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

Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 221 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#201

Post by dang »

Neliquat wrote: post #195

You made a throwaway to post a huge defense of facebook? Color me skeptical. Edit: Correction, you are a sockpuppet, as you admit to in your 1st post, pointing out its primary use to manipulate discussion. Go away troll.

You can't attack other users like this on HN, regardless of how wrong you think they are. We ban accounts that do so, and already warned you about it twice. Please fix this.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13672409 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#202

Post by brilliantcode »

adventured wrote: post #158
brilliantcode wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the underlying utility of Facebook compared to other tech giants distilled in to a really generic scenario. - You go to Google to research what to buy. - You go to Amazon to give Amazon your hard earned money. - You go to Facebook to brag what you bought. Yet the market cap of Facebook rivals those two with far less revenue and highest multiplier. This cannot last.

In fact it can last. Your information is wrong. Amazon has a radically higher multiple than Facebook. About six times higher, being charitable with Amazon's flaky net income. Facebook will hit $13 or $14 billion in net income for fiscal 2017. Explain to me how a 27 or 28 pe ratio is unsupportable when you're growing net income at 30% or higher. Meanwhile Google is growing its net income at 18% with a PE of 30. A far…

please provide souces

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#203

Post by askafriend »

tempodox wrote: post #151

Like all megalomaniacs, Zuckerberg fancies himself as some kind of messiah. He won't stop believing that, not even after his machine explodes in all our faces.

If you truly think that, then why don't we apply the same sort of "machine" criticism to any company that collects data online? There's an awful lot of them. Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, ESPN, etc etc. I mean the whole web is really one big data collection machine and that started long before the advent of Facebook though they definitely helped exacerbate it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#204

Post by wutbrodo »

Waterluvian wrote: post #156
nostrademons wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, and I've heard a bunch of my friends do it. On Android voice recognition is both fairly reliable and really easy, so why not?

Yeah it absolutely is reliable and easy. I just haven't seen it catch on among my circles. Interesting.

IME, the first people in my friend group who started doing it were the ones who weren't insecure about looking "uncool" (so a combination of unapologetic techies and people without low self-esteem). Afaict, that's the main reason that people don't use a feature that would otherwise save tons of time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#205

Post by routelastresort »

enraged_camel wrote: post #98
return0 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am glad facebook exists, to keep all that garbage siloed and away from me. As a non-user, i enjoy a slightly cleaner web.

The silo leaks quite a bit. Every other website has Facebook logins and Facebook comment threads, or screenshots of conversations from Facebook. It's pretty bad.

Check out Fanboy lists for uBlock Origin: https://www.fanboy.co.nz/

Also, there are several extensions specifically for blocking social media tracking, which also block comment sections (and you can still go directly to Facebook)

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#206

Post by nostrademons »

alehul wrote: post #200
nostrademons wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[facebook] was the most common search query when I was at Google (roughly the period covered by this graph), and [facebook login] would alternate between #2 and #3. Neither of your options seem likely at all to me - over the time I was there, I witnessed people becoming more likely to navigate to sites via Googling them rather than clicking, not less. The trend is even more pronounced with mobile, where basically nob…

With the native iOS app being released in 2012, the timeline would be perfect for that, yeah. Does the mobile app take away that much usage from the web? I can see how it'll increase overall usage as people will use FB when they otherwise couldn't, but I imagine anyone who could be using it on a computer will still use the web version over a mobile app (web seems more functional, especially so with the recent Faceboo…

A lot of workplace usage has shifted to mobile. Many workplaces will monitor all your Internet usage, and so once mobile became available, many people decided that rather than letting their employers know how much time they waste during the day, they'd use their own private Internet connection for that.

We saw a similar effect at Google with porn queries, particularly during the day. As soon as image search came to mobile Google, many porn queries moved to mobile; as of 2013 porn queries were twice as likely on mobile search as desktop.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#207

Post by prodigal_erik »

prodmerc wrote: post #192
Waterluvian wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do people really voice search for things like that? Aside from drivers going hands-free, I have never seen a colleague or friend use voice commands where it wasn't just for the novelty.

Yes, I like voice search. I still won't use "OK Google", because it's the new Bluetooth headset, only douchebags use it in public. Come on Google, how much do you lose by allowing custom phrases?

More than one would be good, but it's probably hard to explain to layman how to choose a phrase for which they can create an accurate model that's so cheap it can run continuously.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#208

Post by brokenmasonjars »

autokad wrote: post #175
brokenmasonjars wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't giants just imply monopolies? I suspect to a point we are going to see the pendulum swing away from far-right politics towards far left politics. It'll be sexy to break up these giants for political points. Some talk has already be muttered here and there about Trump possibly targeting Amazon. After the Trump presidency, if we manage to get a far left progressive with the intention on breaking up other giant…

you are using 'worked better' very generously. people choose the combustion engine because overall it was the best engine at the time, and for many many decades later. the consumption of oil was going to skyrocket from 1911 no matter what due to technology, during a time where people primarily traveled by boat and train.

Notice I wrote "could have led Ford and others to research ways to make the electric model more capable for the masses as consumer demand would seek such alternatives."

I think if oil was of a higher price due to lack of competition there would have been more incentives by car companies to try to figure a way to make the costs of running a car go down to appeal to the emerging middle class. There would have been more money in R&D at those earlier times trying to solve problems that were not really considered or kept to the side because they were too difficult. I believe for the most part discoveries could be made even then that would build up to suitable electric cars. Of course we wouldn't have had them by 1911.. as one would need to take into consideration the break up of Standard Oil. It would have been interesting to see what the military would have came up with during WWI/WWII if oil was too costly and battles needed to be won with the usage of vehicles and how that would translate over to private business and civilian life.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#209

Post by genofon »

wutbrodo wrote: post #204
Waterluvian wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it absolutely is reliable and easy. I just haven't seen it catch on among my circles. Interesting.

IME, the first people in my friend group who started doing it were the ones who weren't insecure about looking "uncool" (so a combination of unapologetic techies and people without low self-esteem). Afaict, that's the main reason that people don't use a feature that would otherwise save tons of time.

I'm not afraid of being seen as an uncool geeky, but I would never use it as I don't like to broadcast what I am looking for to all my neighbors, even when I am alone I prefer silence, typing now requires basically the same amount of time.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto for Facebook offers a social dystopia

#210

Post by dgudkov »

grogenaut wrote: post #138
dgudkov wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or cybergovernment. Internet giants are becoming fundamental services for millions of people. They're not just too big to fail -- they are essential, which makes them comparable to governments.

I love the silicon valley hyperbole. Lets rank facebook being down for 2 weeks with: Shut down all the banks 2 weeks, eg no access to any money. Shut down all Gasoline for 2 weeks. Eg no personal transit (shut up you smug Tesla drivers I'm getting you next). Shut down all electricity for 2 weeks. No Power. (All you with power on your roofs and teslas... this gets your grocery store fridges). I think you need to re-ev…

There is no company that controls 90% of banks, or 90% of gasoline, or 90% of electricity. Shutting down a single company won't affect availability of neither of the basic utilities. But there is Google that is 90% of internet search, and maybe 50% of email. Shutting it down for couple weeks would be a disaster for millions. Facebook or Twitter are less significant in this regard.
Post reply on HN