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

Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 356 posts

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#291

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

m_fayer wrote: post #158
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

Was talking about this with a friend today, and I think this incident highlights why I sometimes get really depressed about my career and technology. I'm a Gen X-er, and I started my career in the late 90s. Before that I was a ham radio operator in junior high and HS (back when they had Morse code tests!). I remember the heady euphoria around the Internet then, and the vision of "tech utopia" was certainly the domina…

About the same age here. One thing that adds to this feeling for me, is that any device I own that has an OS, unless that OS is Linux, feels distinctly hostile. I can't own a handheld computer that's not trying to enmesh me in an "ecosystem" of some sort, curate my options without my consent, do god-knows-what in the background, brick itself on a timer, and the list goes on. It's even worse with laptops and desktops,…

I think the core of the problem here is the free ad-supported model that's so pervasive in the industry. Data mining in order to optimize targeted ads is the business driver for this bad behavior and society has struggled to grasp it's implications.

The problem is that once something is free there's no going back. You'll never be able to compete with free. Free is the new antitrust. The only players that will be able to survive and thrive in this model are the ones with the most data and the most socially exploitative techniques.

Lots of us are happy to pay for nice things like operating systems that don't use this model but there aren't enough of us to adequately fund such projects. We're just not a big enough market share.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#292

Post by jcims »

freetinker wrote: post #255
snek_case wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to feel blasé about the internet, but it's also played a huge role in making information easily accessible. I learned about electronics from online tutorials. Taught myself programming. Also learned a lot about home repairs and renovations. Made a lot of contacts, landed jobs, etc. I met my partner through a dating app. I would say the internet has brought a lot of positive things in my life so far. The ope…

I’m going to count HN as a social network. It’s one of my favorite places on the internet. It surfaces great content, and the comments are a gold mine of top-notch information and advice (by and large). What general principles can we learn from HN that can be applied elsewhere? Does HN self-select its audience? No profit motive? Great moderation? (Thanks Dang!)

To me a few things:

- dang’s moderation and example

- no images

- no intentional sub-cultures

- smaller audience

- topical

- charmingly ugly

- a generally invested community that appreciates this is a special outcome

The interesting thing to me is that Slashdot shares many of these attributes, has a relatively sophisticated moderation feature and is a cesspool. It feels like a ship adrift in the Caribbean and the fourth generation of rats born on the vessel are at war.

The primary difference IMHO is dang. Anytime I think about the overall quality of HN, his efforts bubble to the surface of my mind as the primary causal factor.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#293

Post by craftinator »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #221
sandworm101 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> And those pathways are almost never used I used signal this morning to talk to a team of 100+ people on a big project. I sent an encrypted email to my parents last night. A month ago I used Tor to bypass a hotel's silly DNS block on "Torrentfreak.com". My laptop is running a linux distro that I downloaded as a torrent. These are all everyday non-cryptonerd activities that leverage very powerful security products.

n=1 and all. I think "almost never used" isn't far off the mark. All of this sounds like hardcore nerd territory to me, with the possible exception of Signal, which still has strong nerdy vibes and is very tiny compared to its competitors. Sending encrypted e-mail from Linux definitely seems to be something that's almost never done, at population scale. If that isn't crypto nerd territory, what is? If you were lookin…

I had the same sort of attitude to the parent comment until I remembered that maybe you and I don't live in the same culture that the parent does. I mean culture here as group of networked individuals with overlapping interested. Maybe there's a significant portion of people out there that do use those tools on the regular, and you and I just haven't been exposed to them. The earth is huge, and it's very possible that while we think his n=1, from his perspective n->100%.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#294

Post by Consultant32452 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #75

Was talking about this with a friend today, and I think this incident highlights why I sometimes get really depressed about my career and technology. I'm a Gen X-er, and I started my career in the late 90s. Before that I was a ham radio operator in junior high and HS (back when they had Morse code tests!). I remember the heady euphoria around the Internet then, and the vision of "tech utopia" was certainly the domina…

Tech is having a negative impact on the elites, which is good. In the past they could basically get away with saying whatever they wanted unless another elite wanted you to hear otherwise. Now when $politician posts something on Twitter there is a regular person calling them out on their bullshit right underneath within seconds. They are working hard to re-cork this bottle with censorship and such, but I don't think that will happen in most places.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#295

Post by Wowfunhappy »

baud147258 wrote: post #192
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, is there a good reason this hasn't happened yet? If people use WhatsApp, the mobile networks get $0, so they ought to be offering at least somewhat competitive prices...

> If people use WhatsApp, the mobile networks get $0 Doesn't the network get at least the fee for the internet connection?

Oh, I guess that’s true! But only if the user isn’t on wifi, and only if they don’t have an unlimited (or semi-unlimited) data plan.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#296

Post by Shorel »

snarfy wrote: post #283
SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is also that we also are shown what other people want to see. I genuinely don’t want to see political positions of my relatives, or my neighbors getting into heated internet fights. But I do want to see my relatives small joys, and I do want to know important neighborhood news and activities. That I can’t filter appropriately makes social media toxic, as I can feel my social animal brain see heigh…

Not only can you not filter, the stream is purposefully toxic to increase 'engagement'. I have a lot of friends on my feed that post constantly. Memes, cat pictures, etc, a few posts are about 'libtards'. Guess which posts show up on my feed.

But you can filter. I do that all the time.

My filter list consist basically of football and religious proselytism, two topics I never want to read about.

During the last world cup, or last euro cup or some event like that I had to filter about 10 groups, and the thing is, it works. I never get any football content in my feed any more.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#297

Post by thr0wawayf00 »

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #177
NumberCruncher wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe we can develop healthier forms of social media. Sounds like "let's develop a healthier form of crack" to me.

Would it be bad to have a healthy form of crack? By healthy I would mean physically non addictive and without any negative long term effects. If you used it right it would just give you euphoria, motivation, stimulation and potentially nootropic effects?

> By healthy I would mean physically non addictive and without any negative long term effects.

But how would something like work? It's the substance's ability to cause euphoria that makes it addictive. You cannot have one without the other. Addiction occurs when one loses the ability to regulate their dopamine-driven activity, causing something akin to an infinite loop. Adderall is basically legal meth, and it's easily the most abused medication in the US.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#298

Post by Frost1x »

vdddv wrote: post #225

I don't understand how "No Whatsapp = no way to communicate to relatives". Are SMS not available in some countries?

There are so many alternative communication systems besides Whatsapp and Facebook owned systems. Had I not checked HN and other news sources, I wouldn't have even noticed Facebook was down. I communicate domestically and internationally. I use LINE for international communications but there are plenty of additional options.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#299

Post by rybosworld »

It's crazy to me that people can have this viewpoint. Facebook has built a product that lots of people use because other services can't/won't match it.

Then it goes down because things happen.

And you want to break down and regulate the innovator? I don't understand how that could be the answer. If there's a surefire way to turn a useful service into one that never improves again, this is it.

Re: Facebook going down meant more than just a social network being unavailable

#300

Post by annadane »

te_chris wrote: post #124
jkelleyrtp wrote: post #94

Why would breaking Facebook down and regulating them solve anything related to the global dependence on WhatsApp? Aren’t the only people who know how to run these services already running them? Like, do we expect the government to take WhatsApp away from Facebook and then create government contracts for companies like Oracle to maintain the infrastructure? So we’re back to square one but with the bureaucratic mess of…

It would absolutely work. Just force them to divest WhatsApp.

This. The entire reason the acquisition was allowed was that it would remain independent. They lied about it so there's no need to honor that purchase. Divest immediately.
Post reply on HN