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

Facebook's Little Red Book

map.cv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 300 posts

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#161

Post by jhbadger »

paxys wrote: post #52

I think people here are too young to remember the tech industry in 2012. None of the images and ideas conveyed in this book (printing press, cave art, fall of the Berlin wall, Arab Spring, particle accelerators) were outlandish for the time and space it was printed in. Tech was all about optimism and idealism. Everyone in silicon valley knew they were changing the world for the better, and tech was the missing piece…

But except for the Arab Spring of 2011 none of these events had anything whatsoever to do with social media. It is just absurd to see Facebook try to associate themselves with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It reminds me of the 1990s ad campaign Apple used to have about "thinking different" featuring people like Einstein, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi, none of whom obviously used Apple's products.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#162

Post by oooyay »

Since this election has unfolded I've been thinking a lot about narratives and what they mean. Progress is largely based on narratives. They're the stories we tell ourselves to stay focused, motivated, and aligned. The narrative doesn't have to be true, it just needs to be a convincing story grounded in some reality (as it would seem). That got me thinking about the function of narratives versus truths, how they're related, and how they're distinct.

Products like this book are just an internal narrative. It doesn't discount other narratives, such as villain narratives, where FB could have the best or worst of intentions and the outcomes are what we know them to be today regardless.

Truth, on the other hand, is reserved for when the dust has settled, the facts are seldomly disputed, and are corroborated. Truth doesn't even need to be precise, it just needs to be accurate. Narratives are powerful in the moment and for momentum, truth is powerful across time. That said, even to truths there is a narrative.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#163

Post by pie420 »

jonas21 wrote: post #85
chucknthem wrote: post #75

I remember this. Wish I'd kept my little piece of history. Written at a time when people were still optimistic and hopeful about tech.

Lots of people are still optimistic about tech. They just generally don't have time to get into silly arguments about it on HN.

i'm sure there's lots of tech optimists in absolute numbers, but my personal experience in the bay area has been that a vast majority of my friends in tech and tech adjacent have become highly pessimistic of the current tech landscape, AI, VR, etc.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#164

Post by sprice »

chucknthem wrote: post #75

I remember this. Wish I'd kept my little piece of history. Written at a time when people were still optimistic and hopeful about tech.

A surprising number of people are optimistic and hopeful about technology while not experiencing an existential crisis about it.

FWIW I’ve noticed with some confusion that over the past years HN has become more cynical and pessimistic towards tech.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#166

Post by dullcrisp »

vineyardmike wrote: post #77
dullcrisp wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

While I’m sure Facebook had data to roughly justify this, just like Moores Law, I’m sure this is equal parts back-projection as prophetic declaration of intent. For Facebook, they needed the cultural expectation to be ever-increasing data sharing. They (along with other companies) facilitated the creation of tools to share ever-increasing amounts of data.

I guess this presupposes that people’s appetite for sharing data is unlimited, they just need the tools?

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#167

Post by sumeno »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #159
jonas21 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people are still optimistic about tech. They just generally don't have time to get into silly arguments about it on HN.

Eh, people back then were optimistic about tech AND had time to get into silly arguments about it on HN. So something's changed

We've seen the enshitification process play out too many times

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#168

Post by throwawayq3423 »

gosub100 wrote: post #98
chucknthem wrote: post #75

I remember this. Wish I'd kept my little piece of history. Written at a time when people were still optimistic and hopeful about tech.

FB has done a lot of great things. There just aren't any articles written about them.

The Cuban government provides great health care, while keeping everyone desperately poor. It's not one or the other.

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#169

Post by NetOpWibby »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #160
NetOpWibby wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People typically refer to the data brokerage economy that sprung up thanks to social media. As well as being experimented on (A/B tests) for dubious reasons.

But, the data brokerage economy was the only way such a thing could connect people from different economic backgrounds, etc. Without that, to pay for social media, the options would have been paid apps, which would never have had the escape velocity to be what current social media is today

> the data brokerage economy was the only way such a thing could connect people

For people profiting from that economy, of course. For everyone else? Not at all.

> what current social media is today

...the social media of today is undesirable. People would absolutely pay for social media if the product was good enough. In fact, I believe we're heading towards that future[1].

"Free" search exists. However, so does paid[2].

The idea that companies need hyper growth, "escape velocity," or whatever to succeed is outdated.

---

[1]: https://socii.network

[2]: https://kagi.com

Re: Facebook's Little Red Book

#170

Post by throwaway314155 »

Klonoar wrote: post #155
throwaway314155 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There _was_ backlash. It just didn't operationalize very effectively. For instance, news organizations mostly saw FB and Google as a way to undermine and ultimately replace vetted news with unvetted, unprofessional hot takes. Anyone above a certain age likely saw these viewpoints and agreed with them but not enough to start a movement. When facebook became generally available I was maybe 14-15, and even back then I r…

> There _was_ backlash. RTFC: > It was evident where the trends were heading I'm stating that tech in general still held the optimistic viewpoint, not that outside groups weren't tiring of techs optimism.

That's a fair point, I would just contend that I imagine a cohort of techies shared my views on the subject although i can't prove that and I wasn't old enough to be employed by a tech company when these issues were around.
Post reply on HN