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

81–90 of 274 posts

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#81

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

vinceguidry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this. Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies. People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, the…

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill.

What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries.

To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others.

Besides when you say:

>The world survived, thrived

You're not exactly speaking to the people hooked on video games or TV or Facebook. Your uncle lost years to a game but because what, he doesn't do it anymore it's magically fine?

Are you also okay with advertising cigarettes to children? Cigarette breaks provide great opportunities for social gathering and let you interact with other people you never would have otherwise. A smoker may lose a lot of time to smoking but when they come up for air the world will be exactly as they left it. They'll manage their enjoyment of tobacco just like everyone else.

Is it disgusting when a casino calls up a gambler who's trying to quit and offers them a credit to come back and play? I happen to believe that's a huge social ill and in many cases basically equivalent to what Facebook is doing, just that it costs time instead of money.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#82

Post by linkmotif »

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.

Turmoil and crisis is usually the result of above described idiocy and people who “take advantage” of turmoil and crisis are intelligent.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#83

Post by rossdavidh »

I am no great fan of Facebook, but the indignant accusations about them wanting to keep us glued to their screen seem mostly to come from people who were (and are) perfectly fine with television networks that did the same thing for decades. Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than on social media, I bet. I use Facebook once a week, and TV never, and I find that people are mostly not even willing to consider the idea that TV may be a problem, for their children or themselves, whereas their attitudes towards Facebook, while problematic, seem to be a lot more self-aware.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#84

Post by Slansitartop »

dao- wrote: post #78
star-trek-fleet wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral.

Guns are amoral too, but we still expect people to use them morally.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#86

Post by wbl »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81
vinceguidry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this. Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies. People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, the…

>Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. What about monetizing and marketing people's affection? The dowry would be the classic example, I'd be curious why you (presumably) are against dowries. To me it's basically the same, certain things are corrupted by their commodification, affection, attention, others. Besides when you say: >The world su…

There is a way to get on the ban list of a casino to fight your addiction.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#87

Post by kbenson »

spinchange wrote: post #76
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 d…

> 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.

Sure, but we could probably say the same of the Koch brothers. They both occupy similar positions of power and influence on opposite sides of the fence, and suffer similar attacks.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#88

Post by pensivemood »

sctb wrote: post #63
pensivemood wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The real problem is self-discipline/control. Lol. What a stupid argument! I know this is HN and I am supposed to be civil and all, but still, What a stupid, stupid argument..

If you won't comment civilly and substantively we'll ban the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I said the argument was stupid. Not the person making it. Smart people can sometimes make stupid argument. Even I make stupid arguments sometimes. I can only pray that the people around will tell me straight that my argument is stupid.

Are you telling me that people in HN cannot tell me when my argument is stupid? Is there some flag that I can toggle to let people know that it is ok to tell me when I make a stupid argument?

I mean, I don't know what else is preventing HN from being a safe place for stupid people to gather, pat each other on their back and feel safe, secure and validated...

Oh well, may be it is already is..

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#89

Post by _jal »

losteric wrote: post #57
vinceguidry wrote: post #17

Sorry, I'm simply not convinced that monetizing and marketing people's attention is all that much of a social ill. There is nothing about Facebook that's in any way worse than the old ways companies used to do this. Does nobody remember the 80s? TV was turning people into fricken' zombies. People would sit on the boob tube for days at a time, stopping only to go to work to mindlessly knock out chores for a shift, the…

Is it possible TV did make society marginally worse, and each new dopamine trap captures an increasing fraction of society? This statement is laughable: > The thing that actually holds old friendships together and provides endless opportunities to interact with other people that you would have never done otherwise Facebook's innovation was trapping users in a walled garden with omnipresent surveillance and advertisin…

> Facebook's innovation was trapping users in a walled garden with omnipresent surveillance and advertising

That isn't an innovation. They're AOL 2.0.

Re: Facebook's Desperate Smoke Screen

#90

Post by djaychela »

rossdavidh wrote: post #83

I am no great fan of Facebook, but the indignant accusations about them wanting to keep us glued to their screen seem mostly to come from people who were (and are) perfectly fine with television networks that did the same thing for decades. Even today, the typical citizen spends more time watching TV than on social media, I bet. I use Facebook once a week, and TV never, and I find that people are mostly not even will…

I don't think they're in the same league, though. Facebook (and all social media) is far more insidious than TV ever was (and I probably watch maybe 2-3 hours of TV a week). Facebook et al are personalised to each user to capture them as much as possible. That isn't the case for TV, and nor have I ever been in a situation where people I'm working with are watching TV in between fragments of their attention being paid to the task in hand. That happened this very morning with a client whose studio I was fixing for them and discussing upgrades - every time my attention was on the computer for more than about 30 seconds, the smartphone was out, and notifications were being checked.

Most people I know are completely addicted to their smartphones. It's taken me about a year to stop reflexively checking mine every time I go near it, and even now I will do it if I'm not being mindful of my situation. I'm infinitely better off for it, and I can't imagine how someone who has always had one in their life will be able to imagine anything different (I'm 46, so fortunate to have lived before the current era).

Post reply on HN