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

Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#31

Post by drakaal »

sillysaurus wrote: post #5
drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.

Oh, do the cheerleader mine the data of the audience, and use it to create spam?

If the cheerleaders were sleeping with the fans and spreading venereal disease your analogy would be nearly perfect.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#32

Post by drakaal »

hkmurakami wrote: post #6

I feel like it's a little bit unfair to Facebook Inc. to have their name as the first word of the title since a glance at the title makes it seems as if Facebook yet again overstepped their boundaries (though it speaks volumes to FB's past behavior that I have that reaction right away)

Facebook has the power to take down posts. They take down pictures of breast feeding mothers. I would think it is no more difficult to take down copyrighted works. Google image search finds duplicates quite well. FB should do something similar.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#33

Post by slammdunc23 »

I 100% agree that IFLS should be crediting the artists who make great work and direct traffic to IFLS's page. What I am having trouble understanding is why the general thrust of comments on this page seems to be "This is UNACCEPTABLE!!" when (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the general thrust of comments on pages about, e.g., The Pirate Bay seems to be "There's absolutely nothing wrong with The Pirate Bay!" Aren't both of these sites making money by hawking stolen wares? Why is The Pirate Bay so fiercely defended and IFLS so roundly condemned?

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#34

Post by noonespecial »

drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

IFLS is to science as lol-cats is to feline veterinary medicine.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#35

Post by endgame »

drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

See also: http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#37

Post by illuminate »

sillysaurus wrote: post #5
drakaal wrote: post #2

Nor do they love science. Most of the things they post are not accurate. The picture of the universe and a synapse for example springs to mind. They are just a "Like" farm. They use their tracking of likes to mine relationships so you can get personalized spam that appears that it came from your friends.

I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.

"I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science."

This is how What the Bleep, Dr. Oz, and all manner of pseudoscience subverts actual science.

Fairweather friends like that make it more difficult because they're repeating a meme or sort of cargo cult understanding of how reality works.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#38

Post by illuminate »

saraid216 wrote: post #16
sillysaurus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.

> I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. The absolute only good thing about this is that it fights fire with fire: that is, it uses tribalism to fight tribalism. But that's all it is. Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity, and it's a problem whether or not magical woo is involved. It's the same kind of thing when people think that calling out…

"Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity"

A lack of belief in God is not a belief in a God. Your example is ignorant.

Re: Facebook’s “I F*cking Love Science” does not love artists

#39

Post by derleth »

saraid216 wrote: post #16
sillysaurus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. What they're doing is cheering for the idea of science. It's similar to people cheering at a basketball game. They're not basketball players, so most of what they have to say about the topic is going to be wrong. But they're still rooting for you, and this is a good and powerful thing.

> I think we should relax about the idea that most people post inaccurate facts when they're cheering science. The absolute only good thing about this is that it fights fire with fire: that is, it uses tribalism to fight tribalism. But that's all it is. Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity, and it's a problem whether or not magical woo is involved. It's the same kind of thing when people think that calling out…

> Atheistic religiosity is still religiosity

Right. Replacing one form of blind adherence with another is not an improvement.

There are people who have no blind adherence to anything. It is possible, and we need more of them. That isn't something IFLS can help with.

Post reply on HN