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

Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

calnewport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#71

Post by gaius »

monkmartinez wrote: post #5

I have read most of Cal's books and they are good. His fight against social media is... I don't know, extreme. The problem to me isn't social media per se. The real problem is self-discipline/control. Cal crusades against social media, but I don't see him crusade against video games, or watching TV for example. I think a good/better metric is total screen time. My children are given an allowance in the form of screen…

The real problem is self-discipline/control

The problem is that these things are what are being directly undermined. As humans we have for example a built in fear of what is now called FOMO; if the tribe was doing something and you weren't, your survivability was directly threatened. That's why it feels bad to be lonely, and good to be part of a mob. Facebook has weaponised human urges that operate below the level of rational thought. It's targeting the Intel Management Engine of our brains.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#72

Post by mrob »

jnordwick wrote: post #41
Slansitartop wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since when do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best interest? We don't have for-profit companies because of some fundamental ideological commitment to capitalism uber alles. We have them because we judge their operation to be in society's best interest. When a particular one fails to do that, it raises a legitimate question about whether it should be allowed to continue with those actions or even…

Companies are just a realization that absent some outside force, multiple people will band together to work and sell the fruits of their labor. Get rid of all laws and you will see companies naturally form except they would be held together by a myriad of individuals agreements. Stopping companies or getting rid of them world requires stipping people from making agreements between themselves and be against human natu…

The crucial difference between companies, as the term is commonly used, and groups of private individuals, is limited liability. Companies are able to take risks that individuals would not because the individuals that make up the company are not held personally responsible for the potential consequences. Similar to granting people monopolies over culture and ideas with copyright and patents, this is a special privilege we give on the assumption that it will benefit society in the long run. If this assumption turns out to be false then the sensible thing to do is revoke that privilege, or replace it with a better one. Limited liability doesn't happen without state intervention.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#73

Post by kmonsen »

justherefortart wrote: post #44
Slansitartop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros > He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. Those characterizations may have their origins in an element of truth, dating from the early 90s. Paul Krugman described his Soros's actions thusly: > [N]obody who has read a business magazine in the last few years can be unaware that these days there really are investors who not onl…

The principals of finance are the same for everyone. Just because the UK (like Mexico, Argentina, and most of SE Asia) decided to ignore the rules, doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an intelligent investor. When you're screwing with monetary policy and most college kids (in finance and economics) know what you're doing will blow up in your face. To assume investors won't take advantage is not only naive but…

Sure, but people can still have feelings about it even if what the person did was legal.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#74

Post by Slansitartop »

harlanji wrote: post #49
losvedir wrote: post #19

It's odd the post doesn't mention the recent changes to Facebook's algorithm to promote more friends and family content[0]. I don't use facebook so I'm not sure how meaningful the changes are from a UX perspective, but on Bloomberg radio which I listen to it's been a pretty major point. Engagement metrics are down , as expected, but analysts seem to think that's fine. This contradicts the post's point that it "would…

Too little too late on the Fam thing. My exit plan was well underway when they announced it. FB stopped being for emo in 2013ish last I cared, yet I'm still going through the emotionally taxing process of extracting my friendships from FB lately. Meanwhile new contacts see no mutual friends since I don't add new ones for the most part, so I am eager to be able to hit logical delete (aka deactivate, no full delete any…

> aka deactivate, no full delete anymore

IIRC, you can still full-delete, but you have to find a the link through a help page, not your profile.

I'm content to leave my profile up with a big reminder that I'm no longer using Facebook, so I'm never going to use either option. I actually get some satisfaction that my profile is basically an ad against Facebook, which worse for them than if it just vanished.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#75

Post by jstalin »

cletus wrote: post #4

I honestly find myself scratching my head every time George Soros speaks. He almost comes across as someone desperate to be taken seriously, to be viewed as a visionary, a thought leader, a prognosticator. But what has he down to justify this? Nothing as far as I can tell. He made a bunch of money as a currency speculator, most famously breaking the British pound. Sure. Good for him. But if we're going to talk about…

Maybe he's trying to atone for his Nazi collaboration past.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#76

Post by spinchange »

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

If you want to know more about him or his philanthropic work, I suggest checking out what his charitable foundation: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/about

He's also written a number of books, some a better read than others, but I find all of his ideas interesting, even if his communication of them is at times a little dense. (It's clear he is or wants to be a philosopher at heart)

It is striking the way he's demonized. When you press people (like in person, not on the internet) why they think he's the devil incarnate, you usually get some really wild ad hominem not rooted in reality or a realization that they don't really know why they hate him so much other than he's a benefactor of their political opposition and they were told to. It does have an effect, even subconsciously, after a while

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#77

Post by oldcynic »

star-trek-fleet wrote: post #64
justherefortart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principals of finance are the same for everyone. Just because the UK (like Mexico, Argentina, and most of SE Asia) decided to ignore the rules, doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an intelligent investor. When you're screwing with monetary policy and most college kids (in finance and economics) know what you're doing will blow up in your face. To assume investors won't take advantage is not only naive but…

No one say bad, they just say these people invoke turmoil and crisis for their own profit. Is it good or bad or neutral, it’s your own judgement.

He hardly invoked turmoil.

Joining the ERM invoked turmoil. It was a silly idea and the valuation being wrong wasn't exactly a minority view.

We should be criticising and remembering the idiocy of Norman Lamont rather than of George Soros for profiting from that idiocy.

Now I don't know enough about the rest of Soros' career to have a view of whether he's good or bad. The infamous ERM short is not a smoking gun here.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#78

Post by dao- »

star-trek-fleet wrote: post #64
justherefortart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principals of finance are the same for everyone. Just because the UK (like Mexico, Argentina, and most of SE Asia) decided to ignore the rules, doesn't make him a bad person. It makes him an intelligent investor. When you're screwing with monetary policy and most college kids (in finance and economics) know what you're doing will blow up in your face. To assume investors won't take advantage is not only naive but…

No one say bad, they just say these people invoke turmoil and crisis for their own profit. Is it good or bad or neutral, it’s your own judgement.

What are "these people" though? Successful investors? The "East Coast establishment"? Jewish investors?

I believe the point your parent post was making is that these distinctions are bogus. The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. This is unfortunately inherent to Capitalism.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#79

Post by azangru »

Slansitartop wrote: post #28
saul_pako wrote: post #10

Interesting article. The whole smoke screen idea is in a way interesting but at the same time; isn't it exactly what is to be expected from commercial providers of social media? I'm not sure if you catch my drift, but since when do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best interest? To protect your brand does sometimes include admitting wrong doings or sketchy behavior - if we wish to browse through soc…

> since when do we expect for-profit companies to act in societies best interest? We don't have for-profit companies because of some fundamental ideological commitment to capitalism uber alles. We have them because we judge their operation to be in society's best interest. When a particular one fails to do that, it raises a legitimate question about whether it should be allowed to continue with those actions or even…

> We have them because we judge their operation to be in society's best interest.

> ...

> If a company is not acting on society's best interest, it should be made to or abolished.

Wow! And here was me naively thinking that we have for-profit companies to bring profit to their owners/shareholders.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#80

Post by siegecraft »

jordigh wrote: post #8

I'm rather bothered that I know nothing about Soros except a bunch of vague, negative feelings about him that have pop-culturally osmosed to me through constant usage of his name in 4channish/the_donaldish media. He's some kind of evil mastermind destroying civilisation with his vast wealth. I know this is almost certainly not true, but I'm so bothered that this is my immediate thought. I feel like the alt-right has…

Not bothered enough to do the work of educating yourself, though?
Post reply on HN