21–30 of 100 posts
Who else finds this really silly? FB is just a social network. It's where dumb people post dumb things. How does it deserve this much new press.
An addiction to social media... you have got to be kidding me? If you have an addiction to social media then the problem is with YOU, not social media. FB has problems but people spending to much time on it is not one of them or rather not for people who have any sense of self respect, discipline and dignity. If you can't regulate the time you are spending on FB and it is altering your life then that is your fault. C…
As someone without a Facebook account, it's awkward to read these articles that assume inevitably of Facebook's influence. You can quit. We can quit. Sometimes I run into a group that I want to be more involved with that organizes on Facebook. When I mention I want to be involved but am not on Facebook, there is usually sympathy and a response that there are others interested in the group which are not on Facebook, e…
> Sometimes I run into a group that I want to be more involved with that organizes on Facebook. When I mention I want to be involved but am not on Facebook, there is usually sympathy and a response that there are others interested in the group which are not on Facebook, either. Many organizations are multi-platform to be inclusive, and more organizations if more people spoke up to request a non-Facebook option.
I have not found this to be the case for casual (eg, meetup of strangers) or small (I've been unable to avoid FB's groups and messaging. Adoption is just too high and so many people just can't be bothered to use something else.
An addiction to social media... you have got to be kidding me? If you have an addiction to social media then the problem is with YOU, not social media. FB has problems but people spending to much time on it is not one of them or rather not for people who have any sense of self respect, discipline and dignity. If you can't regulate the time you are spending on FB and it is altering your life then that is your fault. C…
I wonder if people said the same thing about booze.
I think it's a good (if inflammatory) analogy: in both cases, people are aware, in the abstract, of dangers, but systematically underestimate them by a big margin. People knew "smoking is bad for you", but didn't appreciate how bad. People know "Facebook violates privacy" but not the depth of the profile they've made on you across numerous websites. People know "You shouldn't compare yourself to others and feel bad a…
I think it's a good (if inflammatory) analogy: in both cases, people are aware, in the abstract, of dangers, but systematically underestimate them by a big margin. People knew "smoking is bad for you", but didn't appreciate how bad. People know "Facebook violates privacy" but not the depth of the profile they've made on you across numerous websites. People know "You shouldn't compare yourself to others and feel bad a…
I think the fundamental difference is that smoking actually shortens lives by years. On the other hand, Facebook's privacy violations have . . . made people feel a little squicky? What concrete harm has been done? Nothing to rival even a hundredth of tobacco's death toll. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws and regulations around privacy, but personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Facebook and Phi…
2. The harms of privacy violations are hard to quantify the same way as deaths or dollars. But collapsing them down to "feeling a little squicky" vastly undershoots. There's a category of very large potential harms that come from privacy violations and littany of smaller more direct / likely harms. There is a lot of literature on this.
3. The comparison between Facebook and Phillip Morris to which you're responding was not framed in terms of deathcount or health harm. So your reading of the comparison along those lines was bound to be troubled.
I think it's a good (if inflammatory) analogy: in both cases, people are aware, in the abstract, of dangers, but systematically underestimate them by a big margin. People knew "smoking is bad for you", but didn't appreciate how bad. People know "Facebook violates privacy" but not the depth of the profile they've made on you across numerous websites. People know "You shouldn't compare yourself to others and feel bad a…
I think the fundamental difference is that smoking actually shortens lives by years. On the other hand, Facebook's privacy violations have . . . made people feel a little squicky? What concrete harm has been done? Nothing to rival even a hundredth of tobacco's death toll. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws and regulations around privacy, but personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Facebook and Phi…
In the following hypothetical scenario, think about how much blame you would be willing to assign Facebook. It may be none, but they may not be blameless: Facebook's poor privacy practices allow a malicious actor to influence the outcome of an election- they may have only swung a few thousand votes, but they focused on swing states and contributed to the outcome that occurred. This elected official acts in a particular manner, installs a war-monger as national security advisor, who encourages us into a conflict with Iran. Now hundreds or thousands of soldiers end up dying on each side because some malicious actor wanted to make a profit by electing a business-favorable person.
Did Facebook cause a war? No. Did they contribute to a war in some way and cause lives to be shortened? That depends on your interpretation. But I think there should be some regulation, and not the kind of buddy-buddy regulation we're seeing with the telecoms and the FCC right now.
If it were just people trying to sell me things, then the privacy issues and poor control of their data wouldn't be an issue. I've got people trying to sell me things on TV all the time. The risk is the other things that an untrustworthy person can do with this data, that's what I want the regulation and protection for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the fundamental difference is that smoking actually shortens lives by years. On the other hand, Facebook's privacy violations have . . . made people feel a little squicky? What concrete harm has been done? Nothing to rival even a hundredth of tobacco's death toll. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws and regulations around privacy, but personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Facebook and Phi…
1. You're only addressing the privacy component and leaving out the psychological / sociological / political components of the criticism. 2. The harms of privacy violations are hard to quantify the same way as deaths or dollars. But collapsing them down to "feeling a little squicky" vastly undershoots. There's a category of very large potential harms that come from privacy violations and littany of smaller more direc…
I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying that no matter how you want to frame it, there's no chance it's even in the same ballpark, even with the psychosocial aspects that you rightly corrected me for ignoring.
> 3. The comparison between Facebook and Phillip Morris to which you're responding was not framed in terms of deathcount or health harm. So your reading of the comparison along those lines was bound to be troubled.
I think suggesting a similar policy treatment implies a certain equivalency of harm done. Whether the fine article explicitly makes that claim is beside the point, IMO.
I think it's a good (if inflammatory) analogy: in both cases, people are aware, in the abstract, of dangers, but systematically underestimate them by a big margin. People knew "smoking is bad for you", but didn't appreciate how bad. People know "Facebook violates privacy" but not the depth of the profile they've made on you across numerous websites. People know "You shouldn't compare yourself to others and feel bad a…
I think the fundamental difference is that smoking actually shortens lives by years. On the other hand, Facebook's privacy violations have . . . made people feel a little squicky? What concrete harm has been done? Nothing to rival even a hundredth of tobacco's death toll. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws and regulations around privacy, but personally I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare Facebook and Phi…
While it will take more time to figure out precisely how social media impacts the development of teenagers and young adults, the relationship is pretty unambiguous. I recommend Jonathan Haidt's latest book for anyone who still thinks that there is no very real physical and mental health threat associated with social media.
As someone without a Facebook account, it's awkward to read these articles that assume inevitably of Facebook's influence. You can quit. We can quit. Sometimes I run into a group that I want to be more involved with that organizes on Facebook. When I mention I want to be involved but am not on Facebook, there is usually sympathy and a response that there are others interested in the group which are not on Facebook, e…
You can quit. We can quit.
Sometimes I run into a group of smokers that I want to be more involved with. When I mention I want to be involved but not breathe pollution, there is usually sympathy and a response that there are others interested in quitting smoking, too. Many organizations are smoke-free, and more organizations would be if more people spoke up to request a non-smoking option.