Peace.facebook.com • Hacker News Board

Re: Peace.facebook.com

#51

Post by dagw » Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 2:11 PM UTC

dualogy wrote: post #50

dagw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real assumption here is that facilitating communications will help drive up traffic and thus ad revenue. A commendable initiative by Facebook if you are one of their investors.

Well, as has been demonstrated time and again, there is not always a conflict between "private" / "market" interests and "public" / "community" interests, nor need there be. (Arguably, there's almost never a clash unless the market interests are coupled to political ones, but let's not get into that...)

I'm not saying so much that there is conflict, but I very much doubt that the Facebook people truly believe that this will have any real effect on world peace or that their motives are anything other than money.

Re: Peace.facebook.com

#52

Post by joeythibault » Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 4:56 PM UTC

lupin_sansei wrote: post #39

joeythibault wrote: post #32

radiolab (part of nyc's public radio) had a great news piece about this very topic. Back during the cold war like 1 in 3 people thought war was inevitable. It says a lot about our culture that 1 in 10 think that we can achieve PEACE. 66% peace lovers to 10% is pretty sad. Great listen if you have an hour commute: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/19/new-normal/

Wanting peace and thinking we will get peace are 2 different things aren't they? I want peace, but I'm not so naive to think that humans will change their nature and we'll get it, so do I show up as a peace lover or not?

According to the question ask "do you think war is inevitable?" you'd be included in 9 of 10 think war is inevitable. What we want was not part of the question (and I don't think it is on peace.facebook.com either. Their question is "is world peace possible?", based on your response above your answer to facebook would be "no").

Re: Peace.facebook.com

#53

Post by boredguy8 » Wed, Oct 28, 2009, 10:11 PM UTC

buugs wrote: post #3

In other facebook news everyone in my freshman level class spends the whole lecture on facebook on their computer and is very surprising to me that the teacher doesnt ban computers from the classroom. ( When I started 2 years ago no one even pulled out computers during lectures unless they were at the back of the room. ) Maybe facebook is planning world peace through extended computer use.

If the content of the lecture isn't compelling enough to win out over Farmville for an hour and the content of the test isn't dependent on the content of the lecture, I pray professors don't attempt to artificially monopolize my attention.

Additionally, the idea of a weekly (worse, daily) lecture as an effective means of information transfer for everyone in attendance is pretty silly.

Lastly, my college classes _expected_ that people would tune out a bit, especially as freshmen, since we didn't have the mental strength to last through a 3 hour discussion of a text. 'Attendance' was a fairly fluid concept. It worked well.

Re: Peace.facebook.com

#54

Post by dualogy » Thu, Oct 29, 2009, 8:12 PM UTC

dagw wrote: post #51

dualogy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, as has been demonstrated time and again, there is not always a conflict between "private" / "market" interests and "public" / "community" interests, nor need there be. (Arguably, there's almost never a clash unless the market interests are coupled to political ones, but let's not get into that...)

I'm not saying so much that there is conflict, but I very much doubt that the Facebook people truly believe that this will have any real effect on world peace or that their motives are anything other than money.

Could well be actually...

or could not -- but what's the point of wondering what they "truly believe" if in the end we can never safely find out? ;)