Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#91

Post by spinchange »

kbenson wrote: post #87
spinchange wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to know more about him or his philanthropic work, I suggest checking out what his charitable foundation: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about He's also written a number of books, some a better read than others, but I find all of his ideas interesting, even if his communication of them is at times a little dense. (It's clear he is or wants to be a philosopher at heart) It is striking the way he's d…

> When you press people (like in person, not on the internet) why they think he's the devil incarnate, you usually get some really wild ad hominem not rooted in reality or a realization that they don't really know why they hate him so much other than he's a benefactor of their political opposition and they were told to. Sure, but we could probably say the same of the Koch brothers. They both occupy similar positions…

I've never seen people claim the Koch's literally aided and abetted the Nazis (this is something that's actually claimed about Soros in spite of fleeing Europe with his parents as an adolescent). There's a hatred and fear of Soros that surpasses his political activities. He's pretty active with bonafide "do gooder" stuff and it's equated with Pizzagate-style conspiracies and worse that you don't see on the opposite side of the fence. What I'm saying is, it isn't strictly political and it's certainly not equivocal.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#92

Post by js8 »

I do agree that social media are harmful due to unrestricted power of censorship and manipulation they can exert over their users.

However, I am not a big fan of Soros, I think he is misguided (to be generous). I don't think he really wants democracy, in the sense of governance by people. And the narrative that social networks are harmful is part of that belief, that "elites" should somehow shape what "common people" think.

And the absurdity of this narrative actually became apparent couple days ago, when Daily Telegraph published an article attacking George Soros, with antisemitic undertones. The reality is, most traditional media are not better.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#93

Post by jnbiche »

I'm less concerned with Facebook's addictive tendencies and more concerned with the existential threat they and other social media pose to our democratic institutions. Perhaps Facebook feels the same as I do, and they're addressing the more critical issue first?

That said, I've seen little sign that they're taking truly significant steps to protect Americans from insidious foreign propaganda, even now. I still don't think they've even been fully truthful about the extend of what happened in the days leading up to the election. I know for a fact that Twitter is still lying about that time, and I suspect Facebook may be doing so as well, or at the very least failing to disclose all relevant data.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#94

Post by staplers »

rossdavidh wrote: post #83

I am no great fan of Facebook, but the indignant accusations about them wanting to keep us glued to their screen seem mostly to come from people who were (and are) perfectly fine with television networks that did the same thing for decades. Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than on social media, I bet. I use Facebook once a week, and TV never, and I find that people are mostly not even will…

  Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than on social media, I bet.
Somewhat correct, however you aren't accounting for multi-tasking (TV in background while on phone) which inflates TVs actual attention time.

https://www.emarketer.com/Article/eMarketer-Updates-US-Time-...

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#95

Post by cornholio »

raverbashing wrote: post #58
justherefortart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principals of finance are the same for everyone. Just because the UK (like Mexico, Argentina, and most of SE Asia) decided to ignore the rules, doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an intelligent investor. When you're screwing with monetary policy and most college kids (in finance and economics) know what you're doing will blow up in your face. To assume investors won't take advantage is not only naive but…

I'm sure the medical companies that sold HIV infected blood products to countries that didn't check for the HIV virus were also "intelligent investors" in your mind. Or the Chiquita fruit company It might not be illegal but ethics come back to you

There is nothing unethical in taking money away from a first world government in fair market deals, within the rules set out by those same governments. They employ tens of thousands of well paid experts who's job is exactly to maximize national interest and who would not blink an eye to crush investors like Soros, would the places be reversed.

Comparing that to poor individuals who were abused by large corporations is disingenuous.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#96

Post by Spooky23 »

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

He’s basically a typical big money guy whose business behavior seems amoral. The difference is that he’s politically involved and has a different viewpoint than many.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#97

Post by Slansitartop »

azangru wrote: post #79
Slansitartop wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since when do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best interest? We don't have for-profit companies because of some fundamental ideological commitment to capitalism uber alles. We have them because we judge their operation to be in society's best interest. When a particular one fails to do that, it raises a legitimate question about whether it should be allowed to continue with those actions or even…

> We have them because we judge their operation to be in society's best interest. > ... > If a company is not acting on society's best interest, it should be made to or abolished. Wow! And here was me naively thinking that we have for-profit companies to bring profit to their owners/shareholders.

> Wow! And here was me naively thinking that we have for-profit companies to bring profit to their owners/shareholders.

Yeah, that is pretty naive thinking. We're talking about society as a whole, but that line stops at the motivations of a particular actor in it.

An ideal society allows for the seeking of personal profit, but only so long as the side effects of that profit-seeking are beneficial overall. When it isn't, you get things like externalities that need to be curtailed somehow.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#98

Post by dao- »

Slansitartop wrote: post #84
dao- wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are "these people" though? Successful investors? The "East Coast establishment"? Jewish investors? I believe the point your parent post was making is that these distinctions are bogus. The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. This is unfortunately inherent to Capitalism.

> The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. Guns are amoral too, but we still expect people to use them morally.

There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#99

Post by soared »

bluntfang wrote: post #69
jeremynixon wrote: post #43

The question is actually about the counterfactual impact of Facebook's addiction machine. In the absence of social media, do people simply replace their wasted time there with leisure like video games, television, texting, and the like? If yes, the net impact of Facebook is small. Or, have the addictivity wizards actually managed to increase the amount of time spent in leisure, taking away from familial connection an…

>In the absence of social media, do people simply replace their wasted time there with leisure like video games, television, texting, and the like? If yes, the net impact of Facebook is small. You're being naive if you think it's about where people spend their time if facebook didn't exist.

What else would you compare that time to then?

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#100

Post by Slansitartop »

dao- wrote: post #98
Slansitartop wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. Guns are amoral too, but we still expect people to use them morally.

There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.

You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth.

We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.

Post reply on HN