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

The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#11

Post by danjl »

edzitron wrote: post #3
danjl wrote: post #2

Would be more interesting without the ginormous chip on the author's shoulders.

Please elaborate! I'm genuinely curious.

Placing so much blame on individuals like Zuck and Sandberg is already a stretch. Though leaders have a huge influence, and should bear the responsibility, this piece tries to make it seem like it is those individuals that caused the perceived problems. It even implies that they had "bad" motivations, which is really reaching. Describing the stock classes, the article implies an enormous amount of detailed control on company behavior via stock ownership, which is generally not the case at any large company. Corporate boards don't generally get into features and implementations and stick to strategy. The argument is further undermined by what seems like some sort of personal vendetta from the author.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#12

Post by edzitron »

paulddraper wrote: post #10
LightFog wrote: post #4

HN rules/ethos don’t agree but the lack of ‘politeness’ in these posts is refreshing. ‘Manners’ have long been a way to reinforce power imbalances and avoid scrutiny. Us plebs shouldn’t shy away from calling out corporate scumbaggery for what it is - what is more damaging, impolite prose or what this company is doing to our society?

It depends whether you want to facilitate insightful discussion, or not.

I think that when you put yourself in the mindset of writing something with the intent of facilitating discussion you're at times drawn toward making inferior content to satisfy an imaginary person (or group of people). Some people are good at it! I don't really get into it, as everything I write is personally-driven.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#13

Post by tekla »

paulddraper wrote: post #10
LightFog wrote: post #4

HN rules/ethos don’t agree but the lack of ‘politeness’ in these posts is refreshing. ‘Manners’ have long been a way to reinforce power imbalances and avoid scrutiny. Us plebs shouldn’t shy away from calling out corporate scumbaggery for what it is - what is more damaging, impolite prose or what this company is doing to our society?

It depends whether you want to facilitate insightful discussion, or not.

HN has insightful discussion? Very few people read the article and post anyway. And then its against forum rules to call that out.

HN has terrible insightful discussion.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#15

Post by groceryheist »

edzitron wrote: post #9
danjl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author seems to have deep dislike for Facebook, and specific executives, like Zuck and Sanberg. This historical interpretation would be stronger without all that emotion. Edit: I'm guessing you are the author?

I get it! But at the same time, this is opinion work - and also, what would this look like without the emotion? A bone-dry analysis of the text? Would it say "this is bad"? Not arguing at all, there're all kinds of valid analyses to be made, I just don't know how else I'd pull this off.

I like the recent work you've been doing Ed, but I think stylistically you can improve by seeing the truth in some of these criticisms. Your analysis can use a stronger systemic account of both the external cultural and market forces at work and even more so of the internal dynamics within large firms. It can also be more cutting by being concise --- avoid repeating yourself and non-substantive elaboration, especially in an emotional tone, which can be fatiguing. This will help you keep me as an audience member.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#16

Post by LightFog »

paulddraper wrote: post #10
LightFog wrote: post #4

HN rules/ethos don’t agree but the lack of ‘politeness’ in these posts is refreshing. ‘Manners’ have long been a way to reinforce power imbalances and avoid scrutiny. Us plebs shouldn’t shy away from calling out corporate scumbaggery for what it is - what is more damaging, impolite prose or what this company is doing to our society?

It depends whether you want to facilitate insightful discussion, or not.

Generally for HN the request for politeness is positive I think, but in the technology area and especially journalism I think there is an unhealthy aversion to calling people out for anti-social behaviour, leading to a chilling effect on discussing it.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#17

Post by davidgerard »

LightFog wrote: post #16
paulddraper wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends whether you want to facilitate insightful discussion, or not.

Generally for HN the request for politeness is positive I think, but in the technology area and especially journalism I think there is an unhealthy aversion to calling people out for anti-social behaviour, leading to a chilling effect on discussing it.

yep. This article is about specific people who did specific things.

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#18

Post by tarr11 »

edzitron wrote: post #9
danjl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author seems to have deep dislike for Facebook, and specific executives, like Zuck and Sanberg. This historical interpretation would be stronger without all that emotion. Edit: I'm guessing you are the author?

I get it! But at the same time, this is opinion work - and also, what would this look like without the emotion? A bone-dry analysis of the text? Would it say "this is bad"? Not arguing at all, there're all kinds of valid analyses to be made, I just don't know how else I'd pull this off.

So you’ve chosen to use more emotionally charged language to increase user engagement with your content?

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#19

Post by davidgerard »

tarr11 wrote: post #18
edzitron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get it! But at the same time, this is opinion work - and also, what would this look like without the emotion? A bone-dry analysis of the text? Would it say "this is bad"? Not arguing at all, there're all kinds of valid analyses to be made, I just don't know how else I'd pull this off.

So you’ve chosen to use more emotionally charged language to increase user engagement with your content?

that's an inane misreading

Re: The People Deliberately Killing Facebook

#20

Post by LightFog »

danjl wrote: post #11
edzitron wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please elaborate! I'm genuinely curious.

Placing so much blame on individuals like Zuck and Sandberg is already a stretch. Though leaders have a huge influence, and should bear the responsibility, this piece tries to make it seem like it is those individuals that caused the perceived problems. It even implies that they had "bad" motivations, which is really reaching. Describing the stock classes, the article implies an enormous amount of detailed control on…

You are trying to suggest that Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t have a detailed knowledge and control over core Meta features, nor knowledge of the societal damage they can do?
Post reply on HN