
Facebook Live: Now You Can Never Leave - keiferski
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/facebook-live-now-you-can-never-leave
======
wallflower
From the article about Facebook Live

> If anything, Live further exposes Facebook’s active, seemingly unquenchable
> thirst for more ways to become the middleman in your digital interactions.
> It literally wants you to broadcast your life on the platform. But, as noted
> earlier, being caged doesn’t come that naturally to humans.

From "The Circle" by Dave Eggers - a "fiction" novel about a Facebook-like
mega infoglomerateorporation.

> Lionel can give me access to any of the cameras he wants. It's just like
> friending someone, but now with access to all their live feeds. Forget
> cable. Forget five hundred channels. If you have one thousand friends, and
> they have ten cameras each, you now have ten thousand options for live
> footage. ... The words dropped onto the screen: ALL THAT HAPPENS MUST BE
> KNOWN. "Folks, we're at the dawn of the Second Englightenment. And I'm not
> talking about a new building on campus. I'm talking about an era where we
> don't allow the majority of human thought and action and achievement and
> learning to escape as if from a leaky bucket."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(Eggers_novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_\(Eggers_novel\))

------
tdkl
I'm less interested in Facebook. With this, I'm even less interested as I
were.

After deleting the account (which was 6 years old), I came back after 6 months
and added a close group of people I actually care about now and in the
foreseeable future. I don't like things, don't follow, don't publicly comment
on businesses, only use the events and chat. The only app on mobile in use is
Messenger with all the data collection turned off, for the site I use a
wrapper app.

This seemed to me as a reasonable use of FB. All the rest is junk.

~~~
rpgmaker
I know you see it as a reasonable "middle ground" solution but you have to be
aware that you are still telling FB _a lot_ about yourself. The fact that you
only added your _actual_ friends the second time may even make it easier for
them to extract profit from your account.

~~~
tdkl
True, I'm willing to let them have that data for the services I actually
benefit from. But regarding data, those friends have probably uploaded my
contact details using the FB app anyway, so the Facebook had a shadow profile
about me, nevertheless me being registered there. At least this way I can
foresee what gets posted online about me and somehow control it.

In an ideal world this wouldn't be happening, but I saw that for the mental
health sake, it's better to let loose sometimes and just find some
compromises.

Oh and on the desktop I only login in incognito mode every couple days, since
they use the login cookie to track you online. For Messenger, there's a cool
Electron app [1], which brings native notifications.

[1] [http://messengerfordesktop.com/](http://messengerfordesktop.com/)

------
coroutines
I sometimes wonder if there is no 'After Facebook'.

I use different services for different community focuses - like YouTube and
Twitch for gaming videos/streams I watch with friends. Instagram for
incidental activity picture stuff. Twitter for talking directly "to"
companies. Signal for IM stuff. I do actually use Google Hangouts for board
game nights and talking about projects sometimes - kinda silly. :-)

I just find Facebook a mess with the ads and disorganization looking at so
many facets of my friends' lives. Google did good identifying the need for
putting people in circles, but Facebook was so well-established by then. I
only want to view things my friends are doing if its a mutual interest,
really. Facebook is like manually filtering through several streams of
consciousness - it's more exhausting than rewarding.

I don't think Facebook is ever going to fail and be the next MySpace, but I do
think social attitudes have changed about using a 'general' social networking
site.

~~~
hacker_9
The truth is Facebook pretty much has it all when it comes to social
networking. It's UI design also speaks well to non technical people (read:
most of the world), as it looks like a cluttered newspaper which people are
familiar with.

'After Facebook' would likely be on new hardware that gets adopted, such as
AR/VR in the next 10 years.

~~~
onewaystreet
> 'After Facebook' would likely be on new hardware that gets adopted, such as
> AR/VR in the next 10 years.

Which is why Facebook bought Oculus.

------
codingdave
People do not stay on Facebook because of its technology or features. They
stay on Facebook because of the people they are connected to. I was in my 30s
when Facebook came around, which was young enough to still care about, and be
excited by re-connecting with old friends from school. The thought of losing
touch with them all again made leaving Facebook a difficult choice. I
eventually did so, but had to come to terms with the fact that I was dropping
a large set of "friends" for the second time in my life.

~~~
darkclarity
It just seems unhealthy keeping in contact with that many people who were
resigned to the past. Never mind all the game-theory-esk psychological
manipulation that social networks push on us.

If people want to keep in contact with their past friends, then get their
phone numbers or become pen pals (email or post). There's no dodgy third party
trying to manipulate with those methods, just enthusiasm from the
participants.

------
ZenoArrow
What compels people to use Facebook? That's a genuine question, I don't think
I fully understand it.

Speaking personally, the only value it has for me is in keeping some form of
connection to people I would otherwise have lost contact with. I don't use it
for people I keep in contact with in other ways. For me the staying power of
Facebook is that it places low demands on staying connected. The setting also
seems to add to the informality, I could see myself preferring to email long
time friends (and I sometimes do), but perhaps the directness of connection is
off putting for some people who are used to sharing amongst an audience.

Does anyone here have any views about why people continue to use Facebook?

~~~
glaberficken
Loss of the fb timeline historical data is psychologically very hard to accept
even for people wanting to close their accounts.

I've talked about this with friends, relatives and co-workers and while most
of them have considered closing their accounts at some point, almost all of
them feel like they would be erasing an irreplaceable documented view into
their past self.

For me personally I don't post or read since a few years ago, and while I
wouldn't mind seeing my timeline erased, what has kept me from deleting y
account is simply that i "need" facebook as a contacts /messaging app.
Although I would prefer to handle my communication needs exclusively on email,
I have people in my life that simply do not reply to email, the only way to
reach them is via a facebook message.

~~~
Chathamization
> Although I would prefer to handle my communication needs exclusively on
> email, I have people in my life that simply do not reply to email, the only
> way to reach them is via a facebook message.

This is a big one. A lot of people I know simply don't send or reply to e-mail
anymore. And people don't use messenger services like they used to. So for a
lot of people, you're probably going to only message them on Facebook, or lose
contact with them.

I definitely think that email and messenger programs are better, since you
seem to have actual conversations with people (most Facebook conversations
I've had are pretty shallow). But they're not an option in a lot of cases.
Also, there's a good chance that you probably should lose contact with most of
the people you've met, but that's understandably hard for most people.

------
foxly
Holy browser fingerprinting, new yorker!

[https://imgur.com/XDUCt0R](https://imgur.com/XDUCt0R)

~~~
eeeeeeeeeeeee
I just added this extension, but in your experience, how common is this method
by sites? I received 11k+ on newyorker, is that a lot in comparison to some
other sites?

------
franbulax
"We study how the fence weaves into and out of the trees. And one day, when
the sun has gone down and the guards are asleep, we catapult over to the other
side, and see all the things we couldn’t see before."

Yep, and some of us even see the fence being built and make sure we stay on
the outside. It's easy to fence-in dopey ruminants, but wily canids prefer to
keep their options a little more flexible.

I refuse, as much as possible, to be herded around, sheep-like, and am
repulsed at the thought of being used, as do these "social" sites seeking to
"monetize" me, as grist for their psychological-manipulation-for-profit mills.
No product, I!

~~~
rtpg
Serious question, do you feel like Facebook provides much value to its users?

~~~
losteric
Oh definitely, just like a crack house.

They've got their friends and "friends" in a walled off room, socially
connected by leisure activities with questionable value to the residents. It's
more of a slum filled with degenerates and graffiti... but hey, people come
for the high not the scenery. The heavy users are there for life but even the
occasional users keep coming back.

Then of course there's the dealer managing the place... they're the only one
to actually benefit from the operation.

I'm being a little facetious, but in short: no. There are a multitude options
for chat that provide a better experience, keeping in contact was not a
problem in the first place, and all that's left are games or wanting to show
off/snoop on lives. I would argue it provides a largely negative value if you
consider filter bubbles and their impact on society. Shareholders are the only
ones that derive value from FB.

~~~
dave2000
> There are a multitude options for chat that provide a better experience

"Better", huh? One of those opinion words. They like it, you don't. Some
people like IRC. It's a funny old world.

"keeping in contact was not a problem in the first place"

A bit simplistic, this. You could have said the same about email when it
replaced snail-mail for most people, most of the time. But now email has been
largely abandoned, thanks to spam and "better" alternatives which let you know
when someone has received, then read, your message. Facebook messenger is
amongst the most popular of these because they've listened to what people
want, and responded.

> and all that's left are games or wanting to show off/snoop on lives.

I don't spend more than a few minutes a week on facebook itself (i only really
got an account for messenger, because just about everyone is on facebook so it
was easier than convincing them to get a google+ account, or installing 4 or 5
other apps) but I understand that the gaming thing is waning. Showing off -
well, if you're talking about people talking about what they do, sharing
holiday photos etc then I guess you could use that description, I suppose. Is
there a way of sharing holiday photos in a way which you personally would not
describe as showing off?

"I would argue it provides a largely negative value if you consider filter
bubbles and their impact on society."

I think very carefully before installing apps or using web services so as to
avoid anything that makes me part of the problem. Nah, just kidding. I've
heard this sort of thing before. You're one of these people who believe that
people all used to read the same newspapers and watch the same tv and got
exposed to differing opinions, and now people can choose their sources they'll
just choose stuff they already agree with, and facebook is part of that? I
think you'd have to go back a long, long way for that to have ever been true,
and even when it was there are endless studies to show that people
reject/ignore stuff they don't agree with, and give sources they do agree with
the benefit of the doubt. And in any event, it's not like many people are
using facebook as their main news source. And even if they did, it sounds like
you're above all that, so your use of facebook would have a positive impact on
some of the sheeple on there, and can help to make the world a better place.

Or you could just use it, like I do, to keep in touch with your mates.

------
sakopov
When I check my Facebook feed, as I do once every 3 months or so, I find
literally nothing from my friends and a whole lot of sponsored posts or posts
from groups I follow. I've shared this with friends and basically confirmed
that Facebook has become this place you don't really have much use for anymore
but you can't really leave because of years of shit you've dumped into it and
connections you've made. So now you just sort of quietly linger, read some
spam and close the tab for a while.

~~~
ec109685
Unfollow those groups then.

------
chillingeffect
>insure ownership

Wow, never thought I'd catch _you_ in a typo, newyorker...

~~~
flavor8
It's deliberately part of the New Yorker's writing style.
[http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/ensure-vs-
insure](http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/ensure-vs-insure)

------
amelius
I'm still hoping for some open technology to replace FB.

Messaging is a solved problem.

Perhaps we can build something on top of IPFS to share statuses (timeline) and
photos with proper access control.

Groups with restricted access could be an interesting challenge.

~~~
RodericDay
For me it would be as simple as an alternative messenger that followed me
around from page to page. It could be injected like a Greasemonkey script or
browser extension, even.

------
h1fra
FYI: this article does not display at all when using adblocker (with no
message whatsoever)

~~~
flavor8
Works fine with ublock origin.

------
terda12
Could care less. I'll still continue to use Facebook to talk to my high school
friends.

------
nibs
Facebook is the 90s/00s Oracle of social media software. Horrifically evil,
impossible to get rid of and only hipsters use the alternatives. Open source
eventually got enough strength to rival the functionality and everyone who
could jumped ship. If you continue the analogy, the only way to beat Facebook
is for an open protocol like email or something else to gain traction among
Facebook detractors. Because mobile is a walled garden, we are going through
the IBM, Oracle, Microsoft, all-in-one is better phase. I am optimistic that
there is some as-yet unindentified format for open communication that will win
in a way that allows everyone to access it exactly how they want to (like
email). Sure, the most fearful, slow moving among us might stick to the tried
and true. But at least my parents and high school friends will have an account
with the open protocol, allowing me and everyone else not to have to choose
between social inclusion and using Facebook.

~~~
dsacco
_> > Horrifically evil..._

If Facebook and Oracle are "horrifically evil", I'm at a loss for what you'd
call atrocities of war.

I don't mean to pick you out personally, but considering that this is the top
comment in the thread, the anti-BigCo sentiment on Hacker News is getting a
little ridiculous.

~~~
jessewmc
Are atrocities of war the only things that can be called evil? If so, then
clearly nothing Facebook does is evil.

However, Facebook does alot of things that by any other definition are evil.
They perform questionably ethical experiments on their users, prey on users'
ignorance of the data Facebook can see and use, are at the forefront of
manipulative advertising (using fabricated social proof of friends, for
example), and show a continual disregard for ethics that suggests worse in the
future.

This is a company that has essentially tricked people into handing over a
treasure trove of data that is unprecedented in human history, and they're
only starting to figure out how they can take advantage of that. How can any
good come of it?

No one here is comparing this to actual war crimes, but the fact remains that
they are in a position to take advantage of over a billion people. Even if in
a small way, that adds up.

~~~
liamcardenas
OP's point was that using the term "horrifically evil" is horrifically
hyperbolic.

What do you mean by "tricking people" to hand over a treasure trove of data?
Ignoring the many benefits that FB provides (reconnecting with old friends,
easy group communication, meeting people, convenient logins for newer
applications, discovering good content, etc....), what they are doing with
advertising isn't "evil" in any sense.

Facebook is a /free/ service that delivers _targeted_ ads. Would you rather
ads be untargeted? Millions of people benefit from having advertisements
displayed to them showing stuff that they actually want to buy. Also, millions
of businesses benefit from being able to target niche markets due to FB's data
collection.

People WANT to find products that are relevant to them, and so many businesses
have become successful by being able to reach those customers through FB's
platform.

Facebook doesn't actually sell the data to advertisers. They just allow
customers to blindly target demographic groups through their platform. It
doesn't violate people's privacy in the slightest.

Have they done some unethical psychological experiments? Yes. But come on, I
wouldn't call that evil... especially when they do so much good. By that
measure, any university that has been around for 50+ years must be evil too!

> are at the forefront of manipulative advertising (using fabricated social
> proof of friends, for example)

Source?

------
nibs
Yeah, I meant it more along the axis of I'm a hot girl and I can get away with
anything I want evil, than war crimes evil.

~~~
tome
> I'm a hot girl and I can get away with anything I want evil

What?

