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

Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

quietbabylon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#81

Post by neumann_alfred »

freshfunk wrote: post #74
pdonis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1B people aren't even asking themselves those questions.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

And that is relevant how, exactly? Even if it was: 6B people are NOT using it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#82

Post by pdonis »

freshfunk wrote: post #74
pdonis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1B people aren't even asking themselves those questions.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

Which they would be doing anyway if FB didn't exist. FB to them is convenience, nothing more. Many of them probably think that FB is "the Internet", just as many AOL users thought that in the 90's. They are only "connected" inside the walled garden; they have no idea of all the things that are outside it.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#83

Post by freshfunk »

pdonis wrote: post #82
freshfunk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family. Which they would be doing anyway if FB didn't exist. FB to them is convenience, nothing more. Many of them probably think that FB is "the Internet", just as many AOL users thought that in the 90's. They are only "connected" inside the walled garden; they have no idea of all the things that are outside it.

Wow that's pretty condescending.

Yes, it is a convenience... Much like email is a convenience over snail mail and Face Time is a convenience over meeting in person. Arguably the car is a "convenience" over the horse.

Discounting the breakthrough in technology that spawned the term "social networking" doesn't really help your position.

AOL may be a defunct company but in their hey day they brought millions of people online. They deserve more than your mockery.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#84

Post by freshfunk »

neumann_alfred wrote: post #81
freshfunk wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family. And that is relevant how, exactly? Even if it was: 6B people are NOT using it.

A good majority of that is in China where the govt has banned it.

Show me a service that's connected more people that hasn't been around for more than 20 years and not named "the Internet."

The greatest value FB brings is making it easier to connect and share (ie. be open) with others and 1B people derive enough value in that to come back on a regular basis. That's the point.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#85

Post by npsimons »

lelandbatey wrote: post #31
kevinalexbrown wrote: post #21

What a thoughtful essay. "But it uses a silly writing device to illustrate a point it could have just made plainly!" Whoa there, critical-thinking-by-the-numbers guy, maybe the article is also about fashion. As a child, I considered style choices a silly and inconsequential distraction from the beautiful truths of the universe: e^(ipi) + 1 doesn't care what I'm wearing, so neither should I, therefore it doesn't matte…

I'd very much like to re-emphasize this point: > Fashion mattering doesn't depend on you caring. In general, there are actually quite a few things like this in the world. Just because it is out of the scope of your concern does not mean it isn't of any concern.

And yet, when we try to point this universal truth out to people about science and technology, we are scoffed at.

In one hundred years, will it matter what any of us are wearing today?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#86

Post by npsimons »

freshfunk wrote: post #74
pdonis wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1B people aren't even asking themselves those questions.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

Because they don't give a shit about openness and connectedness, all they care about is gossiping with/about their friends and drama.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#87

Post by pdonis »

freshfunk wrote: post #83
pdonis wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family. Which they would be doing anyway if FB didn't exist. FB to them is convenience, nothing more. Many of them probably think that FB is "the Internet", just as many AOL users thought that in the 90's. They are only "connected" inside the walled garden; they have no idea of all the things that are outside it.

Wow that's pretty condescending. Yes, it is a convenience... Much like email is a convenience over snail mail and Face Time is a convenience over meeting in person. Arguably the car is a "convenience" over the horse. Discounting the breakthrough in technology that spawned the term "social networking" doesn't really help your position. AOL may be a defunct company but in their hey day they brought millions of people o…

I didn't say there was no value in convenience. Of course there is. I use email. I'm posting here instead of xeroxing and snail mailing what I write. But HN isn't trying to monetize my personal information, and it isn't trying to be my only portal to the Internet.

Yes, AOL in its heyday brought lots of people online--and made them think that going through AOL was the only way to get online. Facebook has brought a lot of people social networking--and has made them think that allowing Facebook to monetize their private information is the only way to do social networking. They are encouraging people to choose short-term convenience at the expense of long-term control over their own data and their own online lives.

My point is that saying "lots of people use Facebook" is not the same thing as saying "Facebook is doing things that are good for its users, or the Internet, or society, all things considered". Same for s/Facebook/AOL/.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg's Hoodie

#88

Post by kevinpet »

rhizome wrote: post #71
kevinpet wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"everyone can look at someone's dress and decide if it's fashionable for their demographic." You may have forgotten where you are discussing this topic. I certainly have no clue whether something is fashionable. I'd be hard pressed to tell you if two colors go together. I do no know if I dress more or less formally than my coworkers, or if my normal clothes present any sort of image. My style is not a conscious rejec…

it is simply some clothes that I've concluded aren't too far outside what I'm expected to wear This is where you agree with the post you're replying to. The entire decision process of "what I'm expected to wear" is exactly what they're talking about. You're soaking in it, as indifferent as you appear to think you are is just one facet of accounting for fashion's role in your life, which, to be sure, is not absent.

The post I replied to said "everyone can look at someone's dress and decide if it's fashionable for their demographic." I cannot. I think I can mostly decide whether it's appropriate, but I'm not confident in that ability. I am quite certain I can't decide if something is fashionable, something the parent seems to imply is near-universal ability.

Acknowledging that I spend some time trying to meet the bare minimum of something does not support the claim that everyone can decide if something is fashionable, and more than my dad saying he occasionally opens the command prompt in windows supports the claim that everyone can program.

Post reply on HN