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

Against Facebook

0xadada.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Against Facebook

#41

Post by sebringj »

sakuronto wrote: post #10
sebringj wrote: post #5

This article makes it sound like people are forced to be social addicts. Maybe some of us our outliers here so it may be odd for me to say this but I honestly have spent more time coding social networks than actually using them. So no, I don't get how people are forced to use them.

I don't know how old you are and I don't want to make assumptions, but in high school and college, societies, school sports teams and friends all tend to use Facebook as their sole means of communication. As someone who refuses to make a Facebook account (on principle and because I'm really stubborn), I do feel like I'm being compelled to use social networks more than I want to.

Yes, I agree it is more a part of our civilization as an expected norm of operation. Where I differ from the author is the fact that the majority of us our very capable of controlling our behavior although we may not initially realize our pattern or be self-reflecting on how it may be detrimental.

Re: Against Facebook

#42

Post by gnarcoregrizz »

I'm hopeful that platforms like Brave Browser/BAT (Basic Attention Token) will take off, to allow people to more directly monetize their attention, so that 'unpaid microwork' will become 'microwork.' I don't know how much demand there is for it though, since people seem content to consume endless amounts of social media for free. On the advertising (rather than consumption) side, people will advertise stuff in hopes of getting free stuff or some type of sponsorship opportunity. It's crazy how much advertising they will do for free. Brands have to be making bazillions off of this type of advertising.

Recently, I noticed that Instagram has tweaked their algorithm so that likes (and story views) are doled out in a more spread out fashion. If you post something, you won't get a bunch of likes at once, now, you're more likely to get them over the course of 24-48 hours to get you back checking the app over the entire window. I figure they have always done this, but the window seems to have grown substantially. It seems like they are reaching further and further to get engagement.

Will FB be able to infinitely increase their engagement, or will they run out, and be left with a bunch of zombie addicts who are no longer valuable to them, since they've effectively killed their host? It seems like drugs sometimes have this end game.

Personally, I'm moving away from using any more unpaid platforms to host my data or work. If a platform has a free option, I choose to pay for it. I no longer trust companies that rely solely on advertising revenue (err, maybe that means I shouldn't be using HN :) )

Re: Against Facebook

#43

Post by loceng »

sebringj wrote: post #41
sakuronto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how old you are and I don't want to make assumptions, but in high school and college, societies, school sports teams and friends all tend to use Facebook as their sole means of communication. As someone who refuses to make a Facebook account (on principle and because I'm really stubborn), I do feel like I'm being compelled to use social networks more than I want to.

Yes, I agree it is more a part of our civilization as an expected norm of operation. Where I differ from the author is the fact that the majority of us our very capable of controlling our behavior although we may not initially realize our pattern or be self-reflecting on how it may be detrimental.

Curious if you use ad-blocking software/extensions? Most people don't AFAIK. Curious if you let yourself be influenced by ads or not. Not a judgement call on ads, some people like being exposed to ads especially if they're targeted.

Re: Against Facebook

#44

Post by kristianc »

> Social media companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Snapchat have created a marketplace for our attention, where we become the product sold to advertisers who subtly change our behaviour to buy products and services for their own benefit.

As opposed to what? There has always been a marketplace for our attention, and our attention has always been sold for profit. The only thing that has changed is the medium. Merely stating 'we are the product' doesn't make an argument.

> This type of persuasion is most effective when these platforms command our attention with a heightened level of distraction.

I should suppose adverts are most effective when they manage to distract us from what we were doing when we weren't paying attention to the advert, yes.

> We create the content that is then used to command the attention of our peers, which is then used to sell advertising space while the surrounding content is measured for engagement, and the results are analysed to optimize the next round of ad placement.

Might be new, but unclear how this has less upside for me than me consuming content which is written by someone else for the attention of my peers with the advertising space around it being sold and measured for engagement.

As for 'microwork', haven't we always done a lot of objectively pointless stuff, norms, social customs because together they make the world we live in a little more pleasant for ourselves? Why yes we have.

Re: Against Facebook

#45

Post by athenot »

> This process of commodification has turned us all into tastemakers, reviewers, likers, retweeters and brand ambassadors. The platform takes our real authentic friendships and first commodifies them, reifies them, and then sells them back to us as an “image of friendship”, but one that is bankrupt of any genuine social value.

This is the money quote.

The article raises a lot of points and is a provocating read. One of the points it brings up has also been on my mind lately: all the content I contribute on the platform just goes there to die. It's not searcheable, it's not easily indexed, it fades quickly within the matter of hours and it doesn't foster in-depth discussion. The silverlining is that this is finally pushing me to get my own site/blog up. Yes I will still link to it from FB and they can analyze the sh*t out of it if they want; but at least I get to keep and curate my own content.

Re: Against Facebook

#46

Post by called_it »

zerostar07 wrote: post #39
quadrangle wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

okay, but could you give some example to back up your judgment? I don't want to read huge long things like this that are bad nor to let "it's bad" comments be enough to sabotage my potential reading of something.

> media-driven neuroticism—a love of change for its own sake, or neomania, a love of new things. Ultimately, neomania together with the media has a negative effect on our moods, which isn’t surprising considering most of what makes the daily news is negative. This leaves us feeling powerless, like the world is falling apart. So we turn to social media to witness the (seemingly) beautiful lives of celebrities, and the…

That seems fine to me, and you freaking out about it to me says something negative about you, not about the article.

Re: Against Facebook

#47

Post by martin1975 »

So I'm curious after reading this, since Facebook lives off advertising, do advertisers hold Facebook accountable for generating a certain # of clickthroughs, or heavens forbid, some other ROI metric for their advertising dollars?

Or are advertisers just funneling money into FB regardless of any measurable impact on their revenue just because there are "N millions/billions of active users" monthly on it?

They could certainly claim this even if you logged in once a day, never looked at any ads and then just left. Why continue to pay money for advertising?

For Google, I can see how it makes sense, because you are already in "search mode" for something, so if they pop in an ad that is even semi-relevant, you might click on it - I know I have... but Facebook?

It seems that money follows eyeballs...whether those eyeballs actually deliver any value... who cares. Or am I off?

Re: Against Facebook

#48

Post by chrischen »

alex_young wrote: post #8

> Media Consumption Strike ... > No TV/Netflix/Youtube > No radio > No podcasts > No social media, delete your Facebook account > No messaging/chat > No idle web browsing > No news aggregation sites > No gaming > No using a computer if it is not directly related to creating or resisting (not consuming) Seems kind of extreme to me. Article mentions that our "attention has been colonized". Maybe focus a little more on…

If Facebook values a US user at $100/year, then many people would likely not be willing to pay that cost, and Facebook should pay those users a larger share of that revenue to bribe them.

Re: Against Facebook

#49

Post by yomly »

martin1975 wrote: post #47

So I'm curious after reading this, since Facebook lives off advertising, do advertisers hold Facebook accountable for generating a certain # of clickthroughs, or heavens forbid, some other ROI metric for their advertising dollars? Or are advertisers just funneling money into FB regardless of any measurable impact on their revenue just because there are "N millions/billions of active users" monthly on it? They could c…

I think your assertions may be correct and you'd still be off in that the some large fraction of the money facebook takes from big companies came from advertising avenues subject to exactly the same risk of being ignored.

Think billboards, train stations, toilets, tv, cinemas. All of those could be ignored and are often unrelated to the activity conducted at the time.

The value of Facebook if nothing else is that it is one central point to reach everyone's eye at any point in the day.

So for the non-data driven decision maker, Facebook at worst will be no worse than other low-yielding "mindshare/brand awareness" channels and is at least current and conveniently executed. (consider the admin that goes with negotiating and conducting lots of adhoc coverage with each channel)

Re: Against Facebook

#50

Post by cryoshon »

sebringj wrote: post #5

This article makes it sound like people are forced to be social addicts. Maybe some of us our outliers here so it may be odd for me to say this but I honestly have spent more time coding social networks than actually using them. So no, I don't get how people are forced to use them.

shrug. some people would rather be addicted and feel like they are a part of something than be independent.

sure, my social life has been hurt by refraining from facebook for a decade.

but there's no question i'm a stronger person for being free of the flowing river of babble that's there. now, when it comes to OTHER rivers of babble...

Post reply on HN