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

The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

delw.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#71

Post by freehunter »

lutusp wrote: post #65
freehunter wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. Facebook the company does not exist without a product, and Facebook the product is a technology that is used by many people, groups, and companies to build their own products on top of. Yes Face…

> Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company? > It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software ap…

>So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules.

I don't think you're understanding my point. Maybe I've explained it wrong. Ford would be a car if Ford the company made a car called Ford the car. If I could drive around in a Ford Ford, for example. However, I drive around in a Ford Focus, where Ford is the company and the Focus is the product. With Facebook it's different, since the company and their product are named the same. If Facebook the company had a product called Bookface, Facebook would be the company and Bookface would be the product. In that situation, Facebook would not be a technology, but Bookface would be. I believe the misunderstanding we're having is coming from Facebook being both a company name as well as a product name.

Ford Motor Company is a company. They make a technology called the Duratec engine. They use this Duratec engine in a product called the Focus. When I use my Focus, I am using it as a technology (an application of science for practical purposes). I wouldn't say the Focus was not a technology just because it was built on the FF platform or on the Duratec engine. It is a technology that is leveraging other technologies. Facebook is difficult because both the company (ala Ford) and the product (ala Focus) are named the same thing. However, when I am using Facebook (Focus), I am using a technology created by Facebook (Ford).

Did I explain my point clearly enough? Let me know.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#72

Post by lutusp »

freehunter wrote: post #71
lutusp wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, Facebook is a company. But Facebook is also the name of the product that is offered by this company. So your plan is to refuse to draw a distinction between the company and a tool used by that company? > It's certainly possible to have a company without a a product, but it certainly won't be a terribly successful company. That's a different topic. We're discussing whether Facebook is a company or a software ap…

>So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules. I don't think you're understanding my point. Maybe I've explained it wrong. Ford would be a car if Ford the company made a car called Ford the car. If I could drive around in a Ford Ford, for example. However, I drive around in a Ford Focus, where Ford…

> I don't think you're understanding my point.

The problem is not that I don't understand your point, it's that you don't understand your point. Facebook is a corporation, not an application. Companies aren't software. Some of them use software to accomplish certain ends, but one mustn't confuse the carpenter with his hammer.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#73

Post by clavalle »

lutusp wrote: post #64
clavalle wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? A helicopter and an airplane both fly people through the sky in a controlled fashion but they use different methods. Does that make either one less of a technology than the other? I just don't see how your argument makes any sense. It almost seems like a non sequitur.

> So that means Facebook as an application is not technology? Facebook isn't an application, it's a company that makes money by creating and maintaining a social forum. Facebook may use computer software "applications" to further this end, but one mustn't confuse the method with the goal, especially when one considers that the same goal could be achieved using different methods. > I just don't see how your argument m…

Good Lord, man.

Facebook is both. Which is to say that the word Facebook can be used in reference to a corporation or the application that kicked off that corporation (and still forms the core of that corporation's method).

I thought it was obvious from the context which we were discussing. I'll try to make it less ambiguous in the future.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#74

Post by mlwalla »

Responsibility and limits are key. Be responsible for what you through into the Internet, and make sure you take time off.

Also, read!

Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman

And theorist Vilem Flusser was an amazing philosopher who forecasted the ways of the Internet before the Internet was mainstrem.

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#75

Post by mlwalla »

mlwalla wrote: post #74

Responsibility and limits are key. Be responsible for what you through into the Internet, and make sure you take time off. Also, read! Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology by Neil Postman And theorist Vilem Flusser was an amazing philosopher who forecasted the ways of the Internet before the Internet was mainstrem.

Recently heard the terms "digital natives" and "digital immigrants" on the Colbert Report.

"Citizenville" author Gavin Newsom

Re: The Coming Anti-Tech Counterculture

#76

Post by freehunter »

lutusp wrote: post #72
freehunter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So, by your argument, Ford Motor Company is actually a car, not a company that builds cars? Corporations and technologies are distinct and operate by different rules. I don't think you're understanding my point. Maybe I've explained it wrong. Ford would be a car if Ford the company made a car called Ford the car. If I could drive around in a Ford Ford, for example. However, I drive around in a Ford Focus, where Ford…

> I don't think you're understanding my point. The problem is not that I don't understand your point, it's that you don't understand your point. Facebook is a corporation, not an application. Companies aren't software. Some of them use software to accomplish certain ends, but one mustn't confuse the carpenter with his hammer.

But Facebook is an application. I install it from the app store on my phone. I can't install a company.
Post reply on HN