Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I dislike Facebook but using it means you should agree with how they monetize their business.





The network effects of sites like Facebook, YouTube, Google, and Twitter oftentimes mean taking the ethical stance and "not being part of it" can create serious harm to your business/career/vocation.

There's a reason Instagram Influencer and YouTuber are, despite the sniggering of many people, real jobs that earn tons of money for those skilled in plying the craft.


This is especially true in a lot of developing countries, it's so bad Facebook is effectively considered the internet in many parts of the world. Just look at their ridiculously anti-competitive internet.org/free basics service which is quite dangerous due to the extreme network effect it creates by blocking nearly all smaller 3rd party websites for most users on that service(even though there are some search engines available they will be of little use unless a user can access the pages in the search results).

Every tool available should be used to fight Facebook's world takeover plans, including Ad-blocking aggressively. In cases where it's not practical to entirely avoid Facebook the most ethical option is to aggressively block all their monetization paths so as not to further their dangerous expansion ambitions.


True.

I'm currently in the Philippines and a lot of businesses don't have their own web sites and just have Facebook and Instagram pages.

I just browse Facebook without logging in but it has a huge dialog asking me to log in.

Of course there are exceptions to the rule but most people are not IG Influencers and Youtubers so opting out of these social media services are not as painful.


Gotta love pinoy marketing.

Treats.

Not just a class of food but a brand for gas stations to sell food.


You can pretty easily use any of these sites in a professional only capacity.

But you're still using them, and by virtue of using them are increasing their engagement numbers, which is what they want.

The only winning move is not to play. But they've created an environment where you pretty much have to.


Facebook using my computer to run their code means they should play by my rules. After all, I'm the one paying for the bandwidth, hardware, and any financial or psychological consequences of seeing or interacting with their ads.

Maybe I'd have less of a problem with their ads if they actually took responsibility for what they're pushing and cleaned up any eventual mess (like promoting weight loss scams or outright illegal services).


Users of Facebook are not required to agree with Facebook's business practices, and there is no reason that they should do so. It is perfectly acceptable to use a company's product and criticize how the company operates at the same time.

By using the product, you are incentiviaing the behavior. There is no free lunch. Either you abstain, or you make the problem worse.

The first part is always true, but criticism still serves as a disincentive even when the person doesn't stop using the product.

There are plenty of cases where a person believes it's in their best interest to use a product, yet still criticizes it because some aspects of the product are hostile to them. It would be most effective to stop using the product, but sometimes, the criticism alone makes a difference.

I disagree with the parent comment's statement (that a person should agree with the company's practices if the person uses their product). Disagreeing with hostile practices is better than agreeing to them, even if the person continues to use the product.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: