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

Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#111

Post by sanderjd »

threeseed wrote: post #48
psychotik wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to judge, isn't it? It takes some courage to be honest and introspective, regardless of how you may judge the poster. What you say about this person says as much about you as it does about them.

Can you show me at what point there was some actual evaluation of why he was doing the things he was ? Because sorry but I don't see anything courageous or introspective there. I just see a blind rant by somebody who clearly cares way too much about what his friends think.

Admitting things that make it obvious that you care too much what your friends think is courageous and introspective. He opened himself up to the inevitable ridicule of people like you (courage) and openly described things about himself that are widely viewed negatively by society (introspection).

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#112

Post by john61 »

blah32497 wrote: post #50
junto wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm similar to you. I had an account for a long time, then "deleted it" a couple of months ago. My entire problem with Facebook has been based around invasions to my privacy. As the years went on, I realised that more and more of my privacy was being eroded. I realised that Facebook really didn't care. I realised that I was helping them to build one big database that was searchable and rampant for abuse by a rogue go…

A bit off-topic, but Facebook has always very intentionally been on the cutting edge of eroding privacy and frankly it doesn't really matter what you do. In 10 years people will care even less about privacy than they do now. Due to Facebook people now-a-days are sharing significantly more than they would ever have been comfortable with even 10 years ago. That trend is only going to continue. "one big database that wa…

It is always a failure to interpolate the future linear from now on. History was never linear. It is more like waves between extremes. Therefore my estimate would be a new Biedermeier period.

You obviously did not study history. Look up Germanys history (Nazis, Stasi) if you want a picture of what a gov't can do with you or your children.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#113

Post by Theodores »

dsuth wrote: post #107
tokenizer wrote: post #8

I don't have a facebook account, and I find the idea of using it for keeping in touch with past acquaintances not very alluring and frankly a diatribe. You're not supposed to focus so much on other people's lives. Instead of people growing into better people through self defined improvement, people now seek gratification through others and their acknowledgment. Instead of going to a concert with a few choice friends…

That is not the only use for Facebook, although sadly I think a lot of people view it that way. Social media is a great way to find out about new things which have been vetted by your social network, meaning you're much more likely to enjoy them. It's like a curated stream of Things of Potential Interest that you can peruse at your leisure. The social interaction side of things can be very positive when you feel like…

I think the opposite is true. Girlfriend uses Facebook (I do not). When she says 'got to see this...' I ask if it is on Facebook, and, if so, decline being interrupted to look at whatever it is. As for 'this is really funny!' my response 'is this another Facebook joke?' is how I am able to filter out the lame humour - if it is on Facebook it is rubbish humour, simple as.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#114

Post by john61 »

keiferski wrote: post #17
tokenizer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your world view is that it doesn't take into account any major negative influences. What if you gained 20 pounds? Or lost your boyfriend to your close friend? What has normally be associated with the family is now associated with the village, and that adds a lot of stress to people's lives. Another problem is the us versus them that this group has enforces on people like me. I think I'm a pretty cool…

I wouldn't think less if you for not having a Facebook, but i'd probably become less of a good friend to you simply because of logistics. I (as anyone who had traveled, I'm sure) have a lot of friends on Facebook whom I met on a trip. Maybe we only had a beer and hung out for 3 hours. But since we added each other on Facebook, we're able to keep in touch. I talk to foreign friends via Facebook all the time. So instea…

Well if you name someone a friend you have talked to 3 hours and you are sharing FB links with, than you have a totally different understanding of the meaning of the word "friend" than me.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#115

Post by jamesbritt »

smsm42 wrote: post #74
valleyer wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a better idea would be to just limit yourself to a small number of photos. It used to be that you were physically limited to 24 or 48 photos. Limit yourself to that. You'll appreciate having some photos of your vacation without spending the entire time documenting.

I do photos sometimes, I just stopped focusing (pun half-intended) on doing it instead of enjoying the experience. If moment presents itself, I'd snap a pic, but if I didn't or even if I forgot the camera completely - I don't regard it as a problem anymore. It's more about the mindset than the quantity - when I realized my mindset if more about the photos than about myself enjoying the experience, I had to change it.…

I switched to taking fewer photos. Now I try to get enough shots to prompt a recollection of what I actually experienced.

Exceptions would be things such as certain architecture or scenery, the details of which I'd never recall well.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#116

Post by cgag »

agumonkey wrote: post #15
tokenizer wrote: post #8

I don't have a facebook account, and I find the idea of using it for keeping in touch with past acquaintances not very alluring and frankly a diatribe. You're not supposed to focus so much on other people's lives. Instead of people growing into better people through self defined improvement, people now seek gratification through others and their acknowledgment. Instead of going to a concert with a few choice friends…

"""living in the experience, some just anxiously try to record the moment, which has ironically been lost with the vision of the future""" Louis CK illustrated something close : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpAwhSSe7F0

Doug Stanhope calls them "tourists of life", a term I like a lot.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xtbl2n_doug-stanhope-touris...

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#117

Post by john61 »

smsm42 wrote: post #34
chatman wrote: post #3

Dr. Stallman also reminds us that Facebook is bad. It doesn't respect the users and their freedom against mass surveillance. http://stallman.org/facebook.html

By now, it is pretty clear there's no freedom from mass surveillance, at least if you're living in the US and using telephones or the internet. So singling out facebook is useless - for any site, if they have any info on you, assume the government has it, and they don't need court order for it either, and they won't allow the site to tell you about it.

Every lock can be cracked, but nevertheless I am locking my house.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#118

Post by techtalsky »

I guess I'm in the minority, but I genuinely enjoy Facebook. Sure, it has its annoyances, and ads are a much more prominent part of the experience. However, it lets me connect with my friends back in Seattle (I live in Brooklyn now) and gives me an outlet for cool photos of my life here in Brooklyn and fun stuff I'd like to share with my friends. I've built a reasonably fun little discussion group around my content and the content of my friends, and we all seem to have a fairly good time with it. I tried Twitter, G+, and everything else, but nothing gets as much "interesting discussion per post" except FB.

Re: Facebook is bad for you: Get a life

#120

Post by samstave »

danneu wrote: post #101
samstave wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you re-read his comment, its filled with as much vitriol and bitterness.

I'm not trying to be hostile. I switched the pronouns to the first-person plural.

You may not be trying to be hostile, however below are the direct bullet points you make in your post.

Can you read how these would be used as descriptors to ones aversion to Facebook WITHOUT being considered "hostile" evaluations. Not to mention they are UTTER assumptions on your part as to _WHY_ someone is against Facebook.

* inventory of our own self-limiting beliefs [1]

* bitterness [2]

* narcissism [3]

* unmasks us and our conflicts with the world [4]

* impressive dance of culpability evasion [5]

* the deactivation button is a secret transcendental portal into social nirvana [5]

* a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves [6]

---

So, if I am against FB, I am 'afraid of my own limitations' (assumption is that this is in contrast to FB's 'greatness'? _in your opinion?_)

---

[1] & [2]: Am I automatically "bitter"? Why? Is it due to points [1] & [2] above? (I think these two points may allude to your youthful? perception that FB is "killing it" and therefore awesome just due to their scale.)

---

[3]: Why am I narcissistic if I eschew the posting of my life to a 1 billion strong shared "HEY LOOK AT ME!" site?

---

[4]: Ill give you this - I have many "conflicts with the world" -- but, Facebook has 0 role in forming these opinions Aside fro mthe fact that it is now proven they are culpable, to use your words, in the spying on the US for the NSA.

---

[5]: This is an interesting one. I'd really like to have a discussion about this one. First of all, the word "culpability" means; To have a hand in... in as much as my being "Tax Cattle" provided the funding for the efforts of various activities of the USG, or my being an "online set of eyeballs to be targeted by Google/Yahoo/Inktomi/Whomever-thefuck... then yes - I am culpable.

However, your use of this term is laying the balme on the users for FBs actions. Seriously - What are you trying to imply.

You are stating that "those who complain about FB being a crappy service to sign up for, are the same people CULPABLE for the service being crappy"

This is a ridiculous claim.

---

[6]: If [5] couldn't be any worse. Now you've just accused anyone of being against FB as being some zealot who is seeking their transcendental hipster orgasm by being against FB - completely ad hominem... this is your arrogance in you're own argument. You think you are above those who claim to not like FB - that you're accusing them as the effective equivalent of "Holy warriors seeking salvation through their denouncement of FB."

---

[6]: I AM SUCH A SYCOPHANT TO FB, I CANNOT EVEN CONTAIN IT:

Lets analyse what you said:

"a personal battle we are merely losing against ourselves"

OK; so assume I am against facebook and I vocalize that sentiment. What you, Danneu, are stating is that I am in a personal battle, which I am losing against "ourselves".

I can only believe that you mean a battle against "those who accept FB to be a completely normal, natural evolution of "us" - whereby; if, I am against it, then "I am fighting myself" because how else would I not want to have [whatever facebook/is want(s)]"

You are really saying that "resistance is futile" -- and that is lame. I wrote about this here on HN almost two years ago, you are the reason why the following could be true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4237959

Post reply on HN