Even if Facebook actually wanted to change, intended to change and put time, money, and talent to the task this would still be a serious uphill climb. The idea that anyone could rehabilitate their image when they have no such commitment is laughable. Does anyone seriously think what this really isn’t just crisis mangement? Every quarter that FB can stave off inevitable backlash and regulation is money in their pocket, even if it’s only a decaying orbit. Like the tobacco industry in its day, delay delay delay because thst delay is profitable. If you can’t make your product “healthy” without throwing out your product, this is how you act.
Really? Besides "feeling good" (I assume?), I would be hard pressed to think of a single beneficial thing about cigarette. Facebook certainly has more productive uses than just making you feel good... the question is whether they're worth the downsides.
> I would be hard pressed to think of a single beneficial thing about cigarette. Facebook certainly has more productive uses than just making you feel good...
When I ask young people why they smoke, the most popular answer is: "I wouldn't have met so many people, if I didn't". When I ask them why they are still on Facebook, I get the same answer.
"Enhancing performance: Nicotine is frequently used for its performance-enhancing effects on cognition, alertness, and focus.[38] A meta-analysis of 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies concluded that nicotine or smoking had significant positive effects on aspects of fine motor abilities, alerting and orienting attention, and episodic and working memory.[39] A 2015 review noted that stimulation of the α4β2 nicotinic receptor is responsible for certain improvements in attentional performance;[40] ..."
Not that this is how most people use it (esp. because those who do smoke are likely not allowed to do so inside an office building, meaning they couldn't be e.g. programming at their multi-monitor desk while doing it; seems the half-life of nicotine in the body is 1-2 hours, so perhaps it could be net-beneficial to go outside briefly); nor that it couldn't be done via skin patches or other delivery mechanisms.
I used to vape around the equivalent of a pack a day. It helped me with my adhd.
I ended up stopping when I learned that getting up and going to vape in the bathroom constantly was becoming an even greater distraction than my own mind.
Very interesting - the few times I've had a cigarette, I've definitely noticed a sense of clarity in thinking and alertness. For non-smokers, showers seem to be one of the rare times where one is left alone with ones thoughts to explore, while cigarette smokers may experience this with every smoking break.
Yes, I’ve never smoked cigarettes but I’ve always envied the way smokers could always just take a few minutes to gather their thoughts whenever they wanted. And smoking as a social activity cuts out all class and other boundaries.
The smokers in my life all would go to the mat for how valuable smoking supposedly is to their lives; one person even goes so far as to think people who aren't constantly using nicotine are fundamentally misunderstanding what it means to be human. I take it you are not a smoker?
Plenty of good things about nicotine :
- weight management (appetite suppressant) [1]
- clarifies certain kinds of decision making
- heightens alertness
- improves attention for those with schizophrenia [2]
Smoking cigarettes on the other hand is... less than optimal.
I smoked for about 1 year in my life between mid-junior, mid-senior high school. I haven't touched them since then (it's been like 5 years). Smoking was the single most social thing I've ever done. I REALLY do not understand how it works, it might be some primate brain mumbo-jumbo but cigarettes are somehow very good social lubricants like alcohol, maybe even better than alcohol depending on culture. This is not US. When I moved to US (the Bay Area) I saw that literally nobody smokes here so I never had the desire to smoke. Luckily, stopping smoking was extremely easy for me: one day I just stopped smoking and never once thought about it.
If you smoke for years, there is no doubt it'll cause physical dependence, it's documented with dozens of peer reviewed research. But until that dependence is developed, smoking is nothing but a social activity (and tiny bit of physical pleasure). I gained more friends this way than any other thing I ever tried socializing (and I'm pretty ok socially)
DISCLAIMER: This comment does not encourage smoking, smoking is a nasty, disgusting and infinitely dangerous activity. You smell like street dog all the time and you cough like you have lung cancer. There are better ways of finding sexual mates or friends.
I have noticed the smokers always seem to make more connections at work than me, even though I consider myself more extroverted than some of my smoking colleagues.
When I was a smoker I found that the smoke pit was the only area in the company where senior leadership and new, low-level hires would openly converse without the typical formalities. This often lead to people being pulled into projects they wouldn't typically have access to.
For me, I often received extremely valuable input from folks in other departments for the projects I was working on -- typically people in production had the most innovative ideas compared to that department's leadership.
Weight loss. I gained 15 kg within two years after quitting. With no change in physical activity. I did eat more, of course. Because tobacco suppresses hunger. But eventually I learned to love exercise.
What benefit does Facebook provide that no other service can? When I break down the specific features of the FB platform, I'd be hard pressed to think of a single beneficial thing about FB.
You can't use Facebook without being damaged by Facebook.
It's like lead poisoning. There's no safe level. If you're on Facebook you're on Facebook, and that alone is a problem for a variety of reasons, privacy being just one.
All due respect, smoke causes cancer, images don't cause mental health problems.
If cigarettes weren't addictive they'd still be REALLY bad for you.
The problem with Facebook (or current Social Media) is that it IS addictive, and therefore bad, if it wasn't addictive it wouldn't necessarily be bad for you.
That’s completely true, I wasn’t clear in my first post, I meant images alone do not necessarily cause harm, whereas a cigarette does necessarily cause harm.
You’re completely right that there are images which can cause harm
I disagree. I think there are a large number of mental health problems that are directly attributable to images you see and words you read -most notably depression, but I think anorexia is the case study here. I don't think that the people who've contracted it through social media weren't already at risk, but the availability of models and pro-ana groups that encourage and enable such behavior has profound effect.
To those of you saying Facebook provides no value, here are some concrete examples:
- In countries where fraud is rampant and people try to sell basic goods on messaging platforms, marketplace allows small business owners and tradesmen to barter goods. This is leagues safer and more efficient than their old methods.
Facebook provides a place where people can plan events and create “websites” for their shops and activities for free via pages. Facebook connects people to their pages and gives people a place to hold forums with public officials without anonymity.
- Facebook pioneered removing anonymity from a social media platform. On Facebook I can have more accountability and I am more likely to be myself. I can keep in touch with the real people who have passed through my life. I met my wife on Facebook this way.
- Facebook allows me to stay connected to people I rarely see. I’m still friends with many people from highschool I haven’t seen in over a decade. No other platform provided that type of value. Even if we rarely interact, they can always reach me on messenger even if they don’t have my phone number.
- Facebook gives me the ability to hear from people I don’t agree with. Instagram and twitter are just echo chambers based on what I like or are just pictures of sunsets. On Facebook I have found that my friends and family often post opinions that I don’t agree with during world events. This has led to discourse that has allowed me to broaden my perspective.
- Facebook’s ADs platform allows small business to compete against much larger entities on a small advertising budget through targeted ads. I have joined several hobbyist communities by having ads targeted at me that were relevant to my interests.
Not at all. There are so many fake accounts on Facebook that it's now impossible to tell who is real and who isn't. True, they removed anonymity, but they replaced it with fraud.
> Facebook allows me to stay connected to people I rarely see.
If you rarely see them or interact, how much true value are you gaining other than an abstract sense of nostalgia.
> Facebook gives me the ability to hear from people I don’t agree with
Hearing people that disagree with you isn't enough. You need quality to build a rich library of ideas. Facebook does no vetting, giving everyone a microphone regardless of how thought-out or truthful the message is.
> Facebook’s ADs
Good advertising on a platform may make the platform less bad, but it doesn't make it good. Who goes to Facebook to enjoy nice targeted ads?
Overall, the biggest issue is the first one. It's now impossible to tell what's real and what isn't on Facebook. The site is rife with bots and hacked accounts, you don't really know if you're talking to a person or someone with a hidden agenda.
> Not at all. There are so many fake accounts on Facebook that it's now impossible to tell who is real and who isn't. True, they removed anonymity, but they replaced it with fraud.
While true, it's also true that for most people, most of their facebook friends are real people using their real name. That's decidedly different from how people use Twitter, Reddit and the like.
If just 5% of your “friends” are fake, it ruins any trust you may have in your community, it doesn’t need to be anywhere close to a majority. The other networks have similar problems, but Facebook is the worst offender at promoting a false sense of trust.
>> Facebook allows me to stay connected to people I rarely see.
>If you rarely see them or interact, how much true value are you gaining other than an abstract sense of nostalgia.
In short - a lot. Add to that the fact that people travel - and I do pretty often - and Facebook is currently the best tool to meet people you know in faraway places.
I live in California, and last time I traveled to Germany, I got to meet two of my friends who live NY there who just happened to be there for an occasion (work/conference travel). I wouldn't have thought to notify them personally in advance, and neither would they. Posting "Hey, I'm at (location)" on FB is by far the easiest way to go about it.
> Facebook gives me the ability to hear from people I don’t agree with. Instagram and twitter are just echo chambers based on what I like or are just pictures of sunsets
This is so weird to me. Twitter in most cases is what you make of it, if you want to hear from people you don't agree with, then you just have follow people you don't agree with and read what they say. It doesn't take long to curate a list of people who are not trolls.
Are you aware that you sound a bit like a paid ad, or a lobbyist going through a list of talking points in the preferred corporate frames of reference?
This comment breaks the site guidelines, or at least dips a toe on the wrong side. Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do that, regardless of how you feel about Facebook?
What you're saying is unnecessary negative and brings little to the discussion as it doesn't include any targeted arguments, and what's more, the site guideline states that: "Please don't impute astroturfing or shillage. That degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about it, email us and we'll look at the data."
Fixing Facebook isn't a hard problem. Fixing it while keeping advertisers happy is pretty much impossible. If you try to be more vigilant on privacy settings then you give advertisers less choices to target people. And with Amazon moving into the ad market aggressively, and Google being the behemoth that they are the last thing you want is to hurt your advertising platform.
I don't think Facebook's problem is legitimate advertisers misusing personal information. Rather, it's the spammers, scammers, bots, and foreign spies that destroy trust in the system. If Facebook could get rid of those (not an easy problem), they could rebuild trust and keep legitimate big-money advertisers happy.
Wont advertisers go where the people are? Can't FB optimize for users to keep users? if they mined zero data and based ads only on the content of the current page, as long as they had the eyeballs why wouldn't advertisers still want to be there?
It's extremely obvious that Facebook knows what a good website looks like, versus what they deliver.
You can take a look at the entire ecosystem of React code out across so many repos and documentation sites, and then stand that next to Facebook proper, and then note the difference in tone, quality and psychological warfare.
I loved hearing Tim Cook's response about the incident "we would never put ourselves in the position of selling our user data". Fundamentally the Facebook business model was flawed & destined to fail. We hope the new generation of applications learn and evolve to better & stronger platforms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkyH3JRxndc
When asked what he would do if he were currently faced with the problems confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Cook said: "I wouldn't be in this situation."
I just mean they are one of the largest companies in the world and don't seem to be going anywhere with the rise of Instagram. It more or less seems that they have had no penalty for using this strategy.
Everyone here is aware FB has had a good run. I wouldn't bank on them long-term. This stuff does not bode well...
> Facebook on Thursday posted the largest one-day loss in
> market value by any company in U.S. stock market history
> after releasing a disastrous quarterly report.
There is nothing FB or Sandberg can do to fix Facebook's reputation in my mind. I have deleted most of the content I have posted to FB and keep my account only because I sometimes use Messenger.
I esp. would not use Messenger. That would seem to be the "spyingest". But I'm assuming you have someone who is all-in on Messenger you would lose otherwise.
Deleted FB and all content a year ago. Honestly, as I was on my way out, I was beginning to enjoy the "groups" I had discovered. Wish there were a lurker mode....
I found such too. But the quality of discussion is sub par even when the original idea was good.
Large share of the people who are still active on facebook seem to be types of people who have very few friends and like to shout their ideas into the abyss. Or alternatively very connected people who promote slogans to mindless crowd of agreeing zombies.
It's mostly result of "your aunt sees what you just said" which means that you rarely see anybody genuinely argue anything. Because the feeling of your aunt briging up your facebook discussion from two years back at summer cottage is not worth it. Facebook is shitty at managing interpersonal connections, kinda weird at this point. Then the lack of dislike button keeps noise levels high from people with no aunts. Even the few actual discussions typically develop into pointless drama.
Reddit has very bad problems with eternal September, but its not nearly brainless if you dig deep enough into subreddits.
I've noticed most of the current gen college kids are very sparing of their fb use (at least the computer saavy ones). It seems to me (disclaimer: completely anecdotal) that the previous gen and previous-gen^2 (ie circa 2008-2016) generation of college-age kids were the ones who were much less restricted in their use of fb.
Seeing as I’ve never heard of her prior to reading this article, I think the best course of action on her part would be to make a ton of noise doing good things for the community so that it increases the chances of people who haven’t heard of her, learning of her through those actions rather than these.
MZ (screaming): you broke my Facebook, so you better damn fix it.
CS: Whoah Mark, you know people want me to run for president. I can’t scorch my reputation fixing your dumb internet site. Plus enough of my shares have vested for me to leave with my pockets full of loot. It’s not like I ever have to work again.
MZ: [redacted]
CS: OK, I’ll do it.
What did Mark promise her? Would love to know what deal she cut.
