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

Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–609 of 609 posts

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#601

Post by that_guy_iain »

shoto_io wrote: post #3

No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.

> But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group.

They would have found out this week when they all went down. Most people know who owns what. They just don't care that much. We know Nestle is terrible but still buy their products because they taste good.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#602

Post by freebuju »

sgregnt wrote: post #599
voakbasda wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t understand how Instagram for Kids can succeed. Any parent that knows half of the bad stuff Facebook allegedly does (and how other “for Kids” efforts have utterly failed to protect the children) would never let their kids on such a platform. I would sooner buy a product labeled Crack Cocaine for Kids; it would be safer for them.

So the assumption is that currently, without instagram for kids, kids are not using social media at all and are not exposed to adult content on the internet? Are we living on the same planet? I dont understand this, instagram for kids is supposed to give parents more control over what kids do on the internet. How could this make things worse? To me it looks like, blind oposition to insta kids is largely due to irrati…

If you were to ask me. Kids should be given less and less access of social media apps like these. Social media might have some good positive use cases but for the most part it is problematic and tends to err on the negative side. Recent studies have shown that Instagram has harmful and negative effects on teenagers. What makes you think it is okay to ignore this alarm?

Remember. Kids are using Instagram because a guardian/supervisor has allowed them to.

Instagram for Kids is a cheap attempt by Zuckerberg to groom young minds into assimilating into the sick digital abyss of social media. Not because we want to make safe spaces for kids. Nothing about unrestricted access to Instagram-like apps is safe, let alone positive, for young minds.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#603

Post by pcf »

joshstrange wrote: post #386
pcf wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in society is between "progressive" and "conservative" values. To say that "conservative opinions" are simply "misinformation", is very misinformed in itself.

Read the whole comment I replied to. There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions, they are trying to censor conservative misinformation. I wasn’t painting all conservative opinions as misinformation, I’m was saying the things people want censored is the misinformation, not just opinions.

> There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions

Hm? There are lots and lots of people and companies trying to censor conservative opinions.

I don't know if you've managed to read/consume the whole news spectrum over the last years, but I recommend that you pay regular attention to both progressive/liberal AND conservative outlets. Then you would know better than to say something like this.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#604

Post by joshstrange »

pcf wrote: post #603
joshstrange wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the whole comment I replied to. There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions, they are trying to censor conservative misinformation. I wasn’t painting all conservative opinions as misinformation, I’m was saying the things people want censored is the misinformation, not just opinions.

> There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions Hm? There are lots and lots of people and companies trying to censor conservative opinions. I don't know if you've managed to read/consume the whole news spectrum over the last years, but I recommend that you pay regular attention to both progressive/liberal AND conservative outlets. Then you would know better than to say something like this.

Context people. Context.

I’m talking about Facebook. I’m talking about the conservatives that complain that FB is censoring their posts. Posts that are largely, if not completely, mis/disinformation about a myriad of topics.

Of course there exists people who want the censor conservative voices, full stop. I’m aware those people exist, but that’s clearly not who I’m talking about in this context and I think you know that.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#605

Post by grvdrm »

webmaven wrote: post #507
grvdrm wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LJ community was so great. It was a quirky place that made me feel at home despite publicizing in the "open." It's a community I miss immensely as well. Does any site/platform mimic the magic of LJ?

> The LJ community was so great. It was a quirky place that made me feel at home despite publicizing in the "open." It's a community I miss immensely as well. Does any site/platform mimic the magic of LJ? https://dreamwidth.org is a community fork of LJ that has a large and active userbase, is open source, and invests a lot into mentoring users › contributors › maintainers. Dreamwidth is a Google Summer of Code parti…

Thanks for the tip!

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#606

Post by pcf »

joshstrange wrote: post #604
pcf wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no one trying to just censor conservative opinions Hm? There are lots and lots of people and companies trying to censor conservative opinions. I don't know if you've managed to read/consume the whole news spectrum over the last years, but I recommend that you pay regular attention to both progressive/liberal AND conservative outlets. Then you would know better than to say something like this.

Context people. Context. I’m talking about Facebook. I’m talking about the conservatives that complain that FB is censoring their posts. Posts that are largely, if not completely, mis/disinformation about a myriad of topics. Of course there exists people who want the censor conservative voices, full stop. I’m aware those people exist, but that’s clearly not who I’m talking about in this context and I think you know t…

Don't expect others to piece together your puzzles, maybe? If you're talking about something specific, actually say that. We are not telepathic, so it would make life much easier for all of us. Thaaaank you.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#607

Post by webmaven »

JohnBooty wrote: post #546
webmaven wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, Gmail is currently the email provider with the strongest network effect due to all the ways it ties in to Android and the rest of the Google ecosystem. Worth noting that Gmail also 'solved' spam, which was the strongest reason to change email addresses/providers.

Those are powerful reasons to stick to Gmail. One is a legitimately good and useful feature; the other is a rather shady attempt at artificial lock-in, IMO. But neither of those things are network effect. "Network effect" refers specifically to "the phenomenon by which the value or utility a user derives from a good or service depends on the number of users of compatible products."

> But neither of those things are network effect

> "Network effect" refers specifically to "the phenomenon by which the value or utility a user derives from a good or service depends on the number of users of compatible products."

Sorry, I skipped a couple of logical steps.

Gmail/Google accounts are a namespace where the identifiers are persistent long-term, thus the ordinary network effect that email has is undiminished, unlike previous email providers where you had to change the account every so often largely to cope with spam. [0][1]

Also, Gmail participates in the associated network effect of every Google service that has one, and there are quite a few, though Google has a bad habit of killing them off.

[0] The idea being that you're trying to reduce the email network's utility for spammers to reach you more than you're reducing it for yourself to be reached by non-spammers, which is like chemo killing the cancer faster than it kills you.

[1] Spam per-se wasn't the only reason, of course. In the Before Times I had to change my address due to a few older relatives repeatedly setting in motion endless Reply-All storms / email chain letters, and of course I also changed ISPs occasionally.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#608

Post by eric_cc »

zaphar wrote: post #395
ethbr0 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd hesitate to generalize AOL's fall into Facebook's future. AOL's core proposition was being better than the Internet (more curated, coherent, and faster). When the web and internet exploded in size and scale, AOL's value evaporated. The dumb mergers and other mistakes were window dressing on this landscape transformation. And for years (decades? still?) afterwards, people used AOL Instant Messager (AIM), because i…

I actually think in a way one of Facebooks core proposition is being the internet for most people which is not that far off from AOL. The similarity here is that no one knows what is going to render FB obsolete right now. Just like no one knew what was going to do the same for AOL. AOL lost in part I believe because they were not really able to transition from Dialup "internet" Provider to Content Aggregator when bro…

The downfall of Facebook will be web3 social and/or the decentralized metaverse.

Re: Facebook is nearing a reputational point of no return

#609

Post by eric_cc »

sgregnt wrote: post #599
voakbasda wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t understand how Instagram for Kids can succeed. Any parent that knows half of the bad stuff Facebook allegedly does (and how other “for Kids” efforts have utterly failed to protect the children) would never let their kids on such a platform. I would sooner buy a product labeled Crack Cocaine for Kids; it would be safer for them.

So the assumption is that currently, without instagram for kids, kids are not using social media at all and are not exposed to adult content on the internet? Are we living on the same planet? I dont understand this, instagram for kids is supposed to give parents more control over what kids do on the internet. How could this make things worse? To me it looks like, blind oposition to insta kids is largely due to irrati…

Nice try Mark!
Post reply on HN