
Against Facebook - jashkenas
https://0xadada.pub/2018/05/01/against-facebook/
======
athenot
> _This process of commodification has turned us all into tastemakers,
> reviewers, likers, retweeters and brand ambassadors. The platform takes our
> real authentic friendships and first commodifies them, reifies them, and
> then sells them back to us as an “image of friendship”, but one that is
> bankrupt of any genuine social value._

This is the money quote.

The article raises a lot of points and is a provocating read. One of the
points it brings up has also been on my mind lately: all the content I
contribute on the platform just goes there to die. It's not searcheable, it's
not easily indexed, it fades quickly within the matter of hours and it doesn't
foster in-depth discussion. The silverlining is that this is finally pushing
me to get my own site/blog up. Yes I will still link to it from FB and they
can analyze the sh*t out of it if they want; but at least I get to keep and
curate my own content.

~~~
dnomad
See, 'microwork' is flawed. Facebook doesn't really benefit from the endless
stream of likes and comments and sharing. Facebook couldn't care less what you
like or what you actually think about current events or what your mood is or
who your friends are or whether you're single. The "work" you're doing by
telling Facebook this is not for Facebook's benefit. The "content" is not the
point. Facebook can monetize the data, sure, but here it is acting as a prison
guard; it surveils and records everything and so gathers more knowledge about
the prisoners and thus maybe even more power over the prisoners. But this
missing the key question: why have the prisoners voluntarily entered the
prison and why do they play the games they do?

Prison is the right analogy for social media. The real danger of social media
is not the endless surveillance and advertising. Social media is a prison.
It's simultaneously lawless -- there are no real rules, no clear expectations,
no documented roles or requirements or expectations -- and also deeply
authoritarian. Everyone is subject to harsh unstated rules and watched
constantly by the guards. It's a culture without any rituals, a game that can
be won or lost but has no rules or regulations or referees. Indeed nothing is
even real, everyone and everything is "playing" at something -- but it's never
clear what. And the result, make no mistake, is chaos. Fake news, "context
collapses," human impostors (bots and politicians), social media mobs -- all
of these a just terms for a kind of deep-seated anarchy that rules over social
media. Social media is a society surrendering to the logic of the prison and
deciding to imprison _everybody._ And corporations sit back and just observe
and record everything and print money.

But what's also interesting is that if they could the corporations would put
an end to the anarchy. Facebook, I think it's very clear, does not like the
chaos. They would love to put an end to all the fake news and scams and
general crazines. But they can't. And this is important: in prison the guards
are not really "in control." Their best hope is to guide the violence, give it
direction, but they can't end it completely and in fact they did the system
would turn on them. Zuckerberg is as much a victim of Facebook as everybody
else.

The essay is interesting but I think focusing on the economic aspect and even
dopamine addiction is missing the point. The question again is why the
prisoners do what they do. And the answer I suspect is fear and violence.
There is a kind of fear that drives people back to Facebook. People check
their phones over and over, every fucking minute, not because they want to see
what's new but because they are fundamentally concerned for their own safety
and wellbeing. The concern is that somebody will have unfriended them or not
invited them or simply said something about them. Or something may have
happened completely unrelated to them and they know they must be seen to react
in the right manner. This is what drives Facebook, the source of its enormous
power. It is not a bunch of bored, dopamine addicts being tricked into doing
"microwork." The truth is even worse than it appears. It's a bunch of deeply
frightened prisoners doing their best to survive in an anarchic system of
structural violence.

And here's the real genius of the system: it doesn't really matter whether you
are on Facebook or not. The violence is structural. Quitting Facebook --
leaving the game -- can still be interpreted as an act of aggression by the
prisoners left behind. They may be induced to respond and, worse, now you
won't even see them coming because you've given up your ability to monitor
them. No, it's always a good idea to keep an eye on your fellow inmates. Sleep
with one eye open and always be aware of who's behind you.

~~~
some_account
Very well written but it's only if you are still within the matrix that
Facebook even matters to your life.

I see teenagers checking their little phones every minute on Instagram or
Facebook and I think it's sad, but they will learn from it. Currently human
kind is learning what it feels like to require random likes from strangers in
order to feel happy. At the same time a lot of people feel nervous in real
life because they get less and less practice doing real human interactions.

Facebook makes people act like monkeys to get bananas. Its funny and sad how
real humanity is disappearing from our lifes.

~~~
ryandrake
As someone not in the prison, it feels wonderful to _not_ have to deal with
this whole class of problems that come with being on these platforms.

How many times I’ve obsessed over taking the perfect selfie: ZERO

How many times I’ve posted a status update and worried about how many “likes”
I got: ZERO

How many times I’ve felt anxiety over who to friend or unfriend: ZERO

It is great to actually have time to live my life rather than to always be
promoting and marketing it!

~~~
vivaan
how many times have you obsessed about the perfect HN comment though?

~~~
ryandrake
Pretty much never. I've edited spelling errors though. Comments get up and
down voted pretty much randomly here, but who cares? They're fake internet
points!

------
ch_sm
> Twitter invents the “pull-to-refresh” UI gesture that leverages variable
> rewards to trigger addictive behavior as a way to increase user engagement
> with the timeline; Facebook invents the “red dot” notifications that keep
> people checking their phone for the next new thing.

two minor corrections:

1) pull-to-refresh was not invented by Twitter, but by Tweetie, a third-party
Twitter client.

2) The "red dot" for notifications was not invented by Facebook, but most
likely first appeared on Apple’s mail.app about 20 years ago in the first
version of Mac OS X.

~~~
baby
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mailbox&source=lnms&tbm=is...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mailbox&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFvpiL_OTaAhUDQ8AKHdW-
AVcQ_AUICygC&biw=1280&bih=681)

~~~
talmand
Indication of receiving mail "with a computer".

Yep, checks out. Patent granted to new invention never thought of before.

------
alex_young
> Media Consumption Strike

...

> No TV/Netflix/Youtube

> No radio

> No podcasts

> No social media, delete your Facebook account

> No messaging/chat

> No idle web browsing

> No news aggregation sites

> No gaming

> No using a computer if it is not directly related to creating or resisting
> (not consuming)

Seems kind of extreme to me. Article mentions that our "attention has been
colonized". Maybe focus a little more on how your attention is being sold
instead of targeted.

Understanding the way FB values users ($100/year if you're in the US) and
sells their attention to marketers would instruct better ways to deal with
attention colonization IMHO.

~~~
Lionsion
>> Media Consumption Strike [list from OP]

> Seems kind of extreme to me.

Not really. Literally the next paragraph after that list is this:

> Don’t be a fundamentalist about the rules. Rules are meant to be broken. If
> it’s art, the rules are more loose; if its corporate media, more strict.
> Cinema, literature, sci-fi, comic books, indy games: as long as these types
> of works are not connected with our professional, interpersonal, or
> political responsibilities, use them in moderation. In general, make sure
> media consumption is done with more moderation than usual. The goal is to
> break your habits.

------
sebringj
This article makes it sound like people are forced to be social addicts. Maybe
some of us our outliers here so it may be odd for me to say this but I
honestly have spent more time coding social networks than actually using them.
So no, I don't get how people are forced to use them.

~~~
sakuronto
I don't know how old you are and I don't want to make assumptions, but in high
school and college, societies, school sports teams and friends all tend to use
Facebook as their sole means of communication. As someone who refuses to make
a Facebook account (on principle and because I'm really stubborn), I do feel
like I'm being compelled to use social networks more than I want to.

~~~
sebringj
Yes, I agree it is more a part of our civilization as an expected norm of
operation. Where I differ from the author is the fact that the majority of us
our very capable of controlling our behavior although we may not initially
realize our pattern or be self-reflecting on how it may be detrimental.

~~~
loceng
Curious if you use ad-blocking software/extensions? Most people don't AFAIK.
Curious if you let yourself be influenced by ads or not. Not a judgement call
on ads, some people like being exposed to ads especially if they're targeted.

~~~
sebringj
I don't. I usually scroll/resize the window so I don't see them. I honestly
don't care if they are tracking me one way or the other. If you know what the
government already does, we're already screwed so its more of a statement than
useful to ad block. I think if you go to the trouble of being on a TOR network
then you're good but otherwise, you're fooling yourself.

------
gnarcoregrizz
I'm hopeful that platforms like Brave Browser/BAT (Basic Attention Token) will
take off, to allow people to more directly monetize their attention, so that
'unpaid microwork' will become 'microwork.' I don't know how much demand there
is for it though, since people seem content to consume endless amounts of
social media for free. On the advertising (rather than consumption) side,
people will advertise stuff in hopes of getting free stuff or some type of
sponsorship opportunity. It's crazy how much advertising they will do for
free. Brands have to be making bazillions off of this type of advertising.

Recently, I noticed that Instagram has tweaked their algorithm so that likes
(and story views) are doled out in a more spread out fashion. If you post
something, you won't get a bunch of likes at once, now, you're more likely to
get them over the course of 24-48 hours to get you back checking the app over
the entire window. I figure they have always done this, but the window seems
to have grown substantially. It seems like they are reaching further and
further to get engagement.

Will FB be able to infinitely increase their engagement, or will they run out,
and be left with a bunch of zombie addicts who are no longer valuable to them,
since they've effectively killed their host? It seems like drugs sometimes
have this end game.

Personally, I'm moving away from using any more unpaid platforms to host my
data or work. If a platform has a free option, I choose to pay for it. I no
longer trust companies that rely solely on advertising revenue (err, maybe
that means I shouldn't be using HN :) )

~~~
Bartweiss
> _Will FB be able to infinitely increase their engagement, or will they run
> out, and be left with a bunch of zombie addicts who are no longer valuable
> to them, since they 've effectively killed their host? It seems like drugs
> sometimes have this end game._

Perhaps more saliently, microtransaction mobile games already have this
pattern. They grow aggressively, stabilize after consuming all easily reached
users, then slowly peter out.

Rather than unbounded growth, we actually see something a lot like bacterial
growth in a closed culture: lag, log, plateau, death. [1]

It's (part of) what killed Zynga: their long-term engagement predictions
didn't pan out and they couldn't cycle users to new apps fast enough.
Subsequent companies like Supercell have learned to EOL apps like Clash of
Clans - they draw down their advertising and onboarding efforts in favor of
monetizing their existing players, and eventually wind down in favor of the
next big thing.

I'm not sure whether Facebook will end up like this - they have a real
advantage because their users generate new content without requiring corporate
effort. But I and several of my friends have abandoned FB less out of any
moral principle than out of sheer disinterest in their increasingly
unfriendly, cash-focused product. My suspicion is that they'll emphasize daily
time per user and monetization, but slowly bleed daily users in return.

[1]
[http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/Lecture/Chapter%206/growt...](http://academic.pgcc.edu/~kroberts/Lecture/Chapter%206/growth.html)

------
dfxm12
Why "Against _Facebook_ "? I know some mention of other services in the essay,
but the headline, topic sentences and conclusion all call out Facebook pretty
much exclusively.

Starting off attacking solely Facebook in the headline and wrapping it up nice
and tidy at the end with "You should delete your Facebook account :)" creates
a false sense of security for readers that once they delete their Facebook
accounts, they're safe from the effects the essay warns about, but that's not
true, as long as they're still on the web.

...and please understand, I'm not coming from the position of defending
Facebook, but trying to get journalists and essayists to point out more
clearly that these issues are pretty much baked into the web at this point and
cutting off Facebook, even entirely, is going to have little effect in
insulating yourself from things like unpaid microwork, having your data sold,
being targeted with ads, etc., even if you are reading _good_ books in your
free time.

~~~
amelius
> the headline, topic sentences and conclusion all call out Facebook pretty
> much exclusively.

Perhaps because it's the easiest target and otherwise the general public might
feel overwhelmed, and think that the fight for privacy is futile.

~~~
jimmy1
> fight for privacy is futile

See I always disagree with these sentiments. Again like everything in America
it's about political action.

Problem #1: Not enough people vote.

You can break that down into, I see it, 3 buckets.

1\. People are content enough with the way things are going, and trust they
will keep going so they don't waste their time, or rely on the "wisdom of the
crowd" 2\. People are lethargic of the issues happening around them and
complacency has fully set in. 3\. People are so underwater with
responsibilities, debt, and pressure from stagnant wages and rising costs,
their primary focus is survival, feeding family, and paying rent.

I am a firm believer that people get the government they deserve. It's not
enough to wish a government into existence.

Having said all that, call this a gross oversimplification or whatnot, but I
think it comes down to not enough people feel threatened or inclined to take
action by the current privacy situation. That's it. Plenty of people love to
talk about it, bikeshed about how things should or should not be, play the
contrarian, whatnot, but if there's anything life has taught me: if people
really want something, they do it (not saying want thing that thing is a good
or bad thing)

~~~
majewsky
> 3 buckets

4\. People don't feel self-efficacy, i.e. that their vote is having an effect.
(Esp. in a two-party system where, if you don't like either big party, you're
basically fucked.)

------
kristianc
> Social media companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter and Snapchat have
> created a marketplace for our attention, where we become the product sold to
> advertisers who subtly change our behaviour to buy products and services for
> their own benefit.

As opposed to what? There has always been a marketplace for our attention, and
our attention has always been sold for profit. The only thing that has changed
is the medium. Merely stating 'we are the product' doesn't make an argument.

> This type of persuasion is most effective when these platforms command our
> attention with a heightened level of distraction.

I should suppose adverts are most effective when they manage to distract us
from what we were doing when we weren't paying attention to the advert, yes.

> We create the content that is then used to command the attention of our
> peers, which is then used to sell advertising space while the surrounding
> content is measured for engagement, and the results are analysed to optimize
> the next round of ad placement.

Might be new, but unclear how this has less upside for me than me consuming
content which is written by someone else for the attention of my peers with
the advertising space around it being sold and measured for engagement.

As for 'microwork', haven't we always done a lot of objectively pointless
stuff, norms, social customs because together they make the world we live in a
little more pleasant for ourselves? Why yes we have.

~~~
0xADADA
> Merely stating 'we are the product' doesn't make an argument.

I dont think i merely stated "we are the product"

> As for 'microwork', haven't we always done a lot of objectively pointless
> stuff, norms, social customs because together they make the world we live in
> a little more pleasant for ourselves? Why yes we have.

We've always done pointless stuff, but the engagements (microwork) we do on
social media may _seem_ pointless to us, but to Facebook it creates the value
they sell.

~~~
kristianc
> We've always done pointless stuff, but the engagements (microwork) we do on
> social media may _seem_ pointless to us, but to Facebook it creates the
> value they sell.

As the time I spend grooming my hair every morning creates value for my hair
wax company, or the time a salesperson spends filling in SFDC creates value
for Salesforce. If I'm a salesperson, I don't expect Salesforce to pay me
personally for the time I spend engaging in microwork using its product,
because Salesforce creates value for me too. Facebook creates value for its
users too, whether you choose to see that or not.

------
hour_glass
> The net effect these platforms have on us is to alienate us from our very
> lives.

I really like this conclusion paragraph. I definitely feel that everything I
do through my phone is a much worse version than if I had just done them irl.
Socializing is the biggest one. It makes me very happy to be with friends, but
when I check up on people through FB etc I may get some instant gratification
but it really just leaves me a little depressed in the end.

~~~
mkirklions
I added about 2,000 people after pulling off a political stunt.

Lost all control of my facebook and have a ton of randoms.

Made it very easy to leave, now my friends actually have to send me messages
to tell me news.

------
tempodox
I think the article's diagnosis part hits home. But it's preaching to the
choir. Most ordinary users won't see it that way. They seem to fall, hook,
line, and sinker, for the respective platform's advertised purpose (pun fully
intended). This is visible even in their complaints about a platform's
perceived shortcomings.

------
SolarNet
Not going to happen. There is a need here, people want some sort of social
media. The best we can do is offer a better alternative. A federated protocol
(e.g. like email) would solve a lot of problems.

The problem is that unlike email, not enough open source dev time goes into
federated open source social media. Projects like diaspora, mastodon, and the
like (there are even go and rust implementations of these protocols for those
interested) as well as do it yourself servers like sandstorm.

If we want to get rid of facebook, make it an easy 5 step process to install
Ubuntu, install sandstorm, download the diaspora server app, download the
diaspora phone app, get your friends and family on it. I find it hypocritical
that so much anti facebook sentiment is here, yet so little open source dev
time goes into projects that could kill facebook.

~~~
ProAm
5 steps is too many

~~~
LinuxBender
This is actually true now. I set up a mumble voice chat server. It is about 3
steps to set up your login. Nobody would use it. They use discord which is
super happy-clicky and logs all messages forever. I predict Discord will be
the next FB discussion.

~~~
majewsky
> Discord will be the next FB discussion.

It's already sorta current: Discord's brother-in-spirit Slack is already past
the hype and way into the Trough of Disillusionment with more and more people
complaining about chat killing their ability to focus at work.

------
908087
The sad thing here is that the people who need to hear what is said in this
essay the most, no longer have the attention span to absorb it due to the
damage Facebook and similar platforms have caused to their minds.

------
LinuxBender
In my experience, people that have been absorbed into the collective must
decide for themselves to leave it. Some may not have the will power or desire
to do so and some may be oblivious to the effects it has on them.

In my opinion, this is nearly identical to seeing friends hooked on powerful
drugs. I can't tell them it's hurting them. They have to experience enough
negative effects to reach out for help themselves. Some choose to ignore many
of the harmful effects. Usually a significant amount of damage has occurred by
the time they accept something is wrong.

~~~
Lionsion
> They have to experience enough negative effects to reach out for help
> themselves.

I think, when it comes to social media, the harmful effects are much more
subtle and harder to identify and articulate than those for addictive drugs.
There's a benefit in pointing out and elucidating them, as well and the
mechanisms by which they operate. For instance, until someone told me, I
didn't realize the Facebook app works just like a slot machine, except it
dispenses small amounts of social affirmation and novelty rather than small
amounts of money. I just hadn't made the connection.

~~~
LinuxBender
In principal, I completely agree with you. I have just found the effort
futile. This could be the circle of friends I have are just drawn to this. I
see it as a dystopian story unfolding in real time. Then again, I saw the FB
campus as highly dystopian and couple of my friends understood why.

~~~
Lionsion
> In principal, I completely agree with you. I have just found the effort
> futile. This could be the circle of friends I have are just drawn to this.

Yeah, I think it's more of a marathon than a sprint. Right now, I'm satisfied
if someone's engagement is knocked down a level (e.g. heavy to moderate,
moderate to light, light to none, none to deleted).

------
martin1975
So I'm curious after reading this, since Facebook lives off advertising, do
advertisers hold Facebook accountable for generating a certain # of
clickthroughs, or heavens forbid, some other ROI metric for their advertising
dollars?

Or are advertisers just funneling money into FB regardless of any measurable
impact on their revenue just because there are "N millions/billions of active
users" monthly on it?

They could certainly claim this even if you logged in once a day, never looked
at any ads and then just left. Why continue to pay money for advertising?

For Google, I can see how it makes sense, because you are already in "search
mode" for something, so if they pop in an ad that is even semi-relevant, you
might click on it - I know I have... but Facebook?

It seems that money follows eyeballs...whether those eyeballs actually deliver
any value... who cares. Or am I off?

~~~
yomly
I think your assertions may be correct and you'd still be off in that the some
large fraction of the money facebook takes from big companies came from
advertising avenues subject to exactly the same risk of being ignored.

Think billboards, train stations, toilets, tv, cinemas. All of those could be
ignored and are often unrelated to the activity conducted at the time.

The value of Facebook if nothing else is that it is one central point to reach
everyone's eye at any point in the day.

So for the non-data driven decision maker, Facebook at worst will be no worse
than other low-yielding "mindshare/brand awareness" channels and is at least
current and conveniently executed. (consider the admin that goes with
negotiating and conducting lots of adhoc coverage with each channel)

------
fortythirteen
Trying to perform a "media consumption strike" without dropping your
smartphone is like trying to quit coke while keeping a eight ball in your
pocket.

------
toasterlovin
IMO, we need to develop an orthopraxy around partial renunciation to navigate
the future we are creating for our species.

~~~
dymk
What?

------
iobeve
just block ads and use FBP, isnt the problem solved?

------
0xADADA
hey, nice article

~~~
0xdead_beef
Hey there nice name!

------
zerostar07
people who are upvoting anything that includes "facebook" in the title should
read it first. it's a bad article full of dramatic language and hyperbole.

~~~
quadrangle
okay, but could you give some example to back up your judgment? I don't want
to read huge long things like this that are bad _nor_ to let "it's bad"
comments be enough to sabotage my potential reading of something.

~~~
zerostar07
> media-driven neuroticism—a love of change for its own sake, or neomania, a
> love of new things. Ultimately, neomania together with the media has a
> negative effect on our moods, which isn’t surprising considering most of
> what makes the daily news is negative. This leaves us feeling powerless,
> like the world is falling apart. So we turn to social media to witness the
> (seemingly) beautiful lives of celebrities, and the romantic and exciting
> lives of our friends and family. But this ends up driving the compulsion to
> compare our own lives with those of the people we see on social media,
> creating feelings of inadequacy, loneliness, and jealousy.

> The more media we consume, the more noise we get (rather than the valuable
> part, called the signal.) If we consume the news on a yearly basis (in the
> form of books), we can assume about half of what we consume is signal, and
> the rest noise (randomness). If we increase our frequency to a daily intake,
> the composition would increase to about 95% noise, and only 5% signal. If we
> increase our intake to an hourly frequency (as those who follow the stock
> market or heavy social media users do) the composition increases to 99.5%
> noise and 0.5% signal. This is roughly 200% more noise than signal, more
> toxic noise to both misdirect and distract, and has negative effects on our
> mood.

It seems it's not just hyperbole, it's plain falacious bullshit. Sorry i did
not read it all.

~~~
joslin01
That signal to noise quote is actually great, and one of the reasons why the
late Aaron Schwartz refused to read the news. He said in one of his essays
it's far more valuable to read books, and basically explained in more words,
the signal to noise problem.

~~~
zerostar07
can you explain how the logic is not flawed? If you are consuming 50% SNR
news, it will be 50% regardless of whether you read once a day or once an hour

~~~
majewsky
For example, let's say you watch TV news each evening. There's a political
scandal going on which is featured prominently every night for a whole week as
developments go on.

A lot of what is said will be redundant because each report needs to repeat
the basics to be able to stand on its own. For a returning viewer, that's not
new information, ergo noise.

The journalists and experts may spend time speculating about what happens
next. This information will be outdated the next day as new developments take
place, so it's noise for me unless the speculation provides value for me
between the broadcast and the next day.

I stopped watching TV news on a regular basis, and switched to reading a
weekly newspaper for precisely this reason. With a few days of distance from
the original event, everyone can catch their breath and take a step back to
put the story into the bigger picture.

Now after 6 years, I've cancelled my newspaper subscription in order to read
more books, so I'm deliberately zooming out even more.

~~~
zerostar07
hindsight is 20/20\. but still that does not explain the flawed logic here

~~~
quadrangle
The logic is: have patience, reject neophilism, take things in with all the
benefits of 20/20 hindsight by reading the best from the past year or month or
whatever instead of whatever is new right now.

