I left Facebook when I read some press release about it being designed from the outset to make you feel bad because it keeps you engaged; hoping someone agrees with something you liked or shared and the dopamine hit it releases. I don’t like feeling manipulated and manipulation is facebooks modus operandi. All to track everything I do around the internet to sell me ads for $12/person/year in revenue.
I left Twitter for basically the same reason and when I’d stick on the site refreshing it all day hoping someone noticed the well thought out point I spent 3 hours putting together only to realize no one cares. Leaving both after about a week feels like when I have taken breaks from caffeine. It sucks at first but after a week, you feel refreshed and clean. I’m sure drug abstinence feels similar.
My father went down the rabbit hole of Facebook and shares political crap constantly, flooding peoples news feeds. There’s a feature on Facebook that lets you silently unfollow people so they’re on mute. Everyone of my family members who are Facebook friends with my dad have done this to him and don’t see anything he posts. He’s shouting into a black hole thinking the whole world is paying attention while in reality no one is.
He has said things that the man I grew up with would never have said and Facebook/ talk radio is to blame. We’re all vulnerable to it, which is why I try and stay away from it.
It's worse than facebook as far as the "get attention" vibe.
Granted all social media is about getting attention, and I don't think there is anything wrong with it necessarily. Attention is nice, there is good reason for it, but when the message is so tailored to just that and there isn't anything else, I don't know what the point is.
I recently switched careers from a long networking career to web development and thought I'd take another spin on Twitter, but rather I just get sites that paste a link to their website, and hordes of people posting programming truisms or career / resume / coding lifestyle fodder .... so little feels like that person wrote it, so much feels like what those people thing "a commercial about me" should be.
As for your other notes about the impact on people. It is horrifying. I see some relatives posting terrible things and I wish saying "but you've never met any of those people" had the impact that it should... but it doesn't.
Then, 2 years ago I created a new account that ONLY focused on a personal hobby of mine: retro-computing. I posted photos, links to cool articles, experiences from my workbench, etc. To my surprise, I began to get a lot of engagement. Like, 25-50X more than what I used to ever get on my professional persona's account.
I made a point to only follow back people who posted similarly to my own laser-beam focus. This takes a lot of time, but I have cultivated a stream of content I very much enjoy reading and scanning in my off-hours or lunch breaks. If you post about politics, or food, or cats, or simply whine or are acidic by nature, I don't follow those accounts back. I'm looking for good vibrations for a pastime hobby - that's it. And to my surprise (and those that know me personally and professionally that I've explained this to) it has worked beautifully for that. No one is a jerk and no one is trolling, none of that.
I've actually made several online friends around the country and the world as a result of the past 2+ years on Twitter.
Now, is my experience normal? No. If I were to guess it's probably in the top 2% in terms of the joy it brings me (vs. the rest of the user population who just hates to even look at Twitter anymore). And I totally get that.
I hope the service keeps going for my own greedy self-interests. But I also recognize that Mastadon may be the future, too. Or something else.
It's sort of how I changed my usage with Facebook. I deleted my personal account and created an anonymous account on FB that only is used for FB Groups (in, yes, the same hobby). These are closed groups that are moderated.
And holy smokes. It works.
Remove the YOU from social media, and use it to have fun about whatever it is you do to have fun, and it can actually be ... fun.
Most of my engagement consists of a private Slack groups with groups of friends who enjoy discussing various topics. (And within these groups I tend to subscribe to only the channels that I find more interesting.) Similarly, on Instagram I have one account where I follow a group of close friends I've mostly had since high school, and another where I mostly follow a bunch of car related channels I like. Having that separation and ability to go and seek out a specific kind of content is fantastic. (As opposed to just being subjected to a fire hose "feed" of whatever an algorithm thinks will be engaging.)
Actually, I resisted RSS in the past for much the same reason. Even though you curate the feed, I vastly preferred having a bookmarks folder of blogs and other sites I followed, which I could then pick and choose from to suit my mood, than to have it all served up in a reader.
It would be nice to see things move more in this direction. For example, the default Facebook view, rather than a general news feed, could be a set of groups you belong to, along with ad-hoc groups of interconnected contacts, encouraging you to pick what genre of updates or conversations suits your current mood. Even then I don't know if it would be siloed enough to capture the same benefits, but it would be a step in the right direction I think.
Discord today feels like how Facebook used to feel when it started: I'm actually friends with everyone on there, and we're having real conversations.
There's also 100% less politics, moral panic, virtue-signaling, outrage, ads, "fake news", Farmville invitations, and similar garbage.
Why use Twitter for such things, given its limitations? Why not use a blog, personal site, or forum where instead of just posting a link you can also write your thoughts about it, etc.? I get not wanting to bother with running a personal site or maintain a blog, but there are tons of hobby forums.
Personally, I never got the appeal of Twitter, and while I did enjoy early Facebook, since it jumped the shark I use it primarily as a long-term contact list for people that I don't talk to very often so that we'll still have a way to connect if one of us changes email addresses/phone numbers before the next time we talk.
It has limitations, but it also has a lot of reach. A blog might not reach the people you are trying to share things with.
I actually do. I run a forum that I treat like a blog and link to my posts (and other members' posts) of interest.
Extrapolate that and compare it to these same kids going to apps like instagram or tiktok which are even more visually-heavy (and less text) with content that it's even simpler and more optimized for user reach than user participation.
Twitter is, like many things, what you make of it.
With a default mode of garbage.
I do have some family members on Facebook and in the past I would use Facebook to do things like share vacation photos, intended mainly for family members and close friends and the like. This now seems like an impossible task to do reliably -- there's no way I know that someone who hasn't seen my photos and want to will see it, from my perspective. So for me it's back to the ol' Smugmug and email. (I imagine there are other social networks that are able to work like I want, but most of my family isn't on it, and all of my family has email. This just works for me.)
Facebook does have "groups" which do work quite well as you mentioned, and Facebook works well from my perspective as an announcement / engagement platform for businesses and hobbies. Much of their core social network however seems broken to me personally.
(Regarding the parent linked article, I'm kind of curious where they are going to though and a better understanding of the reasons behind the shift. Most articles I've Googled don't seem to dive very deeply into these things beyond vague demographic musings like "Facebook isn't cool for teenagers" and mentioning Instagram and Snapchat as the replacement. The analysis level isn't even standard media depth to me, even more so than usual. If I look for articles on other things in relative decline where I do have a fair bit of insight -- like say NASCAR racing -- the general media articles actually seemed to (sometimes) make an effort to explain the often seem to make more efforts at explaining the declines, because the reasons are often multi-faceted. I have to believe that any Facebook decline is driven by a lot more details than "my parents are on Facebook".)
This doesn't change the fact that 99% of things people give credit for to social media can be easily done without mediation through a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Neither does it change the fact that Twitter and Facebook have a whole slew of horrible social effects. Centralization of the web, political polarization, emergent mobs trying to ruin people's lives, rise in depression and suicide rates, normalization of global surveillance, normalization of censorship, etc, etc.
Jaron Lanier has some interesting thoughts on the economy behind some of this:
Did you ever stop to think why? It's not like the barrier of entry was high. People simply did not find it worth their time. Chances are, big social media isn't worth their time either, but people are kept there by social pressure and purpose-built addiction mechanisms. And you're spinning it as if this is some kind of positive thing.
Connectivity is like food. The benefits to the person don's scale linearly. Forums and IM were already above the bare minimum. They were like a hearty meal. Social media today is like having a binge eating disorder.
I have a hard and fast rule of not friending anyone I see regularly or have a real private or personal relationship with (No family, no neighbors, no current coworkers). Avoids so much drama.
It's just finding those folks is hard.
I don't post personal stuff, I'm also not really intrested in that.
Although it pretends that replies are equivalent to top-level tweets, they're not really. It's just that there's a reply thread attach to everything.
Basically, CNN will tell you what your head of state did. Your regional media will tell you what your legislative representative did if it was newsworthy.
Twitter lets you keep tabs on your city councilman.
A sign of the times. A lot of people are just really pissed off right now. I also think a lot of people that used to ignore politics realized that it matters...
While political opinions are more numerous, they're divorced from evidence and calcified. As useful as no opinion, and possibly worse. (Then again, that's my opinion, right?)
The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. Letters, cars, phones, internet, every invention expanded the reach of individual "community" while cost acted as friction to prevent bad ideas from gaining too much momentum - individuals still had to engage with their local community too.
Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero. We can talk to anyone or about anything at any time. Great for early adopters and their critical/creative tendencies, but mass adoption by consumers has enabled mass tribalist tendencies to fully decouple from proximity constraints. This might be the "boiling point" for historical conflicts, but "supercritical" seems more appropriate here.
Media consolidation has been synonymous with consolidation of broadcasting viewer opinions and their political parties - many unhappy with both choices but faced with the false dichotomy of "their guy" and "the enemy". Meanwhile grass-roots are numerous but now diffuse and ineffective, cut off from broadcasting influence and digitally disconnected.
Hopefully society starts correcting back to offline engagement. Anecdotes suggest we are, but undoing the damage will still take a while.
>The cost of communication, price and latency, has always defined the structure of our communities. [..] Social media finally brought the cost to essentially zero.
Worse. It brought it in the negative, at least perceptually.
It is people trapped in their echo chambers. Some chambers are better than others (some, much better, but alas). I personally don't hold much hope for things to ever get de-calcified without some kind of large-scale real-world incident to force it. It is almost like two entirely different species of humans at this point who are almost incapable of empathising with each other.
(and note, in many cases, refusing to empathise.... I refuse to empathize with alt-right supporters for example.)
Democracies have never been about evidence, they are about making sure the "rulers" enjoy the support of the people and are strongly incentivised to listen to the concerns of said people. Democracies have a long and storied history of being arbitrary and unfair in defiance of evidence.
In light of that, I'd suggest interpreting political opinions as "I think this person understands what my problems are". When I mentally add that to the end of a political rant usually the rant moves from incomprehensible railing against reality to something rational, but disagreeable.
Other than that, and perhaps sharing more substantive articles/blog posts/etc to a wider audience, it's at best silly, and at worse, well...much worse.
You can also disable Twitter's annoying engagement-boosting features by muting special undocumented tokens like "suggest_recycled_tweet_inline" and "suggest_who_to_follow". https://www.androidpolice.com/2018/09/19/twitters-annoying-f...
So that’s all to say that there are less common uses of these platforms than you might know. Also, because of how I use it, Twitter doesn’t bother showing me any ads. I get about one ad a week. Go figure.
I think a huge feature for that is “mute”. Being publicly observed to follow a Twitter without actually seeing its content is, shamefully enough, important and useful a lot more than you’d think.
I will tell you what I use it for: follow interesting people, and pictures of cute animals. My goto rule of thumb for the first is, are they saying something where you go "hu?" in a positive way?
I have a few people in my feed who do this, from both sides. It almost feels like they've turned into nothing but meme/share-bots. It gets so annoying that I should probably block them already.
If you try to call out the content, you either get childishly shouted down because you're on "the other side", or called out as "the problem" because you don't agree with their group-think.
It feels good to have someone verbalize this.
I can't enjoy much social media anymore because there's an expectation that discussing anything opinionated requires a preface about what side you're on.
Making a politically neutral statement means you're with the enemy (where the enemy is on the side opposite whoever reads your neutral statement).
I'm not even referring to politics or discussion of world events: even more futurist/what-if thoughts about how society works/could work.
HN is the calmest place to have a discussion with someone, because no one's looking for clues about your personal beliefs and what side you're ostensibly warring for.
9 times out of 10, only the content of your comment seems to matter. As it should be.
just scroll to the bottom where everything is downvote-collapsed already, anything that isn't Silicon Valley political echo chamber isn't really discussed holistically and garners the same "you're the enemy" or "you're not in the middle if you don't already agree with me" response as other networks
need a patch for this
My thoughts are that Americans need a credible external threat for unity, and currently we don't have one. The Cold War thing jumped the shark decades ago and just doesn't have unifying consensus as being a problem for America, the religious extremist story has fallen apart with everyone knowing its all part of our cozy relationship with the House of Saud. So here we are
Honestly if I talk/debate with someone long enough I can tell if they won’t be convinced, but sometimes it’s not the person you are debating that you are going to convince, but someone on the sidelines. Honestly the people that are most vocal are likely the ones that are already polarized and irrational, but that doesn’t mean the world is full of irrational people. Sometimes I believe not participating in an online debate is the right thing to do, but on the other hand the only way the tone will change about politics is if people change it.
The message is "I AM A DEVOTED MEMBER OF THIS TRIBE, AND I'M READY TO FIGHT FOR IT! DON'T ABANDON ME!"
What I realized recently is that Facebook is built in a way that makes it really hard to have a real conversation. People only share links and shout their opinions with no real place for exchange.
I said that because the more I think about it, the more I find social media platforms don't really help me stay in touch with anyone. I mean, yeah, I can see they got a third kid or that hunting season was great this year, but nothing near a real conversation around a coffee or a beer.
That's why I started using MatterMost ,an open source Slack clone, or like I tell my less tech-savvy friends: IRC on steroids. (IRC was the go to choice when we were teens)
1. There is no private (there is, but ignore that)
2. Choose a topic to post about. Further that and none else.
3. Post topical discussions only.
4. Don't involve yourself in screeds. There will be a sentence that is taken out of context.
Doing these creates a really cool group over $thing. And that positive attraction pulls more in :)
This is the good side of social media: connecting people with similar interests from around the world.
It became work to make Facebook worthwhile.
Such a signal, combined with actual research on the veracity and tone of the post could be combined to highlight places where people need help and where bad actors might be plying their wares.
But I don't honestly expect anyone in management at Facebook to advocate such a system.
It would instantly be weaponized. Already, right-wing groups specialize in taking down antifa and LGBT pages on Facebook or Twitter by abusing the report feature. To make it worse, Facebook apparently automatically locks pages upon getting a high number of reports in a short timeframe.
You can bet that anything not from Fox News or Infowars would be flag-abused as "fake news" in an instant.
The one my in-laws have on all day is Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Levin. It's a constant stream of angry/crazy white guy. Even the late night isn't a refuge. Whatever the show is that used to be Art Bell is quasi-political now.
I've ... accidentally ... tuned in to Hannity on occasion. I thought I'd tuned in to the local lunatic asylum.
How is it with all our technology, the cutting edge are these digital septic tanks (or sewers if you live in the city)?
Or just willing to take the paycheck while pushing everything else to the back of your mind.
I have my facebook only to announce big events and let immigration officers know that I love my wife very much by having a detailed photo album of all our interactions over many years.
It's incredibly annoying that at this juncture I have to keep it because of what other people / entities want rather than myself. This is why I refuse to use LinkdIn instead of job boards or the career sites for the company.
The aggressive commercialization of Social Media has been the greatest failure to be borne out of the internet and our society will be suffering its effects for many years. At least the stockholders (who are probably too darn old to use the site) are very happy.
Edit: I also very much appreciate the irony of spending so much time and energy on posting on Hacker News!
I think some people unconsciously know this, but they fail to act on it due to the addictive nature of the product, creating false excuses to justify their account (it doesn't matter how important you think you are, no one cares really).
Others are completely oblivious to what Facebook is doing to them. I don't think there is any hope for them. Facebook will continue to use them to squeeze every bit of free time they have into pointless egocentric activity.
The Brainwashing Of My Dad
FWIW I now have my own blog (not associated with HN, yet) that I use to type out my thoughts on things. I've shared it with a few people in my life that I think might care. The act of it being a blog instead of posts on Facebook is very intentional, and I don't care that not many see it. It is more of a journal.
But if that is the reason why you are reading or traveling, you might as well not.
Travel or read book to get new perspectives, experiences and learn new things. Not to tell others to make yourself feel superior over others.
I would be interested in the values for other platforms. I think it builds a more tangible argument when explaining the hidden costs of using various "free" products.
"Social Media Use Associated With Depression Among U.S. Young Adults"
"There is increasing evidence that the Internet and social media can influence suicide-related behavior. "
It's an uncomfortable topic to broach, but you can't blame everyone else but your father for the opinions he holds.
Poster should call him out. Say you find it unpleasant. If the online echo chamber extends into real life as well he's got no hope.
I'll confess I actually like using Facebook because it allows me to keep engaged and in touch with family with much less effort than before -- but whatever timeline changes they keep doing, I now see the same stories on my scroll. If I log in five times during the day, i see the same set of stories each of the five times.
Result: I don't check it as much, dont want to check it as much. So much for ranking functions.
Snapchat has mostly been killed by monetization, but instagram is still on life support for now. Losing the chronological timeline was quite the blow, though. Is it really that hard to balance "pleasant place to share my life" and "shove ads into my face"?
Facebook, I've been signed up since you first opened up to non-edu accounts.. you're telling me there's nothing at all more to display?
Not sure where that's going to pop up next.
Facebook in 2007 was also mostly about friends, and not selling me stuff that it couldn't possibly know I was interested in unless my movements over the entire internet were being tracked.
I honestly do like seeing pics of my friends and their many animals. I like knowing what events people are going to. Other than that, I don't care.
I can't post without feeling like an attention seeker; because that's how I see most people who do post. It's to the point where I stopped sharing things I think my friends might actually find interesting... I'm out here all by myself in the end.
I'm just done with it.
Doing so under your own name, yes. That's why I think places like Reddit are better suited to these kinds of silly things, assuming you don't get doxxed, which can happen.
Any company that wouldn’t want to hire me because they find my bleeding heart libertarian pro-capitalist views offensive is not a company I would want to work for. Hell they would probably be confused about where I stand on most things.
But then something happened...
What are you referring to here? Could you elaborate? Newspaper coverage of social media?
Remember that. We're being used here just as much as on the FAANG platforms.
We don't delete comments outright except when the author requests it.
The unmutable spam in my inbox forced me to turn off all Facebook mail notifications, and the user-hostile behavior made me hate the platform and not want to come back to it, almost out of spite.
I'll bet these underhanded tactics performed great in A/B testing. But big picture, they should not be surprised that people are leaving in droves after deliberately degrading user experience.
FB can always promote Instagram or Whatsapp into their main money cow.
I'd like to delete it entirely but at the moment too many people still use messenger to contact me.
If only there was a Messenger API to setup an autoresponder with alternate contact info...
1.) VOIP providers have low-barriers to sign-up (typically just a credit card fraud check + check to see if IP or address is from certain countries where fraud calls are common). The up-side to this is that it makes the user experience more friendly to real customers b/c they don't have to wait around, but the downside is that any spammer semi-familiar with the checks that get done can sign up and start sending spam calls for a day or two before most places get complaints and shut them down. The fact that many voip providers allow users to set their Display Id to anything too without any approval also is also really convenient for spammers (ie, there aren't usually ways to immediately detect when a user fraudently set their Caller Id to the name of a bank or something)
2.) APIs everywhere. Twilio got big in part b/c it made APIs available, but the smaller providers are catching up and also adding APIs for texting and calling services. Spammers can automate their spam and re-use the scripts between different accounts when they get banned, so it makes sending out spam texts easier too.
3.) VOIP companies actually are ok with some degree of spam, as long as the spammers pay their bills. So they don't have a motivation to actually stop all of it. Instead of blocking all spam-ish calls outright, some places will just make a deal so that some callers (identified by having a high rate of unanswered calls + very short length calls) pay a higher rate to compensate for potential reputation damage. This is meant for legal cold-calling I imagine, but in practice, they don't know what is actually being said on those phone calls.
Re-activating the Facebook side of the account resolved the issue. Caveat deactivator.
I kinda wish you could do that for events...
FB can shift its model to becoming like priceline. Just try to buy up all the social networks. For example most travel site you probably use are owned by priceline. The same way Facebook could maybe buy up other social networks.
It's easy to get cynical about this but what I like about Instagram as opposed to facebook is that it's superficial by design. That makes it way less of a "thing".
It doesn't pretend like it truly "manages your social life" like facebook does, it's just funny pictures your extroverted friend posts. Instagram stories are gone after 24 hours. They're temporal. I know people who post 10 or 20 things a day on stories and maybe a pic here and there every couple of weeks otherwise.
Similarly, WhatsApp is SMS. SMS running through facebook but it's not very organized, either. My friend deleted WhatsApp, now we text via SMS and I see no difference. A group I was part of decided to use Telegram, so I just made a Telegram account, no friction whatsoever, there's no reason to feel like you're leaving something behind. People in Europe use it because mobile internet is way cheaper than paying for SMS since a text message via mobile internet is like a couple of bytes of traffic. Same with images. Group chat is nice. But it's all not very... connected.
It doesn't really make a profile, old messages are basically just an archive that nobody bothers to look through. I'm aware that facebook probably runs every machine learning algorithm ever invented through that data but from a user's perspective, it's way less of a "world", it's just one tool to share messages/pictures. It's not your life. Social networks aren't "just facebook" anymore and they're way less centralized that way.
There's bets they're clearly taking across companies (like stories), and they definitely are trying to flow traffic between Instagram and Facebook, but to some degree they've kept each app their own and that has only worked in their favour so far.
It's been 8 years (the first iPad was released in 2010) and the platform has certainly proven itself not to be a fad.
Instagram looks like an actual joke on my iPad Pro 12".
It feels like running a 640x480 app on a 4k capable screen.
It's a joke that they would ignore what a crappy experience it is.
Actually, most travel sites you use are probably owned by Expedia, then priceline.
Together, they own every single major web sites about travel.
Does TripAdivsor not qualify as a "major website about travel"? I don't actually know what share of travel-related web traffic they get, and I realize that Expedia and Priceline both own lots of other sites in the space.
When you join the company, they will explain you the portfolio of brands and how they link together. A user might leave a site and spend money somewhere else, but it's alright as long as it stays in the family.
For context, here's where you can see the substantial differences in ownership: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TRIP/holders/ vs https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/EXPE/holders/ .
And here's where you can see that they share no board members: http://ir.tripadvisor.com/corporate-governance/board-of-dire... vs https://www.expediagroup.com/about/leadership/ .
A) Stories and TV like content to compete with Snap
B) Ads integrated into their proprietary browser (aka Instagram app)
C) Sponsored live events
They’ve essentially made a closed ecosystem without having to rely on a desktop browser and they’re more mobile centric than Facebook. Furthermore, Visual content is the basis for IG and it lends itself better for monetization.
If anything, IG works better for facebook and its users because it's more honest. It's a platform for photo and video sharing and loads of people just use it to voluntarily follow brands anyway. In some ways, instagram is facebook's distilled product - rather than a directory which became everything, it's just a feed of content, so the terms and user expectations are different.
That being said, it suffers from Facebook syndrome to the extent that you literally have to fight the platform to make it usable. I'm holding out for some kind of federated hybrid of instagram/facebook in the near future with a chronological timeline and a reasonable volume of ads (to keep the lights on)/subscription option.
It’s all shit but this shit is shinier!
Facebook already needs a permissions from multiple regulators if it attempts to buy competitor – not just from US regulators.
WhatsApp and Instagram acquisitions needed approvals from EU before they could continue.
What would it mean for a US based company if they decided to acquire two other US based companies and US regulators approved it, but EU regulators didn't?
What would happen if the company went forward with the acquisition anyway?
Companies like Facebook aren't "US based" in any way that means anything except for where their CEO normally works and which stock exchange their shares are traded on - they have operations that are central to their business all over the world, and many of those can be disrupted.
In theory FB could just agree with EU that they will cease all operations in EU and leave in peace, but that would effectively kill FB over long term. Competitors would crush them. Imagine a mobile carrier who can't make calls to EU or email provider who can't sent or receive calls from EU. FB is in the same situation. It's a social network. Value for the users comes from connections.
Every international company negotiates some kind of deal if they want to stay international.
Pretty sure it's not in the US, or at least can be halted by the disapproval of antitrust regulators.
For example: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/staples-office-depot-merge...
That's the key though, they can continue to try until someone sits up and takes notice. Depending on the regulatory climate at any given time a company will have varying degrees of success with this before they are stopped outright before buying any more competition. Either that or they suddenly start abusing their positions such that people/other companies complain enough for regulators to take notice of them.
It's also logical. I mean, what can you do when you are the market leader already.
They seem to have moved to more of a distributed social media system. That is, they don't seem to have a central place where they communicate with friends. They seem to move between texts, facetime, tumblr, instagram, phone calls (!), etc. in a fluid manner. Anything except for Facebook (which has a negative stigma these days). They don't seem to be tied down to any one platform anymore.
The nice thing about the other platforms isn't that they don't have "old people" on them. It's specifically that your parents and relatives won't even think to add you on, say, Snapchat.
Also note that the apps that teens mostly do interact with parents through now, consist mostly of group-chat apps like Messenger or WeChat, where there is an explicit separation of social contexts (the groups you're chatting with), such that you don't need to worry about your relatives seeing anything as long as you don't put it in your family group.
The only people I would like to broadcast to are close friends or strangers on the internet.
I don't have that many close friends, so a bigger IM group is enough for that. (I guess Instagram might work if you have lots of "close" friends.)
That leaves only my need to anonymously talk to the internet. So Twitter, reddit, personal blogs?
From my perspective, the very best action that I can take, in order to limit his vulnerability later on in life, is to just start educating him on how to act appropriately online. But I can only base that education on the view that I've built up of these gargantuan and ever-multiplying systems of manipulation, which leads back to my main worry: I know that there will come a time when I can no longer keep my view of these systems up-to-date, and by extension, help to keep my son educated about his and my own vulnerabilities to them. I find myself worrying a lot about his future these days...
The news just like to report bad events more and it biases our view.
'Enlightenment Now' by Pinker really explains it - we shouldn't be so pessimistic, as Obama said if you could choose any time up until now in which to exist (without being able to pick the conditions of your birth) you would choose today.
Aah. Just like how we moved from text, the mall, AIM, Yahoo!, CokeMusic/Habbohotel, MySpace, and phone calls (!), etc. in a fluid manner.
everything changes, and yet nothing changes
I also hold a monthly gamedev meetup, which would be utterly impossible without Facebook. The attendance has grown from 5 to 30 people in a few months and is now helping jump start the game development scene in the country (not because of my meetup).
Despite this, I have a deep hatred towards the platform and can't stand how people around me get locked into feedback loops of endless scrolling. I uninstalled the app on my phone a year ago, kept messenger. Also, I haven't seen the news feed in more than 2 years, after installing a plugin that blocks it. The productivity gains were and still are immeasurable.
I see the platform as a versatile and useful tool to help connect with others and I hope that Facebook will try to improve it and remove some of its ethically questionable features, but it's still evil.
It's a necessary evil.
People make such a big deal out of how impossible their social lives would be without Facebook but never actually try it. I honestly don't get it.
I have an amusing anecdote about being the one friend without Facebook.
Someone told me about a birthday party- they told me where it was and what time to be there. They did not tell me that our group was not actually invited and our arrival would be a surprise.
The rest of the group was half an hour late. I was not. They all wanted to arrive together and were delayed, but no one filled me in on the new time.
And that's the story about how I awkwardly attended a party for 30min where I knew no one but the birthday woman and it was obvious to everyone that I was not actually invited.
All was well once my friends arrived. Still, what a nightmare that was.
So either I can be there and find out about them, or I can hope someone I know notices them and notifies me.
Both are terrible options.
One challenge I face, though, is that I'm unwilling to let my Facebook account break out of its silo by linking it to anything else (and of course I'd love to kill it entirely) so event discovery becomes more challenging without the private groups I'm currently a member of and family/friends information FB currently holds.
That only works if they already know you. If you wanna start something new, it might benefit from having the outreach that facebook has.
Guys, you're proving what everybody is starting to realize; Facebook has become masters at making people addicted to them. Every excuse I see like this one is nothing more than justification for an addiction. I hear it all the time. Me: "I'm not on Facebook." Them: "Oh, I could never do that" and then the proceeds to outline some extenuating circumstance that they claim is unique to them which is in fact unique to NOBODY. Because Facebook is that good at making people addicted to it.
I challenge you to try it. Disable your account for six weeks and see how you feel. If you're miserable, fine. Go back. But at least try it!
Really all I want is a solid app that's only Facebook's event system and friend lists and nothing else.
But I can't see any growth-motivated company ever making that and just stopping there. I'd even pay for it, if I thought they wouldn't try to make more money after that. Maybe it would have to be a non-profit.
My co-founder and I are building a groups and events system (like Meetup) that has a friends list and things like instant messaging. Our business model at the moment is freemium with ads and a limited organizer experience (you can create small groups/events) or we are offering a small subscription ~$5/mo. The subscription model removes the ads, unlocks all organizer features, and removes all limits on organizing groups/events such as being able to create a hierarchical organization with the tooling to manage it.
We are currently in YC Startup School as Geddy at geddy.io and we plan to launch soon.
My main concern is that if you're in startup-crazy VC-funded world, you're eventually going to try to make more money, somehow, off my presence on your site -- through selling data or advertising or whatever.
If I do join it, I'll immediately leave when that happens. But if I think it might happen, I won't join it. The thing that would get me really interested would be a promise (ideally a legally restrictive one, like being a B-corp or a non-profit) that that won't happen.
I think that everyone (at least in my age group?) is slowly becoming enormously skeptical of companies offering services. I _want_ to use a service forever and have it be good and trustworthy. But in practice I feel like I'm getting tricked and manipulated at every turn, which is just slowly turning me into a luddite.
I believe you still need a FB account.
There are plenty of paid games that do not include any kind of microtransaction. I'd consider the paid-games ecosystem to be surprisingly healthy these days. But to be fair, it's all console/PC. Mobile games are likely to remain a F2P wasteland.
Facebook and similar make me wary of getting excited about anything which seems superficially good without first understanding the underlying intentions of the creators.