I’m not sure how to reply to someone that compares multimedia, feature-filled social networks to a mostly-read-only information store.
Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex. More complicated, I'll grant you, simply owing to the vast amount of cruft and legacy that such privacy-eating titans inherently accrue. But the actual media type is pretty irrelevant as far as I care.
While you can be pedantic, I did not reply to their actual points.
> Yeah, they really aren't that much more complex.
This really reminds me of the infamous HN Dropbox comment, but worse.
These are synonyms. Please disambiguate with contextual examples, if you believe otherwise.
There are various features provided by Snapchat (camera, filters, games) and FB (marketplace, messenger) that nobody would ever compare to a BBForum/Wikipedia. They are inherently complex and valuable to the majority of their users.
I mean, sure, but you can't just swap them in and out like that - you can have something complicated which is not complex (say a knitting pattern with four colours) and something complex which is not complicated ("put this arrow into the centre of that target").
I was merely pointing out that you can't toss off "complex and complicated are synonyms" as some kind of argument "gotcha".
I admit the distinction got me at first as it is quite a subtle one but the point made by the parent commenter is valid.
I disagree that these features are inherently valuable; in fact, I disagree that they have any value at all.
As far as I'm concerned, the basis of any media enterprise is the generation, dissemination, and moderation of content. The smallest, most well-known, prototype of an enterprise that accomplishes all three is Wikipedia. Aside from these features, anything extra is cruft.
Yes, this is overly-reductionist, weirdly neo-ludditic, and speaks past your points without paying your arguments the proper dues. We're cross-talking because we have different values; I do not value the things that you value.
The games, filters, marketplace, and messenger you mention are not features. They are deficiently complicated ways to achieve the core features of media enterprise; further, I don't think they're valuable media to deliver in the first place.
As to how I disambiguate complexity vs complicatedness, the first relates to the variety of interactions in a system while complicatedness relates to the sum total state of a system. A system with one node whose only input is its output, which outputs a TB of data to itself every second, and which stores all data it generates, is complicated. A system with two nodes, whose only inputs are each others' outputs, where one generates a byte of data every century and neither saves state, is more complex than the first but less complicated, and the converse is true.
I only consider the complicatedness vs complexity of features that _I_ deem worthwhile; if I don't consider a feature worthwhile, then all of its complexity is just cruft, which gets lumped into the less-granular metric of complicatedness.
I don't deem any of the features you mention (which differentiate FB, etc., from Wikipedia) to be worthwhile; therefore, they're all just more complicated versions of Wikipedia, without any meaningful improvements in the base complexity.
Also, how inherently complex are these features? Can you give me a best-case complexity? How are you measuring this 'inherent complexity'?
I've read through your replies to this thread. If I had your values, I'd agree heartily with you. What you say makes sense, your arguments are well-reasoned, and you present yourself well. I sincerely appreciate that you've taken the time to engage.
I hope I've confirmed the suspicion that seems to be built into your replies: our disagreement is not logical. It's entirely based on a difference in our values.
Or at least the common misconception about it. See [0] for a summary of how the comment was actually mostly spot on, and even YC agreed[1]. Quoting dang, "we should see it as a successful conversation with a graceful ending, rather than mocking someone for not knowing the future".
--
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23229275
[1] - "When YC funded Dropbox, it was because they believed in Drew, not file synchronization"
Notice that Wikimedia Foundation has little to no influence over the content or community that runs Wikimedia sites. The money is primarily used for running the infrastructure, developing the software, paying the staff (a large percentage of which is spent on tech and legal), and organizing community events.
disclosure: I worked for Wikimedia during the earlier years.
They have since asked for some compensation it looks like: https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-finally-asking-big-tec...
Because it’s all network effects, it either needs to be a centralised walled garden (even Wikipedia fits here to certain extent) or else a federated system like email. Whether the business model that maintains a centralised system is for-profit or not is basically irrelevant. Facebook would have as much difficulty taking over wikipedia’s leadership in online encycolpedias as Wikipedia would have trying to become the dominant social network. It’s just a matter of who got there first (at least until they possibly get displaced by something else that users drift toward).