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

Things that I think will be important in the next decade

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 368 posts

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#311

Post by ravenstine »

davidy123 wrote: post #289
fergie wrote: post #207

Funny the way that he included "Decentralizing Opportunity", and then followed up by envisioning a scarily centralized future for e-commerce. Thats a shame because a re-decentralization of the web is one of the things that really should happen. True decentralization will happen when anybody can host a functional website on their mobile phone(s) without depending upon the services of a corporate behemoth.

This. There are real initiatives to support actual decentralization, not "decentralization" that means using any service, as long as Facebook owns it.

Decentralization is just taking the place that blockchain took for a while before too many people lost faith in it.

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#312

Post by shrimpx »

nikolay wrote: post #154

I think Zuck is too full of himself. People often get confused that their success means that they are wise, and that we should listen to them. Should we as well follow the thought leadership of drug cartels and the Saudi monarchs?

A legitimate reason for being interested in his post is to comb through it for ill conceived ideas that may further damage privacy and spread hate and misinformation, in order to sound alarm bells. Because Zuckerberg has massive power and can implement whatever naive and gullible ideas he comes up with.

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#316

Post by tenebrisalietum »

I feel like Mark is speaking in code here.

Generational change: Boomers and political reposts are making younger, more desirable demographics not want to use my platform.

A New Private Social Platform: Making everyone in the world talk in the same space is damaging user engagement

Decentralizing Opportunity: Selling stuff and moving money on Facebook. Mark wants to be a bank.

The Next Computing Platform: Mark wants to be your next remote access client for your job.

New Forms of Governance: How much do I pay and to who for regulatory capture so competitors can't arise?

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#317

Post by Erlich_Bachman »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #309
Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UX of that process you describe (without something like facebook) sucks. It's surprising you haven't realized this once you've tried to do that for more than say ~10 people in the list. If the UX sucks, it means it takes more time and energy to do the same thing, it means that I will not be doing the same thing, I will end up sending to less people or less information. Which means that facebook effectively allows…

I'm not sure that's a bad thing really. Having easy to maintain distance relationships leads to accumulating less meaningful relationships. Then again, I'm hardly a good metric for sociability.

> leads to accumulating less meaningful relationships

This assumption is based on what?

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#318

Post by heyflyguy »

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #52

>"at some point in the 2020s, we will get breakthrough augmented reality glasses that will redefine our relationship with technology." Constant video surveillance, direct-to-eyes on-glass advertising, targeted advertising beamed on every approved spot, interests profiling via retina movements/focus and God knows what else will undoubtedly come about if AR glasses become "cool" and ubiquitous like mobile phones. Maybe…

This read alot to me like the 1950s "kitchen of the future" advertisements that used to be in magazines. Our perception of the future is our present projected into our imagination. Humans prove to stay human, connected to nature and the world without being human-digital cyborgs.

I spend alot of time trying to envisage what I think the information aggregation "tool" of the future is/will be. A watch? Glasses? An AI assistant chip in our earlobe? Whoever thinks of that will be an interesting fellow.

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#319

Post by mistermann »

Ensorceled wrote: post #304
creaghpatr wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first part of the comment is true, but then unfortunately used to prop up a false claim: >All the while we've learned that they have utterly sold the company to international electioneers. This is disinformation, laundered with the trust of the first comment.

I wasn't agreeing with the original claim, though it's probably somewhat accurate, nor that this news item supports that claim. Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.

> Just disputing that a citation was required for that claim in this forum.

The ask was: "Citations to your references would be appreciated."

It's true that a citation is not needed, but including one adds value, in that it increases efficiency.

Re: Things that I think will be important in the next decade

#320

Post by mistermann »

wycy wrote: post #274
anon012012 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unpopular to say, but when we're heading for a mass extinction event, maybe we should be sacrificing freedom for the sake of social cohesion. There should be facial recognition, social score and such things, to preserve humanity from chaos. I think there's a decent case to be made, and that's why I generally appreciate what China is doing. They are the best prepared for what might come.

A valiant effort could be made to make the argument for a social score to achieve a "greater good," but ending the statement by saying you appreciate China's implementation of it kind of ruins the argument. They're not exactly making use of it for "good".

> They're not exactly making use of it for "good".

Depending on your definitions of "exactly" and "good".

I think a better question is something like: might it plausibly result in a net better outcome than some/all alternative approaches? I would say the answer to that question is definitely yes.

Post reply on HN