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

WeChat’s world

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: WeChat’s world

#71

Post by dingo_bat »

delegate wrote: post #3

.. which is terrible. Apps like these (including Facebook) are breaking the Internet. Now it's up to the social network to decide how resources are located (what standards?), who can access them, and for how long, etc. Saw a good video in your Facebook timeline ? Good luck finding it again after you refresh the page. It's a pity how 'the crowd' is now dictating the direction in which technology evolves. By trying to…

At least Facebook tries to support every platform (web, ios, windows, android, etc.). IMO, the bigger problem is all google services (android, chromeos, sometimes ios) and apple services (ios only).

Re: WeChat’s world

#72

Post by morgante »

nullnilvoid wrote: post #69
morgante wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have in fact used WeChat (particularly when I was in China) and my opinion is that it's still incredibly mediocre. In just a few weeks of using it, I ran into numerous bugs and inconsistencies—not to mention the fact that it's a giant walled garden with zero privacy. Unfortunately, it is essential in China (primarily because alternatives are throttled/banned). I definitely would never use it anywhere else though if…

Can you elaborate on the bugs you found during the weeks? I have used it years and have yet found any bug.

It was 2 years ago, so I don't really recall most of the bugs. I do remember struggling mightily when I somehow lost access to my account. Restoring access required opening a janky web view with a form that wouldn't load properly on my iPhone so I had to borrow a friend's Android phone to try. Then the form was entirely in Chinese with no internationalization/translation available.

Re: WeChat’s world

#73

Post by blacksmith_tb »

walterbell wrote: post #58
Feuilles_Mortes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a similar position to you in regards to facebook. My strategy is to use custom CSS to remove the elements of the site that only serve to distract me (newsfeed, etc.). I still get notifications for events, chat, etc. so it works out alright.

Are there example open-source stylesheets to accomplish this filtering?

Many of the user styles (e.g. for Stylish) are purely cosmetic[1], but you can see what elements they're matching on and roll your own.

1: https://userstyles.org/styles/browse/facebook

Re: WeChat’s world

#74

Post by delegate »

elorant wrote: post #46
delegate wrote: post #3

.. which is terrible. Apps like these (including Facebook) are breaking the Internet. Now it's up to the social network to decide how resources are located (what standards?), who can access them, and for how long, etc. Saw a good video in your Facebook timeline ? Good luck finding it again after you refresh the page. It's a pity how 'the crowd' is now dictating the direction in which technology evolves. By trying to…

As much as I dislike Facebook saying that they break the Internet is a bit of an overstretch. The Internet isn’t a static thing, a set of rules carved on stone that has to remain like that for an eternity. It’s an evolving medium constantly reinventing itself. And the ultimate ruler is users themselves. Facebook isn’t in the business of creating content that’s why they don’t care that much with discoverability of pos…

I agree. It is an evolving medium which is reinventing itself. But saying that users are the ultimate ruler is not entirely accurate, to put it lightly.

Technically, the ultimate ruler is the one (who controls the person) who can produce the private keys or passwords for the 'core systems'.

When most of your personal information, friends, your communication and organisation tools are behind one single account, that account now becomes very valuable.

If someone then decides to deny you access to your account - for whatever reason - you're practically excluded from the platform where everyone else is.. A digital outcast.

This is very different from the 'widespread communication network with no central command where everyone and their dog can participate'.

True, this system might be more convenient for users and advertisers right now, but in the long term this can have strange repercussions, like companies totally 'owning' people's lives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAesMQ6VtK8

Re: WeChat’s world

#75

Post by pradn »

ryanobjc wrote: post #67

This article is a little weird to me. It seems to read fairly ok, seems pretty pro wechat, which is fine. Then I realized that the article was saying things like: "HSBC, a bank" "BMW, a german car maker" "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank" Which got me thinking... who is the audience for this article? Probably not the average Economist reader, who knows who HSBC, BMW and GS are. In fact they know that "GS" means Gold…

Summarizing the mentioned companies, no matter how big, is a quirk of The Economist. A more notable quirk is their lack of by-lines. Presumably, multiple authors work on each article. Perhaps that's why you feel the tone is inconsistent. Or perhaps its because they write in UK English, where words have different tonal attributes.

The paper (they insist on calling themselves a newspaper, another quirk) is prone to these sorts of booster articles. Other times, they write in-depth, balanced, and informative articles from a Liberal view point. The thing that irks me most is how they casually omit criticisms from other viewpoints, but that's expected as they wear their bias on their sleeve.

Re: WeChat’s world

#77

Post by frik »

Trufa wrote: post #48

Has anyone criticizing it actually tried weChat? I know that there are better ways to do things, and you don't have to accept the "Chinese way" of doing things, but that's mainly politics, and yes there ARE a lot of privacy concerns, but, and there's a big but. Technically speaking, the app is amazing. I recently used it to talk to my girlfriend while she's in China and seriously, it's the best (face to face) communi…

I have, and compared to WhatsApp or Facebook Chat, WeChat is like two years ahead.

Fly to China, and try it out and interact with other people in one of their tier 1 cities.

Re: WeChat’s world

#78

Post by unclebucknasty »

794CD01 wrote: post #65
delegate wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally try to avoid these services, but it's impossible to not use some of them, because of their monopolistic position. I have to use Facebook sometimes because people use it to organise events, concerts and other things which are now inaccessible to me unless I use Facebook. Which is terrible. These services are bad because they are popular and successful and because they try to offer more and more services on…

If tech people dream about a product that real people have no desire to use, is it really the consumers' fault for "liking the wrong things", or is it the inventors' fault for dreaming about a product that doesn't meet people's needs? Assuming that the rest of the world is wrong because it's moving in a direction you personally disagree with doesn't make you courageous or visionary, it makes you Principal Skinner: ht…

OTOH, is it always true that "the masses" do what's best for the individuals that comprise the masses, even when measured by their own standards?

If so, I'd imagine we'd have no use for a word like visionary.

Reminds me of the famous quote from Henry Ford, that if he'd asked the people what they wanted, they'd have answered "faster horses".

Re: WeChat’s world

#79

Post by ryanobjc »

pradn wrote: post #75
ryanobjc wrote: post #67

This article is a little weird to me. It seems to read fairly ok, seems pretty pro wechat, which is fine. Then I realized that the article was saying things like: "HSBC, a bank" "BMW, a german car maker" "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank" Which got me thinking... who is the audience for this article? Probably not the average Economist reader, who knows who HSBC, BMW and GS are. In fact they know that "GS" means Gold…

Summarizing the mentioned companies, no matter how big, is a quirk of The Economist. A more notable quirk is their lack of by-lines. Presumably, multiple authors work on each article. Perhaps that's why you feel the tone is inconsistent. Or perhaps its because they write in UK English, where words have different tonal attributes. The paper (they insist on calling themselves a newspaper, another quirk) is prone to the…

ok fair enough. I guess my expectations were out of step with the reality of their writing.

I feel like their analysis here is lacking, and I learned nothing from it. Other than some people love wechat, which is something I could have guessed.

Re: WeChat’s world

#80

Post by unclebucknasty »

BoorishBears wrote: post #47
millettjon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freedom

As a thought experiment, imagine a bird cage that gets larger as a bird approaches its sides. Even if you put a bird that migrates in this cage, eventually the cage would reach some max size where cage size > maximum flight range of the bird. If the cage is so large that the bird doesn't try to escape it, does the bird care that it's in a cage? Is there really a difference between the cage and freedom? You can't get…

>does the bird care that it's in a cage?

Yes. Because the bird ultimately has no control over the cage, cannot be assured of the motives of those who do, and knows its true freedom is always subject to the whims of the same.

Post reply on HN