261–270 of 352 posts
The question is - will this be just a minor blip to Facebook and then normal services will resume after the indignation wears off? Or will it the beginning of the end of the social media dominance of the platform? For me personally, I use FB primarily to keep in touch with friends, family and old colleagues who are spread all over the world. It is purely a contact tool, and not really used to market products of servi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, people kept in touch with friends and family just fine before Facebook. And people who don't use it now also manage to keep in touch with people they care about just fine.
This says nothing. People shopped online before Amazon; watched movies before Netflix, and used smartphones before Apple started making them
The three things you listed are pure technology. Staying in touch with people you care about and making time to do so is not an inherently technological undertaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope I'm wrong but I think this in no way bringing facebook down. Keeping in touch with friends & family is too important to ditch entirely, and having everyone switch to a different platform is very hard. That said, my whole extended family uses whats app nowadays...
This is a false dichotomy, Facebook is in no way required or even useful to keep in touch with anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously passive users are important for FB's bottom line, but I think what GP is saying is that if all the active users leave (even if media companies/pages don't, just the friends who post), it will cause an exodus of passive users.
Sure, if all will. But most won't, and that won't change things. The 'enough' in GP's comment should pretty much be 80%+, which we all know won't happen. It's still a great communication tool without the users who post though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think Mark Zuckerberg is either incredibly naive, or a sleaze bag Hmm typically when someone says that people are "dumb fucks" it usually means they are simply incredibly naive /s
Or he lacks the social awareness, introspectiveness to see how his product has a negative impact.
Small hype. In 1 month its business as usual.
Since then I've made maybe a dozen posts on Facebook? Less? And I'll even go and delete some of those from time to time.
Don't feed the beast.
I deleted my Facebook in 2012 because I don't like it. However, scraping user profiles is a privacy problem? What about archive.org that will scrape your personal website so you are never able to get rid of your previous version?
https://www.fightcyberstalking.org/how-to-block-your-website...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> buzz feed Since you are as surprised as I was a month back, I've looked further and concluded that buzz feed actually funds very high quality journalism (yes yes shocking I know) and presents facts from both sides. They do it using the money generated from click baits. I'd even make what will sound like a hyperbole , if you are the sort that wants truth on both sides of political spectrum and not just an echo chamb…
https://youtu.be/T77frLL_bsg They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.
Would you really say that Buzzfeed's bias strains your credulity, or is it more likely that you simply disagree with them?
I've had a dormant FB account for years. I don't like the site and I never add content. I believe that social media has become a net detractor to quality-of-life for many (most?) humans who use it. I think Mark Zuckerberg is either incredibly naive, or a sleaze bag, but in either case should suffer some consequences from this. That said, I probably won't delete my account. It remains the only way many of my friends p…