Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 356 posts

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

#21

Post by sva_ »

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?

I'm not confident in government to do a better job at keeping it up, tbh. I also wouldn't use a messaging app by my gov, if that's what you meant. Too many dystopian ways for that to go wrong.

I have several messaging apps on my phone, and maybe that's just how it is for now.

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

#22

Post by aaron695 »

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."

Shhhhh on HN you can't have independent thought, your hive mind has to hate Facebook for every incident even if it makes no technical or logical sense.

The Tweet is a good reminder how Facebook is a utility and more than a 'fun' app.

It's nonsense to then go it needs regulation due to this outage. It's obviously unintentional, and as you point out, outages are rare and it would be unlikely any government would have less.

It's like no one here has ever run a server and understands how hard not having down time is, so has to bike shed ohhhhh Facebook bad because of some other incident. HN really has a low technical knowledge base.

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

#23

Post by jbotz »

azangru wrote: post #16

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"?

Because it isn't a question of individual choice.

I use Signal as much as possible, but here in Brazil it seems WhatsApp/Facebook has some deal with all the cellular operators by which the a) give customers "unlimited WhatsApp usage" that doesn't count against their 3 or 5 GB/month internet usage quotas, and b) give WhatsApp traffic preference when their networks are congested, meaning that sometimes Signal messages don't get delivered immediately but WhatsApp messages do. Really.

The "unlimited WhatsApp usage" as part of a basic plan alone means that Signal doesn't have a chance. Most people hit their quota limits during a typical month, and that means no more Signal messages/calls.

I'm sure it's similar in many other countries.

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

#24

Post by darth_avocado »

I know it’s hard for a lot of people but why do we automatically blame everything on Facebook?

The inaccessibility to WhatsApp completely brings life to a standstill for a lot of people across the world. Isn’t that more of a failure on the part of the governments, people and companies that exist there? How is a app that needs access to internet somehow a bigger necessity than the basic function of the device the app was installed in: Calls and texts?

Shouldn’t we focus on making those services accessible and affordable? Instead of demanding Facebook be responsible for everything?

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

#25

Post by heavyset_go »

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.

I disagree, tech has had periods of exactly this. Open protocols and APIs meant that you could write against almost any app or service that used them and switch them out and replace them.

In the early to mid 2000's, this was the case for a lot of things in the tech world, especially when it came to communication and messaging. It's only recently that we've gone removed those open protocols and APIs in favor of proprietary systems and silos.

That spirit is still alive today in some open source software.

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

#26

Post by smoldesu »

sva_ wrote: post #21
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?

I'm not confident in government to do a better job at keeping it up, tbh. I also wouldn't use a messaging app by my gov, if that's what you meant. Too many dystopian ways for that to go wrong. I have several messaging apps on my phone, and maybe that's just how it is for now.

If you have "several messaging apps" on your phone, I'd wager that you are using a messaging app by the government. Unless you have SMS disabled and talk to Grandma in her Matrix server, I doubt anyone is truly "safe" from government surveillance.

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

#27

Post by ajsnigrutin »

azangru wrote: post #16

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"?

The problem here is "other people".

I'd like to use irc as a messaging platform, but almost noone uses it anymore. If all your friends and family use only whatsapp, you have no choice.

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

#28

Post by ALittleLight »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #14
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.

Whatever you think of Zuckerberg, Ayn Rand, or politics, it's unquestionable that Zuckerberg and Facebook have built, bought and maintained useful services used by billions. That's literally what the featured tweet is complaining about - Whatsapp is so crucial for so many it's like a utility.

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

#30

Post by nxbp »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #27
azangru wrote: post #16

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"?

The problem here is "other people". I'd like to use irc as a messaging platform, but almost noone uses it anymore. If all your friends and family use only whatsapp, you have no choice.

and irc folks have splintered now to irc4ever hardcore, matrix preachers, mastodon tooters, other small social media jesuses and so on. oh, and discord lunatics. Can't wait for that walled garden to crash.

Good thing is that there are choices.

Bad thing about the good thing is that there are too many and we're stretching thin.

Post reply on HN