Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#11

Post by ikiris » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:08 PM UTC

runawaybottle wrote: post #2

The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…

Excuse me, tech went through that phase and promptly left it because people didn't care enough

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#12

Post by ALittleLight » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:12 PM UTC

"You have built, bought, or maintained a product which is vital to billions. It's a free service unavailable 0.01% of the year. For this you must be punished."

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#13

Post by mandmandam » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #9

smoldesu wrote: post #8

Why do we even let corporations own things that we consider "utilities"? Seems like a case of people being perfectly happy with using a free service until it breaks, then it's all a shitstorm. If WhatsApp's mere existence is enough to warrant deregulation, what does that mean for platforms like iMessage, which fundamentally fill the same role?

It's not a utility, and it shouldn't be considered one.

It's more of a utility, and to more people, than rotary phones were.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#14

Post by cmrdporcupine » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #12

"You have built, bought, or maintained a product which is vital to billions. It's a free service unavailable 0.01% of the year. For this you must be punished."

Oh, yeah, Zuckerberg is a real Howard Roark. Please.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#15

Post by fennecfoxen » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:21 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #9

smoldesu wrote: post #8

Why do we even let corporations own things that we consider "utilities"? Seems like a case of people being perfectly happy with using a free service until it breaks, then it's all a shitstorm. If WhatsApp's mere existence is enough to warrant deregulation, what does that mean for platforms like iMessage, which fundamentally fill the same role?

It's not a utility, and it shouldn't be considered one.

It’s not a utility, and shouldn’t be considered one, and the extent to which it is used as if it were a utility anyway is very unfortunate, pointing to substantial underinvestment in general purpose messaging and information management systems.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#16

Post by azangru » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

Why is the conclusion in that tweet "the billionth reason to break down and regulate Facebook" rather than "the billionth reason not to use whatsapp as the de facto phone and text messaging platform"?

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#17

Post by igetspam » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:24 PM UTC

mandmandam wrote: post #13

krapp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a utility, and it shouldn't be considered one.

It's more of a utility, and to more people, than rotary phones were.

Which also were not a utility... Rotary phones are an interface to a utility.

But let's be realistic, the copper required to connect homes to each other required a massive public works effort. Facebook turned on a server and ran some PHP to stalk college women. Big difference.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#18

Post by 908B64B197 » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

zwieback wrote: post #6

kitkat_new wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why instant messaging needs open standards like Matrix, which make switching apps and provider a nobrainer, because it almost wouldn't matter which one you would loose. Additionally, only one of many service proviers would be seriously affected if a service goes down. matrix.org

SMS is sort of that, right, at least a crude form?

iMessage is the working implementation, as long as nobody joins with green bubbles [0].

[0] https://www.androidauthority.com/green-bubble-phenomenon-102...

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#19

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

runawaybottle wrote: post #2

The main issue with WhatsApp as the primary platform of communication is that it’s exclusive. You can’t actually switch to Signal and continue with business because you’d need everyone to switch with you. Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts. WhatsApp cannot be pointed to another network, it’s total vendor lock-in. Today happened…

> Tech has yet to go through it’s ‘industrialization’ phase where one of the main advents was replaceable/interchangeable parts.

Oh i did not know that car parts could be used interchangeably from one brand to another. So nice to learn new things on HN every day.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#20

Post by bastard_op » Mon, Oct 04, 2021, 11:27 PM UTC

It was almost like the fallout of in 2012 when GoDaddy went down with their internal network collapsing. Being a very large registrar, root certificate authority, and a number of other significant hosting resources, half the internet died that day with it.

I guess you can at least sense "what if facebook went offline?" if just by employee fubar, or if say the government shut them down China-style (or US probably ought to).