Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

281–290 of 318 posts

Re: undefined

#281

During the time Facebook (and related properties) have been unavailable, I can't help but feel a little better about the world. There is so much hate, arguments, misinformation, angry, and harmful messaging on FB platforms. It's nice to know all of that crap is just....gone. At least for a little while.

"Hackers Warn That If Demands Aren’t Met They Will Reactivate Facebook"

https://babylonbee.com/news/hackers-warn-that-if-demands-are...

Re: undefined

#282

I wished facebook would have been down for a week and people would get a glimpse into a different world.

It's surprising how little impact FB being down had on myself, my family and my business.

What do you use for messaging? In my country everyone uses WhatsApp for everything, so that's why I noticed it.

Re: undefined

#283

During the time Facebook (and related properties) have been unavailable, I can't help but feel a little better about the world. There is so much hate, arguments, misinformation, angry, and harmful messaging on FB platforms. It's nice to know all of that crap is just....gone. At least for a little while.

And somehow this feels like another of Zuck's social experiments of "how much you all miss _______"

Re: undefined

#284
post #36

I'm seeing an unusual amount of reddit style small comments on this outage, which I find strange. They're short and in the vein of "Facebook is down: good" or "Facebook is back up: damn nothing good lasts forever" I understand the distain for Facebook as a business, but still this is pretty low effort.

Did HN kill signups during this outage? They used to turn off signups when reddit went down a while back, not sure if this practice is still in place or not.

Re: undefined

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, this might be true but you're diverting from the point OP is making. May be it's that HN has lost it's ability to have a civil discourse without people downvoting you for the slightest challenging opinion, let alone contrarian viewpoints (which would be flagged). It used to be not like that just two years ago. It is very much reflecting a low effort echo-chamber.

> Sure, this might be true but you're diverting from the point OP is making. I don't see how? OP is saying that the low-effort comments are more frequent on this post than on other HN posts ("...an unusual amount of reddit style small comments on this outage"). I'm agreeing with that assertion, and positing a possible explanation for it ("people felt a fundamental sort of relief, and expressed it through offhand comm…

> Your assertion, on the other hand, seems to be that these low-effort comments are present on all posts – which seems to me to be, if anything, more of a diversion from OP's point of view.

Don't put words in my mouth and this is not what I said. I just see this as an ad hominem attack, ironically diverting the criticism of HN (a factual observation in my view) towards my persons and my ulterior motives.

Re: undefined

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you keep up with current affairs the past few weeks have shown that FB’s alleged problems are supported by data which is disregarded by it’s leadership

For example: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0271... https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1310... https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-t... Facebook's own research: https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/29/22701445/facebook-instagr... It's nice - and of course timely - that there are some heartwarming feel good stories in this thread. But the plural of anecdo…

Papers 1 and 3 are about correlating _duration_ of FB usage with happiness. Look at the papers referenced here [1] for the same effect as applied to TV. These papers, sans the new controversy over the mental health of young women on Instagram, _don't_ actually point to any stronger of a conclusion than "consuming large amounts of media is correlated with bad mental health".

I'm not saying that FB and this huge corporate capture of the internet is _good_, but making arguments like this doesn't actually make coherent sense.

[1]: https://buddingpsychologists.org/binge-watching-mental-healt... (I didn't read the article, but I did skim the referenced papers)

Re: undefined

#287
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a world where nearly _all_ information fed to the public is misinformation. Except in one case it's due to FB and in another it's 5 dudes who own the entirety of US (and large chunk of the world's) "free" press. In this narrative-rich, (nearly) fact-free environment, aside from the obvious asinine bullshit that's easily seen through, the "misinformation" becomes simply something you don't agree with. The b…

There is a book called “Hate Inc.” by Matt Taibi in which the author inadvertently argues that manufacturing consent is no longer profitable and news outlets are now in the business of manufacturing dissent.

Well, whether they manufacture consent or dissent depends entirely on what party currently controls the White House and the Congress. So he's half-right. I'm a big fan of Taibbi's writing, and especially his books. "Griftopia" was pretty good, too. He's a rare breed - a liberal who is also willing to criticize liberals when they deserve it.

Re: undefined

#288
post #103

During the time Facebook (and related properties) have been unavailable, I can't help but feel a little better about the world. There is so much hate, arguments, misinformation, angry, and harmful messaging on FB platforms. It's nice to know all of that crap is just....gone. At least for a little while.

It's interesting how Facebook experiences differ. To me it's a peaceful place showing mundane updates from friends and family, with zero politics. Plus, a bunch of niche hobby groups I subscribed, full of very kind and constructive people. The actual war zone to me is Twitter, not Facebook. I should add that I'm not from the US.

I'm in agreement that facebook is partly what you make it and experiences vary. My own experience has been generally positive; However I was a member of a niche interest group that used to be run on an old-school forum at its own domain. Over the years more and more content moved to the facebook group and there was roughly an even split when an accident by the web host lead to the total loss of the forum which could not be restored which meant all users now moved to the facebook group. The quality of material and the standard of discourse is shockingly worse on facebook than it was on the forums to the point where many interactions degrade into mudslinging. There shouldn't be too much difference between the forum/fb groups, but the only explanation I have come up with is that facebook's algorithm selects and displays content to people who would never have seen it on the forum, and some of them feel compelled to comment with either nasty or unhelpful input. On the forum I think the discovery of this content is self-directed and so only those with a genuine interest come across the post and interact with it, most others will just ignore the post title and scroll on, whereas facebook will show them the whole post with images and this makes them more likely to interact when they shouldn't. The other explanation is just that the mudslinging was always on the forum, but I did not come across it because it was not selected for me, but this goes both ways in that perhaps facebook is selecting "high-engagement" posts (with LOTS of argument) to display to me as well, thinking these will be of more interest. Whatever the cause, the difference is stark for this particular online community.
Post reply on HN