
Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet - theBashShell
https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1087484682910846976
======
vinceguidry
Before Facebook, if I lost someone's contact information, and drifted outside
of their social circle for a long enough time, chances were I would never ever
see or speak to that person again.

Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation on
an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000 for a
proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have someone
who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn how to use
something like IRC.

Social networking was an enormous pain in the ass. Facebook was the first
platform that actually worked for people. Every subsequent social network took
their cues from Facebook, it was a veritable sea change in the state of the
Internet.

The problem here isn't Facebook, you'd be having these growing pains with any
useful social networking technology platform. It's the unintended consequences
of Facebook's universal accessibility. Anybody can use Facebook, and so
everybody will. It's the story of technology all over again. Technology is
invented, we have a honeymoon phase, then the real marriage begins. We're in
the "just had a baby, now we need to get it to a year old so we can all relax"
phase.

It'll get better.

~~~
packetpirate
> Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation
> on an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000
> for a proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have
> someone who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn
> how to use something like IRC.

Did you just drop off the planet between 1995 - 2005? Poor Myspace...
everybody just forgot it ever existed. And AIM... ICQ... MSN... Yahoo... not
to mention the endless forums on every single conceivable subject. Nobody I
knew in the late 90s and early 2000s wasn't using AIM or some other comparable
program. It wasn't hard to keep in touch with people.

Facebook didn't invent social networking. All it did was give people a
platform to vomit out their every thought for all their friends to see at
once.

~~~
iooi
Your parents were on ICQ? And AIM? They set up a Myspace account?

Facebook is easy to use and accessible everywhere. This is coming from someone
that hasn't had a Facebook account since 2009. GP makes great points and the
title to this submission is pure clickbait.

~~~
dopamean
My whole family was on ICQ when I was a kid. This may not actually be true but
my understanding back then was that ICQ was pretty popular internationally
(most of my family lives outside of the US).

~~~
tinco
Yes, ICQ was popular just before the internet went full on mainstream, MSN and
Yahoo messenger followed it up, followed by a brief Google chat and Skype
stint and then a void filled up by the social networks and eventually the
mobile messengers like WhatsApp.

MSN being killed is still so weird to me, I get that The Netherlands is a
small country, but they had full 100% market dominance, after MSN got killed I
bet some researcher could have seen people in The Netherlands just had a
communication dip for a year or two.

------
jasode
The websites I constantly use every single day:

    
    
      google.com
      maps.google.com
      youtube.com
      wikipedia.org
      weather.gov
      stackoverflow.com
    

For almost 20 years, I've been using Google for dozens of random searches
every single day. Its utility to help me find information is unmatched. And
Youtube -- even with the ads -- adds value to my life because of all the
helpful tutorials and DIY content I can view for free.

On the other hand, I've never needed to create accounts for Facebook or
LinkedIn. Unlike google/wikipedia/stackoverflow, I think of Facebook as my
_adversary_ that's reckless with personal data and harming me. I assume they
are developing more unethical uses of personal data but we don't know about
them yet because an ex-Facebook employee hasn't publicized them. The
questionable ethics starts at the top with Mark Z.

I do think humanity would be served by a "real names" database by an entity we
could trust to help us connect with each other. Unfortunately, that valuable
info is currently held by an unethical company like Facebook. (My previous
comment about this.[0]) They abuse their stewardship of the social graph which
is why I adamantly avoid them.

Facebook was a bad actor even before all the revelations about Russian funded
political ads to hijack the election.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061)

~~~
sephoric
Facebook is harmful because it's reckless with your personal data, but Google
is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide
those results because it steals your data, which it also abuses and sells. And
as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY
books complete with pictures and drawings, but without stealing and selling
your data.

~~~
jasode
_> , but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's
able to provide those results because it steals your data_

What data from me does Google steal? I don't have a Google account. I can be
anonymous at a Starbucks coffee shop and search google for "Paul Graham" and
get back useful results. If they coalesce search queries on my home ip
address, that's unavoidable and a tradeoff I knowingly make.

 _> And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with
similar DIY books_

In the last month, I needed to replace a side mirror of a Lexus car and also
disassemble a Moen faucet. No, my library does not have the manuals to show
how to do it. But youtube did have the videos uploaded by nice people. Both of
those procedures had tricky steps that weren't obvious and Youtube saved me
hundreds of dollars in fees from car dealerships and plumbers.

~~~
czardoz
> I can be anonymous at Starbucks coffee shop and search google

The "Google WiFi"?

> I assume they are developing more unethical uses of personal data

Why not make the same assumption about Google? They could jot down the MAC
address of your device, and track you all over the place (not that they need
to, since you already use Google maps).

~~~
jasode
_> They could jot down the MAC address of your device, and track you _

Yes but a wifi MAC address is not my _real name_. I'd be more concerned if
Google bought a telecom company like AT&T/Verizon and linked phones' IMEI/ESN
hardware numbers to search queries. The IMEI is absolutely linked to a real
identity because it's the billing address of the person paying for the phone.

The MAC address correlation seems more useful for targeted ads rather than
abusing personal real names data like Equifax & Facebook.

~~~
FB_goaway
not only that you can forge a MAC address in a number of ways, such as
configuration, or with a bridge, there are very tiny routers that fit in a
cigarette pack or a coffee cup.

------
paulsutter
I laughed out loud when I saw (twitter.com) at the end of the title

~~~
stcredzero
Twitter is also in the running:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI)

~~~
zestyping
This talk is fantastic. I hope everyone watches it.

I wonder how much better the world would be if Twitter itself posted this
video or something like it, every year, once a year. It might be amazing.

------
kodablah
I know, and cars are the worst thing to ever happen to the planet,
synthesizers are the worst thing to ever happen to music, etc. Worst thing to
happen to pundits? The inability to recognize the value of something to the
common person beyond the negatives they focus upon.

~~~
everdev
Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to the desire for short term gains that
produce long term problems (ex. from your comment: cars).

Products can have both utility and be a danger. It's possible to criticise
something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is
worse.

When the internal combustion engine was criticised as the worst invention of
all time, it wasn't because people thought it wasn't useful, it was because it
was insanely useful and incredibly bad for the environment.

In fact, there's little need to criticise things that aren't useful as very
few people use them.

~~~
kodablah
> It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but
> simply feel that the danger is worse.

Sure so long as it's OK to come to a different conclusion. Since utility of
these things are basically unquantifiable, an objectively correct answer
cannot happen. All I ask is that those closest to the tech and the current
anti-big-web-tech narrative recognize that the benefits differ by user group.
Too often, it's presented as an obvious fact sans rebuttal that FB is overall
a negative.

~~~
everdev
Right, I think DHH's comment could better be prefaced with "For me..."

Someone appearing to speak on my behalf with a position I don't agree with
always bugs me too.

------
rland
Facebook seems to be taking a lot of heat these days. But I wonder: what would
actually "fix" the platform? As far as I can tell, the only "solution" is
getting rid of Facebook. Obviously, FB doesn't agree. Short of destroying
itself (and having a competitor instantly take its place), what should they
do?

What can they do?

Proposed solutions to their various problems:

\- Make the timeline less addictive, to prevent people overusing it. Won't
work, as soon as facebook loses its relevance another, more addictive site
will take its place (reddit, instagram). In any case, they've already tried
this.

\- Introduce moderation, to prevent abuse of the platform. They're already
frantically hiring moderators--they cannot find enough people to moderate the
platform. And competitors are emerging in any case (whatsapp and other
messaging apps)

\- Stop collecting data on people. Not going to happen, since they rely on
this for revenue. Asking them to do this is like asking someone to violate
their survival instinct. This has to happen from some force external to
Facebook. And in any case, people's data is valuable, so saying "stop
collecting data" is like saying "don't pick up $100 that you find on the
ground."

I guess I'm trying to say that this problem is so much bigger than just
Facebook. It's a problem with mankind that will prove to be more and more
intractable as time goes on, regardless of who is a player and who is pointing
fingers.

~~~
padobson
They should stop selling advertising and charge for API access to the social
graph, both users and app developers. There should be a free tier with the
core functionality for users.

This will realign Facebook's interests with the interests of their userbase.

~~~
rland
That would solve the problem -- but now we are back at square one, because a
free competitor will emerge to replace Facebook.

There are paid social networks out there. Nobody uses them.

------
vasilipupkin
this guy is obsessed with Facebook, while justifying his presence on Twitter
which has the exact same business model, with various excuses. He is a troll
trying to generate clicks and visibility. That's all.

If he really was serious about hating the free social network / paid for by
targeted advertising model, he would have gotten off Twitter. But he has a lot
of followers there and it's an effective marketing tool for him.

~~~
AlexandrB
Twitter is terrible, but at least it's honest. There's no pretence of privacy
through vague "controls". If Facebook just said: "Anything you post to
Facebook is public, except PMs", it would be a lot more palatable. Instead
it's a bait-and-switch, where Facebook lets you think some information is
private, but uses it for its own purposes as if it's public.

Edit: Also consider that Twitter doesn't enforce a real-name policy. This
means you can often maintain your own anonymity/privacy on Twitter simply by
not using your real name.

------
Reedx
I'd be curious to hear what people think are the top 3, because I feel like
Twitter and Instagram are strong contenders. Or if indeed Twitter belongs in
the top spot.

~~~
bad_good_guy
I would place Twitter at number one.

I can very easily remove Facebook from my life. Even though I still have an
account, I can easily restrict it to only using Messenger for group chats and
maybe checking the feed for less than 1 minute every few days (my usage
statistics can confirm this).

With Twitter, I am constantly bombarded with people soapboxing their opinions,
trying to start arguments, virtue-signalling, trying to force group outrage,
witch-hunting... all manner of things. Even news articles have started using
Twitter as sources. Its ridiculous.

I can't get away from it, despite not even having a Twitter account.

~~~
thirdsun
> With Twitter, I am constantly bombarded with people soapboxing their
> opinions, trying to start arguments, virtue-signalling, trying to force
> group outrage, witch-hunting... all manner of things. Even news articles
> have started using Twitter as sources. Its ridiculous.

What stops you from removing Twitter from your life just as easily as
Facebook?

------
kop316
I guess it depends on metrics. It feel like Facebook/Google showed everybody
else the gold mine that is sucking up as much user data as possible and fusing
that data with other companies. That is probably the #1 worst thing about the
internet and its effect on regular life today.

However, with work at it, I think it is possible to leave both the
Facebook/Google bubble.

If that is #1, #2 is definitely what Twitter has done to distort the news
cycle and cause "social media" storms. Twitter seems to make it much easier
for that to happen, and worse, you will never get the full story from Twitter.
And the worst part? you don't even have to have a Twitter account to be
subject to that.

------
cm2012
I'm a Facebook advertiser. I can attest that there's lot of good products
where the _only_ cost effective and scalable way to reach your target market
is through Facebook. Want to reach teachers with a time saving app? FB is the
best way. Want to offer a SaaS tool to small businesses? FB is the best way to
get it in front of them. Etc.

FB ads don't have 0 utility for consumers. A lot of products just couldn't
reach the people who want them without it.

~~~
herbst
Sure this is just personal preference however Facebook always was a huge waste
of money if I sold anything worth while (like my SaaS und stuff) however it
worked kinda great to sell cheap China reimports and other shit like that.

Not to mention that it gets more expensive and less effective every year. And
all those 'bugs' where clicks count from the wrong countries and all the other
horrible stuff the Facebook adverser forum is filled with.

~~~
cm2012
It's possible to lose or make money on any channel, but here's a chart of
where you can target different types of audiences:
[https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marke...](https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marketingchannelchart-
orig2_orig.png)

FB is the only online player with any significant scale in that bottom right
quadrant. And that's pretty much the ballgame for putting products in front of
specific audiences.

~~~
herbst
Well I moved on with them locking my last account last year. Agreed it's not
as easy to discover different platforms for different ad projects but I do
definitly get a lot more for my money now.

I would argue Facebook is the easiest but I doubt its the most efficient in
any way.

Edit:// before anyone thinks locked means I did something unethical. No they
locked it because I travelled to different countries and I wasn't able to open
it again. After I spend thousands of dollars on ads they didn't help.

------
personlurking
Top reply:

>What do you think of Facebook-owned products? IG started out like a mobile
Flickr in the early days, a place for personal creativity and documentation,
but now has become an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote. I
wonder about the psychological impact on people.

His response:

>Plenty of studies have confirmed that Instagram is having a terrible effect
on the psychology of many people. Also, Instagram gave us The Influencer.
That's gotta be up there in the top 10 of worst gifts to the world.

TIL that apparently IG used to be a mobile Flickr. But even if that line of
thought advanced, would it not have still turned into "an ad-filled place to
peacock, gather likes, and promote" personal creativity and documentation?

~~~
swoongoonz
I somewhat disagree with his assessment of influencers. Can they be annoying?
Yes. Are they providing real value for companies to be able to connect with
tribes of people? Yes. The influencer has single handedly upended the
advertisement industry and taken money away from traditional media is a big
way. I think it's given more jobs to people who don't work on Madison Avenue
and maybe don't have technical skills, but can connect with a large audience
of people.

~~~
daveFNbuck
I'm guessing most people who don't like influencers would rather have
newspapers than provide more value to companies and create an industry for
people whose main talent is popularity.

~~~
52-6F-62
And only the most popular stories are noticed. The backstories for many of
these people aren't often told:

[https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-
stardom...](https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom-left-
me-in-financial-ruin/)

I don't understand what value they really provide to the public. They almost
exist to inspire envy.

------
athenot
Facebook hijacked friendships/acquaintances and made us talk to each other in
a different way that we would have in person. That's my primary beef against
them.

As for the internet, they've consistently closed off integrations so as to
become a closed platform that benefits from the internet but does not give
back:

\- APIs closed

\- Integrations with other services: closed

\- Hyperlinks to posts: hard to find for sharing and bookmarking.

They've become the new AOL (the kid on the block that doesn't play with others
unless they have a toy he wants to steal from them).

Having said this, the closed platform may end up being a blessing in disguise,
making it easier to cut off facebook from habits altogether.

------
deaps
You know - my wife and I were talking about Facebook the other day and the
role it plays in 'the way society acts' these days.

We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with
posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This
causes the comments on those posts on your feed to _mostly_ be filled with
people whose feelings align with your own.

I think that's dangerous, maybe mainly because the general population doesn't
realize this. Everyone, no matter how 'distorted' their views are - feels
vindicated in those views.

Every time I feel like removing my Facebook, I just take a few steps back and
only use it to stay in touch with family and/or friends that I have moved away
from - which soon morphs back into the constant checking for new posts and
then reading those comments, which tend to align and solidify my own feelings.

I think the world would be a better place without Facebook - and I also think
the world would be worse off in some regards without it. In either event, if
Facebook vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't complain.

~~~
justapassenger
Bubbles are real, but not only on Facebook. People will watch TV stations that
have content that aligns with their world view. They'll read news papers that
do the same. Listen to people who say things they like. This isn't strictly
Facebook issue.

~~~
FB_goaway
news and news feeds align with and are pestilently allied with FB

------
unique-template
The worst thing to have ever happened is the monetization of clicks. It's
killed journalism. And by proxy it's created echo chambers where people only
seek validation of their existing beliefs.

~~~
rock_hard
This was a issue way before clicks got invented though...it’s basic human
nature

------
nkkollaw
Second only to Twitter (which is the platform where this was published).

------
mhd
My vote would be for Javascript, but that's only because I'm optimistic and
think Facebook might still be torn apart.

------
skybrian
DHH's comment is another example of what I call one-bit reasoning: everything
is either wonderful or terrible.

Facebook's features have had far-reaching effects and it's not that easy to
classify them as positive or negative. Getting in touch with people is easier.
Thoughtlessly sending things to all your "friends" is probably too easy, but
there are also announcements you do want to read.

~~~
Dirlewanger
Twitter is the prime place for hot takes like DHH's. And his making this post
is only part making us aware of this issue, and more his further building his
own brand as a tech influencer. All about personal incentives. Basically, the
whole system's fucked.

------
resca79
I personally loved the first years of fb even if I never been a social network
person.

Now I think that company ( in terms of fb product) should focus how to be
still facebook of the first years with innovations.

Because right now my traction to use facebook is just read news or to follow
some companies that I like.

------
mensetmanusman
Sensationalism.

FB is a tool. Their mistake was deciding to mix politics into an app people
liked for family/friend connections by trying and succeeding to increase
monitization/engagement:

The News Feed

(I stopped using FB after the news feed started dominating my engagment in
2016)

------
monksy
I don't understand the hero worship that goes on with DHH. He seems to make
some blunt, uninformed and lacking arguments and people take it as gospel.
(His offhand tweet is on the front page of hacker news).

Is facebook the worse? It's bad, and there have been many things it's done
badly. I would say there are far worse actors on the internet. (I.e. mpaa,
agressive marketers etc) People have been screaming from the rooftops during
the whole time. Many of the worse-case predictions have come true (considering
the info leak/cambridge etc). However they're far from the only one doing
that.

They've really brought on the walled garden there. That imo has been the
worse. It's no surprise that you're getting all these negative effects when
there is no competition. Thankfully they haven't taken the full-on paid
censor.

We're lacking in rights about our data and ways to stand up to this.

------
AndrewKemendo
Where exactly is the substance of this argument? I don't disagree or agree,
but this is just bare invective hurled into a world looking to agree. I don't
see anything justified or rigorously argued and most of the follow up
basically asks for exactly that.

I'm not quite sure why, but DHH has chosen "antagonizing and negative" as his
calling card. It seems to be working out, as he's the go-to guy that has
enough street cred to be negative about high-growth VC fueled startups.

------
didip
The only generic platform I need to keep up with friends and family is
WhatsApp.

I wish WhatsApp IPO’d instead of selling out to FB. Good for consumers.
Founders would have made more money too.

------
miguelmota
100% disagree. My older relatives use Facebook to reconnect with old pals and
love sharing family pictures and conversing over messenger. It’d be difficult
to find them otherwise. I’m personally not on Facebook because I cringe on
what people post but to say it’s the worst thing on the internet is pretty
ignorant

------
hkon
Would be nice with some more explanation. But I guess that is part of what is
lacking on social media.

------
jeffreyrogers
I don't have a Facebook account and I admire DHH, but a lot of the criticism
of Facebook seems over the top. Most people don't care about similar actions
done by other companies (at least not at the same level), and don't seem to
take much real action to mitigate the harms they see from Facebook. I think
much of the criticism is a form of signaling, rather than an expression of a
real belief.

------
blunte
Is Twitter the second worst? It has emphasized our decreasing attention span
to the point where we now have "world leaders" communicating in short,
meaningless blurbs.

------
chris_wot
That's a bold thing to write... on Twitter.

~~~
bvinc
You're downvoted. Maybe because of your snarky tone, but I think you have a
point. Twitter is a cesspool with all of the same problems as Facebook.

~~~
detaro
It has problems, certainly, but not all the same. A bunch that don't apply:

* Twitter has always been easier to avoid (more people/groups/places expect you to have a Facebook account if you want to know about stuff)

* real-name policy

* Anything related to payment, due to not selling anything to end users, e.g. the recent story about charges caused by kids [https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-...](https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-internal-facebook-documents-following-our-legal-action/)

On the other hand, Twitter is more public, which brings issues not so much on
Facebook.

------
ham_sandwich
In what sense did Facebook ‘happen’? People chose to join; they weren’t forced
to. Facebook qua social network is a valuable tool for many people.

Now you can perhaps make the case that their effort to monetize was an
unethical bait-and-switch. Get people on the service, then keep them engaged
via promotion of provocative and unhealthy behaviors, which ultimately fuels
an advertising money-printing machine the likes of which we’ve never seen
before, save Google.

------
koolhead17
People forgot Orkut? I have made so many friends and some are still close to
me. :)

------
lithander
"Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet" -Twitter

------
azangru
Facebook brought us React and GraphQL (dont't know if ReasonML is an important
enough technology to count). I despise Facebook as a social network; but as a
technological company, it's clearly not the worst that happened to _ _the
Internet_ _.

------
cmurf
He says from Twitter, which is waving "what about me? I'm awful too!"

My runner up is Youtube, now infested with piles of crap, and when finding
something decent it's infested with ads. What an innovation! It's now just
like cable TV!

~~~
52-6F-62
I still get a fair amount of value out of Youtube, personally.

But yeah, you definitely have to wear some goggles to see through the noise.

\---

My rules for youtube:

* Don't read the comments

* Don't participate in the comments

* Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings

* Stick to music, favoured clips from shows (I do love that I can watch some old Mitchell and Webb Look), DIY/How-Tos, old lectures and interviews (Feynman's are fantastic), and the like.

\---

Grievances:

* The aforementioned suggestions that I keep up on my extremist ideology lessons and conspiracy theories about Clinton and her child slave moon base on Mars

* I now know what Peppa Pig is, kind of.

~~~
pbalau
> Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and
> conspiracy theory ramblings

Interesting, the suggestions I get are mostly sailing vlogs, featuring
scantily clad ladies. I sarcastically wonder why...

~~~
52-6F-62
Looks like I'll have to just start randomly clicking on videos like that to
skew the suggestions.

I have _no_ idea why I'm getting the kinds of suggestions I am. Thankfully
they're an increasing minority as I get more music these days. And Trailer
Park Boys haha.

------
AdeptusAquinas
Ironic that someone is saying this from Twitter, which is worse.

------
Bantros
Posted on the second worst thing to ever happen to the internet

------
demygale
Sure, but Ruby on Rails has to be in the top ten.

~~~
joemi
Why? I get that it might not be the ideal framework, but that's a long way
from being one of the worst things that's ever happened to the internet. (Or
are you just trolling?)

------
vernie
And this is coming from the creator of Rails.

------
bedhead
The problem is human nature, not Facebook.

------
neves
A modest declaration. FB, and some of its properties, is worser than this.

------
theredbox
I dont want to offend anyone but DHH turned himself from a technologist into
an annoying SJW with the holier than thou attitude.

Seriously that guy is big mouth about this and that but instead of
contributing something meaningful he is just spewing non sense all the time.

------
swagtricker
Clearly DHH wasn't around when AOL dumped it's user base onto a community that
was previously gated by having to actually learn something about computing in
order to get connected. P.S. - Get off my lawn;)

------
babyslothzoo
Agreed if you expand that to social media in general.

------
sunseb
It's funny how DHH is constantly bashing Google or Facebook, but we never hear
him about Amazon (because Amazon invested in his company, Basecamp).

------
rafiki6
So he's talking about the Web not the Internet. Counter argument, the web was
never that great to begin with and maybe let's stop pretending that some large
companies we all don't like for whatever reason are responsible? Social media
is opt-in. It is not a requirement to use the Internet and communicate
effectively with it. If you hate it so much, start a new web. But then you
quickly realize the Web is what it is due much more to economics associated
with it than anything else.

~~~
Artemis2
Unfortunately, with trackers such as the Like button embedded in every web
page and shadow profiles, social media is definitely not opt-in.

