121–130 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tried just asking people to move a group chat off of fb?
This is pretty antisocial behavior to force others to use a service that you deem acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The thing that holds me to Facebook is that it's become the town square Yep, but most social platforms are not really tuned to being a town square, and instead are optimized for feeds and stirring emotions. They often rewarding behavior that's counterproductive to finding common ground. We need platforms like DinnerTable.chat [1] that is built around the idea of bringing people together across the spectrum and local…
I'm not disagreeing with you (I've never used this service you linked) ... but what becomes "the town square" has nothing to do with how optimized or tuned it is for that purpose. People are gonna do what people are gonna do, and if you want to be involved with certain people, you gotta go where they are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While I don't necessarily need to be connected to them, it's nice to see how people are doing every once in a while. Why do you choose not to call them and ask them how they are doing? I must admit, I do not really understand this "seeing how they are doing" statement, it confuses me as to why someone would spend time on facebook to see how another one is doing, but would not make the call to ask. Maybe I'm misread…
Not the person whom you're asking, but to me a phone call is extremely invasive, and it feels awkward to call anyone that is not a really close friend or relative. And I also don't particularly like to be on the receiving end of such a call. A text is much better, but still more awkward and invasive than Facebook for people that are just acquaintances that you see very seldom. I think it's a generational thing. I'm 3…
Seconded. I found that I didn’t lose anything by leaving Facebook. The “social network” I thought I had was just a list of names I was familiar with and begged the question about any real relationship which had manifested. I had many relationships which were paper thin and folded the moment I left Facebook.
I subscribe to if you are not willing to contact your friends without facebook then they probably were not meant to be in your life anyway.
(I don't understand why you're downvoted, so I upvoted you.)
But now: It used to be really fun to have online discussions with people who I used to know in real life, but because "life happened," I didn't get to see very often. That's why Facebook used to be fun, and why I politely disagree.
But, again, I think your viewpoint is totally valid and shouldn't be downvoted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like we are all royally screwed if policy is now being decided on and only through facebook. I have never had a FB account and will never have one. It seems extremely crazy to be required to go through a bunch of legal terms of service just to participate in government. In fact it may be illegal technically.
That seems extremely exaggerated. What’s illegal about private citizens choosing to use a service like Facebook to talk to each other? If you want to “participate in government” nothing stops you from showing up to town or county council meetings, planning commissions, and so on, or from sending letters to your elected officials, or a phone call, or running for office yourself.
Why? Think back 10 years ago when everyone was designing their apps to be engaging, sticky, ect, and judging success based on how long people stayed on their app.
Facebook has turned into the internet equivalent of cigarettes.
What's really strange is the way we all make excuses to continue to use it, kind of like how many smokers make excuses about why they continue smoking.
We're all hooked, even me!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The thing that holds me to Facebook is that it's become the town square Yep, but most social platforms are not really tuned to being a town square, and instead are optimized for feeds and stirring emotions. They often rewarding behavior that's counterproductive to finding common ground. We need platforms like DinnerTable.chat [1] that is built around the idea of bringing people together across the spectrum and local…
I say this with respect and for your benefit: this is the most cringe inducing product description I’ve ever read.
To me it seemed like a decent introduction to a tool designed to help get people take a look outside of their bubbles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say this with respect and for your benefit: this is the most cringe inducing product description I’ve ever read.
Ah, thanks for that feedback. Would you like to try your hand of writing a better summary here? It would be appreciated, as it's hard to improve from just a single word criticism (cringe).
I respect Woz and his contributions to computer science. Tbh tho every time I see an article like this it makes me scratch my head. It’s always something along the lines of “Woz says you should do something that has been old news and most anyone who would care is already doing or agrees with”. It’s not that he’s wrong. It’s just... why is this news? He’s just making a very safe statement for the audience being target…
It makes news for a couple of reasons. (and assuming this isn’t a rhetorical idealistic question about what is and isn’t news…) 1. He’s a notable technologist (or whatever term you’d prefer to use for someone who is seen as intrinsically linked with the rise of computation tech) 2. It’s Gizmodo, they’re not exactly looking for revolutionary stuff here. 3. It’s your standard confirmation bias as well. Most people who…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I say this with respect and for your benefit: this is the most cringe inducing product description I’ve ever read.
Can you elaborate on the source of the cringe? I went to read it based on your description, hoping for a dose of cringe. In the end, I did not detect it. To me it seemed like a decent introduction to a tool designed to help get people take a look outside of their bubbles.
> to playfully challenge perspectives, while unlocking achievements
Who's looking to "playfully challenge perspectives"? and "[unlock] achievements"? Discussions aren't generally a game, but this seems to pitch it that way. I don't know about you guys, but I think more often than not, discussions are a generally stressful thing that people do because they must. The description might benefit in changing to a somewhat more serious tone.
Also, talking of "unlocking achievements" gives the project a manipulative kind of feel. The description states what it offers to people, and in that is the mention of being able to obtain fake internet points in the form of achievements. Is fake internet points supposed to motivate one to join the project?
Anyway, I'm just trying to expand on what's probably cringey. It's still good work.