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

Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 308 posts

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#291

Post by manigandham »

tremon wrote: post #194
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the advertising market that drives all of this. As you rightly point out, history is proof that the ad dollars don't care what the platform or who the messenger is, as long as they are easy to use and effectiveness can be measured.

and effectiveness can be measured I don't think this is a prerequisite at all. Isn't most marketing focused on the persuasiveness of the seller, instead of the effectiveness of the product?

Regardless of what metric is used, ad platforms get more money by proving they're better at said metric, so measurement is required.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#293

Post by greenspleen »

Spooky23 wrote: post #285
apecat wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moxie Marlinspike, of Open Whisper Systems, had some pretty pessimistic things to say about how stagnant federated protocols become, and why they avoided that approach with Signal. https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ End result: Signal is a real, usable tool, the recommendation of which is fully actionable security and privacy advice you can share with anyone who is capable of using WhatsApp. Here's some…

The problem with that approach is that while did result in fast delivery of a good product for the 12 people using signal, it’s not going to grow. The problem with all newer systems is that they are identity based, which doesn’t scale down to all of the device/station use cases that phones exist for.

I am guessing that you don't do street drugs, because signal is immensely popular with young people. I'm in the middle of millennial ages, and have dozens of contacts in my phone alone that are on signal. Often the first thing a new "guy" will ask is if the buyer has signal. Signal has absolutely normalized encryption for anyone that buys illicit things or does protest/organizing work.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#294

Post by Jommi »

stvswn wrote: post #213
Jommi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really not missing the forest for the trees. Facebook has grown so large that it's no longer an individual's decision to be there or not. Your data is there whatever you do, growing as a phantom profile based on data you give to advertisers or what your friends share. It's become such a huge power that it's a huge part of social life. It influences our society in ways we coulndt even imagine before.

This is insane. No, you don't have to use it. You can reset cookies and device identifiers whenever you want if you don't want "phantom profiles."

We're at a point where you are massively crippled from the rest of society if you do not use it.

There are so many uses that I just cannot afford to not be on the platform.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#295

Post by 411mrc »

bluGill wrote: post #264
chupasaurus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other side, Google is tracking you on a lot of sites unless you use measures to counter it.

True. I wish there was a good way to stop that.

A custom router can do this for all devices on your network. That is what I use.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#296

Post by saintPirelli »

panglott wrote: post #81
saintPirelli wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's possible to outlaw what Facebook does without unforeseen consequences. Facebook is fast-food for the mind. You know it's bad for you, you know you shouldn't do it, you know there are healthier alternatives, the fact that corporations profit off of making people fat and sick is outrageous, but you can't very well outlaw the concept of beef in a bun.

People aren't mad because Facebook runs a social network or presents users with a newsfeed or provides a messaging service or stores users photos. Lots of companies do those things without complaint. People are mad at Facebook because the company constantly lies about privacy issues, makes one agreement with its users about their privacy and then does something else, and just generally treats the privacy of its users…

People aren't mad because MacDonalds runs a chain of restaurants or presents consumers with food or provides a easy way to get a meal. Lots of companies do those things without complaint. People are mad at McDonalds because the company constantly lies about health issues, makes one statement about the origins of their food when really it comes from somewhere else, and just generally treats the concerns of its consumers with complete contempt.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#297

Post by apecat »

Spooky23 wrote: post #285
apecat wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moxie Marlinspike, of Open Whisper Systems, had some pretty pessimistic things to say about how stagnant federated protocols become, and why they avoided that approach with Signal. https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ End result: Signal is a real, usable tool, the recommendation of which is fully actionable security and privacy advice you can share with anyone who is capable of using WhatsApp. Here's some…

The problem with that approach is that while did result in fast delivery of a good product for the 12 people using signal, it’s not going to grow. The problem with all newer systems is that they are identity based, which doesn’t scale down to all of the device/station use cases that phones exist for.

Yes, that is the problem, and someone is hopefully working on it.

But if you start looking at those '12 users', you should notice that that the need is extreme.

This includes drug people and at-risk populations like sex workers: I'm not happy until drugs and sex work are decriminalized globally, so I want to protect sellers and buyers, a partial reason why I participate as a Tor relay admin. Then there are journalists and politicians. Apps like Signal, Wickr, Wire and Threema aren't as much the ecosystem we want as the silos we deserve.

That said, you'd be surprised how easy a sell Signal is in some cases.

I've gotten a bunch of friends over to Signal, from the likewise end-to-end encrypted Whatsapp. And after a family crisis, where a friend of the family died, I explained how the metadata of a mostly dormant Whatsapp group lighting up suddenly could be interpreted.

Facebook knows we're a family of aging parents and grown-up, mostly independent 25+ kids, so there might be a crisis or emotions whenever there are big bursts of activity. A crisis might make people more susceptible to predatory ads.

This was enough to convince my folks. So, family chats are now on Signal. The app is good enough. Granted, my parents and siblings are active in professions related to either legal or social services, so they understand the need for privacy and my overall desire to curb stomp the online tracking industry.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#298

Post by anticensor »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #290
decasteve wrote: post #28

I disagree. But I'm not on any, nor use any, of Facebook's services. "It's Time to Break Up with Facebook" is a better title. > We already have the tools we need to check the domination of Facebook. We just seem to have forgotten about them. That evokes different ideas with me and I'm sure it does for many users of this site. We have the tools and capability to employ them to make alternatives. We're so focused on th…

> Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can break it. Which would fix it.

Which will not. Only way is to revoke its business licence and ban him and his relatives founding any business partnerships (Mark for life, his relatives until 1 year after he dies).

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#299

Post by johnday »

cameronbrown wrote: post #241
johnday wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp certainly does not target younger demographics. Its goal is to be a messenger app for everybody.

Isn't that what Facebook Messenger is doing though? I could be mistaken, I'm just commenting on how it seems from my perspective.

To some extent, yes. Facebook Messenger is very effective for communicating with people - so long as they're on Facebook. So it's a good way of keeping people in the system. I probably would have deactivated my account were it not for Messenger.

But WhatsApp is capable of including everyone regardless of whether they're on Facebook. As the pool of "I'm too cool for Facebook" people grows, more communities will move away from Messenger and WhatsApp is a good secondary as far as FB is concerned.

Re: Chris Hughes Says It’s Time to Break Up Facebook

#300

Post by kermitismyhero »

cjslep wrote: post #114
loudmax wrote: post #108

Better than breaking up social networks would be to force them to interoperate on an open protocol. When I first signed up for Facebook I was disappointed that only other Facebook users could see my account. Then when Google+ came on the scene I thought they'd worked out a way to interoperate with Facebook, but instead Google just wanted their own silo. What we really need is for social networks to interoperate the w…

Nit: Mastodon isn't a protocol. ActivityPub[0] is the protocol. [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/

I've always found it disturbing how Gargron rarely makes any attempt to disabuse people of the incorrect notion that Mastodon was the start of, and the canonical example of, open and federated social networks.

If anyone deserves that sort of credit, it would arguably be Evan Prodromou and the original identica a decade ago. Though I could wrong, and unaware of anyone prior to him working on this sort of federated and open twitter clone.

Post reply on HN