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

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Against Facebook

#71

Post by majewsky »

zerostar07 wrote: post #61
joslin01 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That signal to noise quote is actually great, and one of the reasons why the late Aaron Schwartz refused to read the news. He said in one of his essays it's far more valuable to read books, and basically explained in more words, the signal to noise problem.

can you explain how the logic is not flawed? If you are consuming 50% SNR news, it will be 50% regardless of whether you read once a day or once an hour

For example, let's say you watch TV news each evening. There's a political scandal going on which is featured prominently every night for a whole week as developments go on.

A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise.

The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about what happens next. This information will be outdated the next day as new developments take place, so it's noise for me unless the speculation provides value for me between the broadcast and the next day.

I stopped watching TV news on a regular basis, and switched to reading a weekly newspaper for precisely this reason. With a few days of distance from the original event, everyone can catch their breath and take a step back to put the story into the bigger picture.

Now after 6 years, I've cancelled my newspaper subscription in order to read more books, so I'm deliberately zooming out even more.

Re: Against Facebook

#72

Post by zerostar07 »

majewsky wrote: post #71
zerostar07 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you explain how the logic is not flawed? If you are consuming 50% SNR news, it will be 50% regardless of whether you read once a day or once an hour

For example, let's say you watch TV news each evening. There's a political scandal going on which is featured prominently every night for a whole week as developments go on. A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise. The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about wh…

hindsight is 20/20. but still that does not explain the flawed logic here

Re: Against Facebook

#73

Post by pascalxus »

ryandrake wrote: post #64
some_account wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well written but it's only if you are still within the matrix that Facebook even matters to your life. I see teenagers checking their little phones every minute on Instagram or Facebook and I think it's sad, but they will learn from it. Currently human kind is learning what it feels like to require random likes from strangers in order to feel happy. At the same time a lot of people feel nervous in real life beca…

As someone not in the prison, it feels wonderful to not have to deal with this whole class of problems that come with being on these platforms. How many times I’ve obsessed over taking the perfect selfie: ZERO How many times I’ve posted a status update and worried about how many “likes” I got: ZERO How many times I’ve felt anxiety over who to friend or unfriend: ZERO It is great to actually have time to live my life…

I know what you mean. My EQ is waaayyy to low to care what others think of me. haha. Ignorance is bliss.

Re: Against Facebook

#75

Post by quadrangle »

zerostar07 wrote: post #61
joslin01 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That signal to noise quote is actually great, and one of the reasons why the late Aaron Schwartz refused to read the news. He said in one of his essays it's far more valuable to read books, and basically explained in more words, the signal to noise problem.

can you explain how the logic is not flawed? If you are consuming 50% SNR news, it will be 50% regardless of whether you read once a day or once an hour

The argument is NOT that news is 50% SNR, the argument is that BOOKS are 50% SNR. Effectively, an edited collection of the news over the course of a year has a low SNR compared to that of following the constant stream of instant-news.

The point was expressed badly, but it's about the way that the average quality of new-stuff is a lot lower than the average quality of a curated set of high-quality stuff from a time period.

It's like how you'll see better movies picking out the best movies from all of movie history versus picking even the best of whatever happens to be the newest.

Re: Against Facebook

#76

Post by quadrangle »

zerostar07 wrote: post #72
majewsky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, let's say you watch TV news each evening. There's a political scandal going on which is featured prominently every night for a whole week as developments go on. A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise. The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about wh…

hindsight is 20/20. but still that does not explain the flawed logic here

The logic is: have patience, reject neophilism, take things in with all the benefits of 20/20 hindsight by reading the best from the past year or month or whatever instead of whatever is new right now.

Re: Against Facebook

#77

Post by dredmorbius »

ch_sm wrote: post #22

> Twitter invents the “pull-to-refresh” UI gesture that leverages variable rewards to trigger addictive behavior as a way to increase user engagement with the timeline; Facebook invents the “red dot” notifications that keep people checking their phone for the next new thing. two minor corrections: 1) pull-to-refresh was not invented by Twitter, but by Tweetie, a third-party Twitter client. 2) The "red dot" for notifi…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbiff

Re: Against Facebook

#78

Post by kristianc »

0xADADA wrote: post #68
kristianc wrote: post #44

> 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. I dont think i merely stated "we are the product" > 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. We've always done pointless stuff, but the engagements (microwork) we do on social media may _seem…

> We've always done pointless stuff, but the engagements (microwork) we do on social media may _seem_ pointless to us, but to Facebook it creates the value they sell.

As the time I spend grooming my hair every morning creates value for my hair wax company, or the time a salesperson spends filling in SFDC creates value for Salesforce. If I'm a salesperson, I don't expect Salesforce to pay me personally for the time I spend engaging in microwork using its product, because Salesforce creates value for me too. Facebook creates value for its users too, whether you choose to see that or not.

Re: Against Facebook

#79

Post by jackdoug »

I emailed hacker company twice because i suspect my husband is cheating on me with no response and this makes me worried,Well i finally cried to Mrs Donald who gave me more update about WEB SERVICE her private wizard from youtube. I was told to contact the hacker and his terms and Conditions were very simple and considerate.I'm thanking WEB SERVICE because i never regret working with him.I have full details of my husband Facebook also his cell phone and i found out my husband his loyal doesn't cheat on me and the babies.Email the wizard and get more info about him for a legit job too. darkwebcyberservice@gmail.com

Re: Against Facebook

#80

Post by 0xADADA »

majewsky wrote: post #71
zerostar07 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you explain how the logic is not flawed? If you are consuming 50% SNR news, it will be 50% regardless of whether you read once a day or once an hour

For example, let's say you watch TV news each evening. There's a political scandal going on which is featured prominently every night for a whole week as developments go on. A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not new information, ergo noise. The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about wh…

NAILED IT
Post reply on HN