This implies that there is such a thing as 'free will'.
So, you making this comment has been inevitable?
Facebook’s war on free will
31–40 of 284 posts
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you can, I have friends whom for various reason don't have a Facebook or stopped using it/deleted it. People will adjust and instead we contact them by mail or phone. Perhaps it's a bit of a annoyance, but you are not kept prisoner.
I often get invited to events through Facebook. Without Facebook, I would miss out on a lot of events. For this reason I'm basically stuck with Facebook, but I've unfollowed most of my friends, so this reduces the burden to some extent.
Are we talking about friends or acquaintances?
Because if ones friends forget to invite them to events because they are not on FB, then it’s time to find new friends.
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#33Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#34You could take a year-long class on the psychological influence (some call it social engineering) of Facebook and you'd barely scratch the surface. One example I find particularly interesting is how Facebook slowly expanded what would trigger a notification, keeping people fixated on that red box like rats to sugar water.
Disabled all that social media shit way back. Didn't look back once. People who mattered reached out, those who didn't, didn't. Life moved on. So much for all their "psychological influence".
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#35Just get off facebook.
Yes. I'm getting tired of these articles complaining about Facebook when you can stop using it literally any minute. Also, Grauniad is a terrible source of tech news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14179497
You can, your friends/family won't, then you can be indirectly tracked.
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right but I still wonder what will ever become of the idea of a "true" online social network. Why do we have to hand over so much of ourselves in order to obtain social connection as a "side-effect" of the true business of social media operators like Facebook and Google? Are these companies the only way to have meaningful online social networks? I don't think it has to be that way, but I also can't fathom how…
I see the big 4 as robber barons[1]. They see opportunity in millions and billions of dollars. The company doesn't care about the individual. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Of course they don't care about people. The social network that the members enjoy is merely a side-effect of the true business. Sort of like the fact that a cow pasture is not really about the cows' enjoyment but, when you get down to it, hamburgers. Amazingly most people are still as oblivious to this concept as cows are before becoming hamburgers.
What I am wondering about is the possibility of a social network that is deliberately and intentionally about being JUST a social network and NOT some kind of complex mechanism for market research and exploitation.
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#37You could take a year-long class on the psychological influence (some call it social engineering) of Facebook and you'd barely scratch the surface. One example I find particularly interesting is how Facebook slowly expanded what would trigger a notification, keeping people fixated on that red box like rats to sugar water.
It had the opposite effect for me -- now that everything gives me a notification, half the time I see the red dot on the corner I assune it's something stupid.
I'm not sure, but I feel that the less I engage with Facebook the more trivial the notifications become - as though the threshold were being lowered to get me back on board.
So if I have no posts garnering likes / reactions, I start seeing "Susan is interested in an event near London!" and "Alan is now on Instagram!!" - until I begin posting again.
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#38Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#39This was written so disrespectfully and dismissively of programmers, hackers and engineers that I have a hard time reading it, despite my extreme distaste for Facebook. >In the labs of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) during the 60s and 70s, they broke any rule that interfered with building the stuff of early computing, such marvels as the first video games and word processors. Also, Calling a 33 year…
Get used to it. The tech backlash is just beginning. There are two forces. One is the series of gaffs by Google, FB, and Amazon and the resultant public awareness of their power. The second is Trump's election. When he set up his initial meetings with business leaders at the beginning of his administration, the tech giants were notably not invited. He sent the signal that they were not part of the real economy. Say w…
> When he set up his initial meetings with business leaders at the beginning of his administration, the tech giants were notably not invited.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/14/technology/trump-tech-summit...
Re: Facebook’s war on free will
#40It's the Internet that enables communication. Families and friends would be able to communicate once the Internet became possible whether Facebook exists or not. People would be able to use and get value from the Internet whether Google exists or not. These companies add value but they are not the Internet. If they didn't exist the Internet will continue being useful. What they have been able to do is inject themselv…
whats interesting is i communicated more with my family when we only had a phone to communicate than when facebook came along. I'm not sure how or why it does it, but i believe it actually thwarts communication.