reply
Most people use facebook to satisfy vices such as outrage addiction, vanity, and jealousy/noseyness.
Even cable news runs an uplifting story every now and then, but for the most part simply magnifies and profits from the worst in society.
[+] [-] neiman|6 years ago|reply
I'm not saying that Facebook is Darth Vader. I am saying you're logic is flawed. What you wrote is not a serious discussion.
[+] [-] pluma|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thih9|6 years ago|reply
The constant stream of notifications makes it easier. Instructions can be presented as „tips”: upload a new photo, greet new users on your fanpage, reply to this message.
Some users are getting paid in just likes, but an increasing number receives very tangible business opportunities or direct compensation.
This is getting very close to employment territory. But unlike real employment, social media get to set the rules.
[+] [-] avip|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] username223|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway_9168|6 years ago|reply
It is like turning into a penniless bum by spending all your money partying, and then blaming all the party hosts for your predicament and asking them to pay you money for each visit so you can keep partying forever into the future.
Why not stop attending the parties?
Why not a) remove the mobile app and use it only on a desktop/laptop to reduce the amount of time you spend on Facebook b) monitor how much time you spend on FB and slowly cut it down c) pick up the phone and pay a few damn dollars to talk to close friends - in case you don't have a way to call for free d) meet people in real life and put your mobile phone away and actually pay attention to the other person e) spend your time educating everyone you know about the problem of FB addiction f) volunteer for some community service where you actually get to meet your friends and neighbors?
But NO! "I want to bum around on Facebook, I want my minute-by-minute dopamine hit, and I want to distort the issue so no one figures out that my FB addiction is actually my fault in the first place"
[+] [-] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
If you don't like Facebook, don't use Facebook, try not to run their code, try not to connect to their hosts, and don't send data to their partners. Most importantly, live the life that makes the people around you not want to use Facebook either.
[+] [-] pluma|6 years ago|reply
Capitalism is ridiculous, yes.
[+] [-] jdofaz|6 years ago|reply
I think Facebook is toxic for some people I know personally. I decided that by posting on Facebook I’m helping create reasons for those people to keep checking Facebook. A while back I deleted everything from my profile except my phone number and email address. In the rare occasions I look at the news feed I never like or interact with posts. I miss the good things about Facebook but it just isn’t worth the cost.
[+] [-] sascha_sl|6 years ago|reply
I still do however work for Google because their "solve 10 machine learning challenges or be well tracked" service is integrated by so many fucking idiotic services.
I just call it the Google tax.
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
I don't, for the most part. If I have to solve a captcha for something, I usually don't use that thing. I will make the occasional exception for captchas that are part of signing up for a service if it's important enough to me, as long as the captcha never appears again.
[+] [-] CM30|6 years ago|reply
And this makes it rather interesting to hear complaints about working for exposure or free or what not. Yes, that's a bad deal, but it's really also the same deal you're agreeing to when you heavily use these 'social media' sites and platforms. You're saying you'll provide a ton of content for free on the assumption that just maybe, some of those millions/billions of users will check it out on your own site and help you make money.
And YouTube and other sites with monetisation requirements may actually be worse in some extent. Think about it, YouTube's basically like a bad internship; work for free for a few months, then if you're good enough maybe we'll decide to pay you.
But hey, I guess those millions/billions of users are too tempting for many.
[+] [-] Kiro|6 years ago|reply
Yes, you all hate Facebook and want Mark Zuckerberg's head on a pole (literally). You also want every single employee to be executed for treason against humanity. HN has really lost any chance of sensible discussions around this.
[+] [-] arendtio|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ausjke|6 years ago|reply
I have to use google for daily searching, along with gmail, I now migrate my primary email to outlook and my goal is to use google only for searching under anonymous mode, i.e. not all eggs in one basket, to mitigate privacy concerns
[+] [-] kripy|6 years ago|reply
[1] http://interconnected.org/home/2012/04/11/instagram_as_an_is...
[+] [-] orkon|6 years ago|reply
1) No one would bother creating these free services if they could not draw massive revenue streams out of it. If the returns disappear, it'd all be shut down.
2) If you create content on an online platform, you get paid in emotions you feel, the popularity you might get or the money you get through your own advertising if you are popular. If you contribute the data, you also benefit from a better service which is free.
P.S. I am thinking of building an RSS reader app with the built-in discussions. If it sounds interesting, please fill out a survey https://forms.gle/9V85Eb8PZnBXKaFr6
[+] [-] lazyjones|6 years ago|reply
You may have missed all the free forums on the Internet, financed by hobbyists or a few unobtrusive banner ads. It used to be the norm. Surely most of the development efforts of FB go into maximizing revenue through use(misuse?) of private data, but this is a "free service" nobody asked for.
[+] [-] magwa101|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chillacy|6 years ago|reply
This reminds me of a parallel discussion of how much businesses leaders should benefit vs employees, the spectrum ranging from full socialist worker control to naked capitalism.
Maybe a hint lies in the ranges of accepted offers in the ultimatum game
[+] [-] goodrubyist|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnFen|6 years ago|reply
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to this argument is Facebook and the like weren't imposed on my against my will.
[+] [-] chillacy|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sys_64738|6 years ago|reply