Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

whatever.scalzi.com

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#91
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

I think people are getting a little tired of blog posts that follow this pattern:

1. Argh, I will finally join Facebook even though I hate it.

2. OMG, I cannot believe that Facebook does something a way that I don't like.

3. Facebook sucks, I am quitting. You should too, obviously.

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#92
post #71
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well he was apparently doing that in 1993... What did you build on the web in 1993? NCSA Mosaic had literally just come out.

I'm thinking the person you replied to knows a thing or two about "Awesome" on the web. I'm not sure he was old enough to have done much on or off the web in 1993.

I think Paul was just about to enter college then, so he was old enough. My point is that it was actually quite forward-thinking to try out anything on the web in 1993.

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#93
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, that would be great for facebook. Sending millions of emails per day to the outside world with a link 'XXX is already on facebook, why dont you join today' at the bottom would be priceless.

Well, yes and no. A major advantage of FB is that, once they suppressed the crazy app invites, it's spam-free. The only people who can send me messages are people I've already "whitelisted" by adding them/accepting their add. Once they start allowing inbound email, it all goes a bit hatstand.

Why? You'd just have 2 boxes - "Email from your FB friends", "Email from other people".

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#94
post #91
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

I think people are getting a little tired of blog posts that follow this pattern: 1. Argh, I will finally join Facebook even though I hate it. 2. OMG, I cannot believe that Facebook does something a way that I don't like. 3. Facebook sucks, I am quitting. You should too, obviously.

That's pretty much exactly what Scalzi's post wasn't.

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#95
post #82
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

Umm, in case you haven't noticed, HN is full of FB echo-chamber fanbois who have a combined age still in the 2 digits.

[deleted]

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#96
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

Shouldn't text be judged on its own merits, rather than who the author is?

And who is the author? I have no idea. But I do know from reading the article that he sounds bitter/jealous and a little bit clueless.

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#97
post #94
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people are getting a little tired of blog posts that follow this pattern: 1. Argh, I will finally join Facebook even though I hate it. 2. OMG, I cannot believe that Facebook does something a way that I don't like. 3. Facebook sucks, I am quitting. You should too, obviously.

That's pretty much exactly what Scalzi's post wasn't.

I don't know, doesn't the BCC rant meet the 2nd point?

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#98
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

I think the discussion is divided between two camps:

1) Those who can't imagine the point of a messaging (or indeed, any) system that does not have all the bells and whistles you can imagine or get using another system.

2) Those that realise that most people only use a very small subset of those features, and that everything else is just a potential cause of confusion. So, offering a messaging system that "does a few things, but does them well" will be an attractive proposition for many people.

It seems that these two camps can't see each other's points of view. The author of the article seems to acknowledge 2 but keeps coming back to 1.

"more words are always good, right"

No. Less words to say the same thing are normally much better, the rest is just noise.

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#99
post #81

I honestly hadn't expected this outpouring of vitriol here against John Scalzi, of all people. The things I'm reading here - that he's "just jealous" or what have you - are frankly blowing my mind. I thought his point was pretty clear: FB is rolling in cash and is the target of the latest 15-minute hype and 50 billion dollars of Goldman-Sachs paper valuation, but isn't really breaking new ground in providing the best…

I think the discussion is divided between two camps: 1) Those who can't imagine the point of a messaging (or indeed, any) system that does not have all the bells and whistles you can imagine or get using another system. 2) Those that realise that most people only use a very small subset of those features, and that everything else is just a potential cause of confusion. So, offering a messaging system that "does a few…

No. Less words to say...

You are familiar with the concept of self-deprecating humor on your world, are you not?

Re: Facebook is what happens to the Web when you hit it with the stupid stick

#100
post #42

A mail system that doesn’t have a Bcc function doesn’t belong in the 21st Century. This reminds me of a comment that we almost always get on HN when Facebook comes up, and its almost always right: it's not for you. If you want Bcc, it's not for you. The millions of people who are younger than you don't think to CC, let alone BCC. They want to communicate, and they want to do it now, and email is just that formal thin…

I haven't used Bcc many times but generally Facebook messages seem all phony to me. It doesn't seem to be a real conversation; I don't "own" the messages the same way I do when I use a real email program. Even gmail offers me tools to work with the messages themselves: on Facebook there's very little I can do with the messages. Basically I can just reply or delete the thread: exactly the same options that I have with…

Yes: you don't own the messages. It is a private internet that FB owns. That's why I don't like it.

The internet is meant to be decentralized. I use Mail Service X, you use Y, maybe one of us runs our own mail server. Doesn't matter. A common protocol makes it work. If my mail server dies or your service goes offline, any emails we've sent still live on the remaining server.

If we want private communications, we can encrypt our messages. If we want to use email as an API, we can. We can receive and parse and archive to our hearts' content.

When FB owns both ends, owns the servers, controls the features, and keeps the data, we communicate at their pleasure. If they want to scrape for political keywords or decline to deliver messages about banana bread, they can. If they want to delete your messages, they can. If they want to forward your messages to advertisers, they can.

"So what?" people say. "Gmail scans your messages and shows ads." True. But if I'm ever uncomfortable, I can switch to any email provider I want, or set up my own server.

If John and I both use Gmail, I can leave Gmail and still stay in touch with him. But if John and I both use Facebook, I can't leave Facebook without losing the ability to message him. If everyone I know is like John, leaving Facebook is voluntary exile, and nobody wants to do it first.

The internet is meant to be decentralized. For many people, FB is taking over the internet.

That's why I don't like FB.

Post reply on HN