
Stop Using Facebook - mengledowl
https://www.stopusingfacebook.co/
======
alehul
> Because Facebook hired climate change deniers as fact-checkers.

Source:

> Facebook has announced that it was teaming up with CheckYourFact.com, which
> is an offshoot of the anti-science media site, The Daily Caller

> The CheckYourFact website brags that: "Our mission is a non-partisan one.
> We're loyal to neither people nor parties — only the truth. And while the
> fact-checking industry continues to grow, there are still countless
> assertions that go unchecked. We exist to fill in the gaps."

Source's source:

> The Daily Caller, which has published misinformation about climate science
> for years, was co-founded by the science-denying Fox News host Tucker
> Carlson and is backed by major conservative donors, including Charles and
> David Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel barons who are the single biggest
> funders of climate science misinformation.

They use a source, which uses a source, which argues that CheckYourFact
employees are climate change deniers because it's a spin-off of a site that
was donated to by climate change deniers.

Looking at the evidence, one of the first links I saw on CheckYourFact's site
was debunking a bad thing that Hillary supposedly said [1], which suggests it
is not the same in agenda as The Daily Caller.

To the creator of this site: If you want this to have an impact, present the
facts as-is, with no sensationalism or dramatization. Most of what you're
writing very well may be true, and this seems like a noble cause, but if a
reader can pick apart one questionable if not false statement, its legitimacy
will be destroyed.

(If you're interested in a great piece on the importance of making claims
conservatively and retaining legitimacy in reporting/writing, highly recommend
checking out Spotlight, which chronicles the Boston Globe's exposure of the
Catholic Church protecting pedophile priests).

[1] [https://checkyourfact.com/2019/11/20/fact-check-hillary-
clin...](https://checkyourfact.com/2019/11/20/fact-check-hillary-clinton-
donna-brazile-email-wikileaks-donald-trump/)

------
amelius
I only use Facebook for events, yet there seems to be no alternative, partly
because of the network effect where small and large organizations keep posting
their events only to Facebook.

If there was some kind of bot that would automatically crosspost events from
Facebook to other social media platforms, then perhaps there would be a chance
of winning me over.

~~~
jakub_g
On top of that, you have certain niche online communities that seem to only be
on FB those days (the days of websites with discussion forums are long gone,
sadly).

Also, some of my (smart) friends insist on using FB/Messenger for group
messaging. I tried to convert them to Whatsapp a few years ago which IMO is
way superior, but they still prefer Messenger (which I won't ever install, so
I have to use FB web to keep in touch with them).

Whatsapp is now FB-owned, so lately we wanted to move our workgroup chat to
Telegram, but one of coworkers boycotted the idea, because she has already a
dozen different apps to keep in touch with her friends all over the world and
she refuses to install yet another app.

The network effects and inertia are really hard to overcome.

~~~
iudqnolq
FYI Telegram uses dubious encryption and lies about their business (for ex
calling themselves a nonprofit when they aren't) and is run by a Russian
oligarch who started spending on democracy-related causes after a falling out
with Putin. See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281788](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15281788)
for example.

WhatsApp's encryption protocol (Axolotl) comes from the open source secure
messaging app Signal. If you can't get people to use Signal, WhatsApp is at
least much better than Telegram or Facebook messenger.

------
svara
I know it's almost become a trope here already, but I'm really becoming
increasingly worried about the cultural impact of the kind of entertainment
that optimizes for rapid action / reward cycles. Facebook is definitely in
that class, even if to me personally it's never been that attractive.

I used to say that it was impossible for me to understand how people could
become hooked on activities as ridiculous as gambling on slot machines, and
yet I have to shamefully admit that I've probably now spent one or two full
years of my life just cycling through different news sites, even when I knew I
had probably read almost all of the interesting articles already.

The insidious thing about these things is that you do get something out of it,
too. I've come to realize that it's not worth it ultimately. For me, the point
where I started to understand that this really wasn't healthy was when I
realized that the hours I spent on rapid-reward websites per day was pretty
well (negatively) correlated with my mood. It can become an escapist activity,
the go-to thing to do to avoid facing actual real-world issues.

I think rapid-reward websites are particularly dangerous to people who are
intrinsically very curious and thus drawn to novel information. It's sad to
think how much genuinely interesting thoughts of genuinely worthwhile thinkers
you could absorb instead, if these sites didn't exhert such a pull. The
pessimist in me is really worried about all the 12-year-old John von Neumann's
right now being intellectually poisoned by ubiquitous, rapid-reward
entertainment.

Anyway, I finally made the decision to change something and blocked almost all
of the rapid-reward sites in my hosts file, via browser extension and Android
apps... Defense in depth. ;) [1] Now, when I feel really compelled to check
some news site, I go for a run. I can honestly say that this is one of the
things that I have done in my life that has had the biggest positive impact on
my well-being, relative to the effort needed.

[1] Yes, I've made an exception for HN and for one super boring newspaper
website. I feel those are actually worth it.

------
yoz-y
I think these calls to action are preaching to the choir. I don't even use
Facebook and my eyes glazed over when seeing this.

~~~
jammygit
Why are “these calls to action” just preaching to the choir? Over the last
year a bunch of people I know have stopped using google search, Facebook, and
the epic games launcher. It’s working slowly

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Actual Google and Facebook usage data strongly suggests otherwise. In cases
where one could argue that people are leaving Facebook for a competitor, it
has nothing to do with privacy concerns (it would certainly be laughable if
anyone thought TikTok would be better in terms of privacy).

~~~
gremlinsinc
I've left mostly because of numbness FB leaves me w/ \-- my mind is literally
numb from all the hate articles/etc propagated and I see the same crap over
and over.

I still have an account, and use messenger w/ wife when she's out and about...
but for a social/news 'feed', I've moved over to reddit... the
conversations/discussions are a LOT deeper and less assinine (and that's
saying something considering some of the culture at reddit can be toxic
itself). Plus I can drill down on topics via multi-reddits and
such...depending on my mood.

There's also a bit more candor and shock factor on reddit cause of the
supposed anonymity people tend to say what they really think even when it's
appalling to most other people, so you definitely get a full-spectrum of
discussion. It just feels more 'cerebral'.

~~~
yoz-y
The big difference between reddit and facebook discussion (at least outside of
facebook groups) is that people group by interest rather than social graph.
Most of my family and friends are not interested in stuff I am.

------
paranoiac
Start regulating Facebook.

There, I fixed it to make it more realistic, otherwise it’s about as useful as
saying “Stop Using Oil”.

~~~
vnorilo
Don't we kind of need to stop using oil though?

~~~
paranoiac
The point is that a) it’s unfair to expect individual consumers to make a
difference and b) it’s not realistic to expect individual consumers to make a
difference because network effects are so powerful. The modern world exists in
part because of cheap, plentiful oil. If you live most places in the US, you
need a car, and probably a gas-powered one at that. Similarly, Facebook
gobbles up information about you even if you decide not to use it. You can’t
stop using Facebook even if you aren’t using Facebook, because Facebook is
actually using _you_ and the billions of other people it siphons data from.
This libertarian wet dream of “just don’t use it” doesn’t work on a large
scale.

~~~
6510
Sorry for being toxic but would that mean saying we shouldn't tell people to
stop using Facebook will fall on deaf ears as well?

Ideally they would stop using Facebook but if people can just be aware of the
horrors involved they can stop using it in full ignorance.

------
tzs
The site would make a stronger case if it just kept its stronger points and
dropped the ones that are weak. Some weak ones:

This would make a better case if it dropped the ones that are kind of weak.

> Because Facebook was covertly paying teens 13 years old and older to spy on
> them.

Didn't this involve people who explicitly download and app that told you it
was going to gather this data for research in exchange for payment? I'm having
a bit of a problem seeing what was covert about it.

> Because Facebook gave exclusive access to your private messages and friends
> to large tech companies, device vendors, retailers, entertainment sites,
> automakers and media organizations.

And with this one I'm having a bit of trouble understanding what "exclusive
access" means here. It sounds like it was pretty much the opposite of
exclusive. I'm not saying giving you data out non-exclusively is better than
giving it out exclusively--just that this "exclusive access" claim makes
little sense.

> Because Facebook facilitated Brexit by spreading misinformation, made a
> fortune and tried to sue to prevent people from finding out.

The essences of this seems to be that people pushing "leave" bought ads on
Facebook, and that some of the people who bought the ads may have been shady.

> Because Facebook employees say “F*ck ethics, money is everything”.

One engineer said that on Blind. I'm pretty sure you can find one employee
with that attitude at pretty much any employer that pays well and has over 100
employees.

------
rvz
As I and many privacy advocates would love people to immediately stop using
Facebook for privacy-respecting alternatives, I'm afraid that the users won't
leave FB, IG or WhatsApp unless the so-called 'Influencers' and their friends
leave for other alternatives as they can 'influence' the 'millions' of
followers to another platform.

On top of that it's difficult to convince these 'influencers' to move due to
the reasons outlined on this web-page if they start to lose their followers,
popularity and their money. They will crawl back to FB/IG again if this
happens. Rather than target general users, they must target the influencers
with millions of users.

Every major social network always had these 'influencers' using it first and
their followers always jumping on it afterwards. If a privacy-respecting
alternative can somehow help grow an 'influencers' reach or even make them
more money without violating their privacy, they will stay and their millions
of users will follow them.

------
mkandler
I like the idea of offering alternatives, but have you considered
crowdsourcing those apps? Could add an extra level of transparency if people
could select/vote on which alternatives really are better (because that can be
awfully subjective).

It would be interesting to link to privacy policies and other relevant
information as well!

~~~
thekyle
You mean like AlternativeTo does?

[https://alternativeto.net/software/facebook/](https://alternativeto.net/software/facebook/)

~~~
mkandler
Good point, though I tend to get too distracted on AlternativeTo. Not sure if
it's the design or just too many options and not enough votes. Measuring
alternatives on specific dimensions related to the problems with Facebook
could be interesting!

------
fwxwi
Oh boy this again.

Everybody has heard about all these things on the telly, on online newspapers,
etc. The media launched a massive campaign against Facebook. It didn't work.
People find value in Facebook and they don't care about your predicament. Let
people enjoy things!

------
Nextgrid
The list of reasons is good but the proposed alternatives in terms of social
media (as opposed to messaging - which are pretty good) is laughable. Mastodon
and all these federated services IMO fail to address the main problem while
bringing several other problems to the table; I've explained this in a
previous post
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317513](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317513))
which I'll quote here:

> One big issue is that there’s nothing decentralised that currently exists
> that can rival the quality & user experience of mainstream social networks,
> and decentralisation comes with its own problems (I personally think the
> problem with mainstream social media is its ad-based business model and not
> centralisation). Mastodon (which seems to be the biggest alternative being
> proposed) is still a joke, even the name and branding sounds awful IMO. And
> who in their right mind thought calling a post a “toot”
> ([https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/toot](https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/toot))
> was a good idea. Besides the branding, decentralisation comes with its own
> issues like the lack of network-wide content moderation and agreement on
> what content is acceptable. There are solutions (more like hacks) around
> this where instance admins can choose not to federate with instances they
> don’t like the policies of, but it then causes problems for end-users where
> they can’t communicate with their peers on those banned instances despite
> all of them being on Mastodon. Good luck explaining to a non-technical
> person why they can’t talk to/see the posts of certain people despite them
> all being on Mastodon, and the solution is to spend time choosing an
> instance with policies you agree with and making sure your friends are on it
> or on a similar instance that’s not banned by yours, and then hoping the
> instances stay online without any kind of funding (there’s also no knowledge
> of whether they would scale to the size of mainstream social networks). The
> solution IMO is not Mastodon or any of these fringe social networks. The
> main problem is the lack of an ethical business model in mainstream social
> media. The solution would be to vote with your wallets and fund a better
> Facebook alternative - it could even show the current social networks that
> there’s profit to be made treating their users with respect and make the
> situation better for everyone else too.

~~~
dysproz
I think that app does not make it successfull. App can be awful, because
friends that use it with us are the real value of social media. So if you’ll
convince most of your friends to use Mastodon, it may be pretty good social
media app. You are right that non-technical people may find hard to use these
‘super secure alternatives’, but apparently media buzz about evil Facebook did
the job and nowadays it’s not always obvious that someone is on Facebook. I
have some friends that decided to use apps that are not really social media
apps as substitute to Facebook - and it turns out that reddit or signal may be
a great social media place even though it’s not really designed to be one. :-)

------
dredmorbius
A site that renders with JS disabled would be a very good idea here.

Something's also broken the Internet Archive's ability to save the site right
now, see:

[https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.stopusingfacebook.c...](https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.stopusingfacebook.co/)

------
novok
If your going to suggest alternatives, don't suggest telegram with all of it's
own privacy issues.

