“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#211

Post by mthoms » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

exodust wrote: post #193

mthoms wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't really try to sum up Facebook in a single sentence any more than you would do the same with the internet as a whole. The truth, of course, is much more nuanced than a short sentence permits. For instance Facebook allows me to communicate with friends and family I wouldn't otherwise be able to communicate with (at least not as efficiently). I can't see that being bad. As a matter of fact it's something I…

I wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the Internet as a whole. Facebook is just one service you happen to use. Some of your friends happen to use it too. Please don't pretend that cutting it off would mean you couldnt communicate with your friends anymore. You and your friends are resourceful. You would find another way. The Internet is a big place with many pipes for you and your f…

As a matter of fact I communicate with some people who I would almost certainly have no way of communicating with or, in fact, knowing if they are alive or dead.

(I moved a lot as a child)

I get your point that it's not the only solution to this problem. But it is currently the best choice, even if only because of the network effect.

>I wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the Internet as a whole.

I never said that. That's ridiculous. I said it's complex enough that summing it up in a single dismissive sentence is probably disingenuous.

>Please don't pretend that cutting it off would mean you couldnt communicate with your friends anymore.

Never said that either.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#212

Post by maxlybbert » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 10:54 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #154

maxlybbert wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of John Stewart telling people not to consider the "Daily Show" a real news show.

That is what you say when you're making a distinction between "editorial" content and "news." Jon Stewart was saying "My show is obviously editorial content, not fact-reporting objective journalism." As a way of objecting to other sources who claimed to be providing fact-reporting objective journalism when they were actually providing editorial content. AKA "Fox News" vs "Comedy Central."

That is true. But Stewart also said "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#213

Post by ImTalking » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 11:42 PM UTC

lomnakkus wrote: post #195

ImTalking wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why complicate it? Morality is upto the individual entity whether it is a person, or a business, or a govt-body. For example, I believe there are still 'dry' counties in the US. They have decided that a no-alcohol policy is the morality they want to have within their town. I say fine, and I can accept that or move or try to change it... totally up to me. And as long as their morality does not infringe upon my rights…

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic :/. There's quite a bit of difference between corporations and people which means that granting corporations "personhood" is quite... crazy, IMO. In particular, almost all corporations are (almost by definition) asocial, don't care about what their peers think of them, etc. etc. They're basically sociopaths. Besides that they are (when big enough) effectively invulnerable to jud…

But we allow this to happen across society. The Catholic organisation, for example, has it's own morality. And it is completely accepted that you should not join that church if you do not agree with that morality.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#214

Post by Anagmate » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 12:15 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #137

dragonwriter wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos That Facebook is a social networking platform that some people incidentally use to try to relay news of general public concern, not an online public affairs platform with an incidental social networking function?

Why would a social networking platform prioritize wedding photos over news? Is the news less "social"? Aren't weddings news? You're begging the question here.

wedding photos keep you on facebook, which means more time spent on facebook -> more ads server & more behavior tracked. If you click the news, it will take you away from facebook.

Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

#215

Post by lomnakkus » Sun, Sep 18, 2016, 8:02 PM UTC

ImTalking wrote: post #213

lomnakkus wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic :/. There's quite a bit of difference between corporations and people which means that granting corporations "personhood" is quite... crazy, IMO. In particular, almost all corporations are (almost by definition) asocial, don't care about what their peers think of them, etc. etc. They're basically sociopaths. Besides that they are (when big enough) effectively invulnerable to jud…

But we allow this to happen across society. The Catholic organisation, for example, has it's own morality. And it is completely accepted that you should not join that church if you do not agree with that morality.

> But we allow this to happen across society. The Catholic organisation, for example, has it's own morality.

That's true, but the Catholic church only imposes it's will on Catholics. It may certainly try to influence non-Catholic people towards its views, but... let's just say that it's been met with "limited success".

The problem with (large) corporations is that they have the power to impose their wills almost without regard.