Uh, Google? It's definitely paralleled, and also preceded
op: "I don't care about thing X disappearing"
re: "While you may not care about it because of Y, X also provides benefit Z to other people"
op: "But would there be any drawbacks?"
These days I find it incredibly frustrating to deal with people who have conclusively decided they don't like something and that renders them incapable of acknowledging other benefits that said thing provides even if those benefits aren't relevant to them or are less relevant than the things they vocalize caring about.
I'd like to explicitly note that the parent post did not say "X also provides benefit Z to other people" - it asserted "Facebook is an unparalleled titan in the realm of advertising" which is a substantially different thing; it's not something that some people simply don't care about and a benefit to some other people and considering those statements as equivalent is a (very large) intentional blindspot. The current way of how advertising is done (driven, in part, by FB) is also a harm to many people and society at large, so publicly making an implicit assumption that "advertising" is at most neutral is not okay, it's something that should be called out.
This very "unparalleled titan in the realm of advertising" aspect is a major cost on society, a net harm that perhaps should be tolerated if it's outweighed by some other benefits FB provides (such as the "utility-level communication system for a big chunk of the globe"), but as itself it's definitely not something that should be treated as benign just because some people get paid for it.
If FB advertising disappeared with no other drawbacks, that would be a great thing. Of course, there are some actual drawbacks, but even so it's quite reasonable to motivate people to ask about the actual drawbacks of FB being down, because "oh but ads" (with which the grandparent post started) is not one.
> WhatsApp is basically a utility-level communication system for a big chunk of the globe.
Unfortunately, it's not an actual utility though, which is precisely my point. It's pure folly to build your business around a pseudo utility owned by a private company.
> Instagram is a key cultural driver of the Western world.
I honestly have no idea how this is being presented as a good thing. A "key cultural driver of the western world" is an app whose entire purpose is to harvest your data and sell it to dodgy partners who will use it to usurp democracy.
Obvious I'm not serious, and it's popular sentiment here that "Fuck Facebook... Oh but I use Instragram and WhatsApp of course!", but the point was "some people making a living on x" isn't really a great argument for "x is harmful and we might be better without it".
Occasionally, I'll see/hear/do something and think that it would have made a good status update/tweet, but then I remember that these things have happened to me for decade before social media was a thing and life was fine. Some I'll share with my wife or a friend, most just disappear and that's fine too.
Why did you put up with racist and misogynistic people on your feed? Why did you feel the need to delete your account instead of unfollowing people?
My feed is nice and clean, with family, some friends, and some pages.
There is a gap between "I want to know what people I know are up to" and "I want to meet with those people one by one to see what they are up to". Some people just want to passively watch and that is ok.
And this is the culprit for loneliness.
For the better.
"I felt a great disturbance in the DNS. As if millions of influencers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I feel something terrible has happened. But you better get on with your content curation."
Not unparalleled - Google exists.
And we need less advertising, not more.
> and WhatsApp is basically a utility-level communication system for a big chunk of the globe.
Many other such systems exist - Telegram, Signal, Google Chat.
> Instagram is a key cultural driver of the Western world
Western culture will get along just fine without Instagram.
> the overall impact would transform the world around you.
For the better.
The world would only improve if it disappeared.
There I fixed it for you.
Does WhatsApp have a true E2E either? Ask hundreds of moderators employed by Facebook who review WhatsApp messages flagged as improper and the chat history around them...
However, accepting the fact that neither of the services is truly secure, Telegram experience as a service is much better for an average user.
That was my problem, and your confirmation means it's still as good as nothing.
> Does WhatsApp have a true E2E either? Ask hundreds of moderators employed by Facebook who review WhatsApp messages flagged as improper and the chat history around them...
If one of the ends decides to share a message, it's still E2E. That is the big difference.
True. But you can't prove that "one of the ends" must necessarily be a human and not the logic in the app code, or an intended backdoor? E.g., an automated logic scanning for 'malicious' messages on-device.
Changing messaging apps not the most convenient thing in the world, but it's not some kind of IT cataclysm. Plenty of WhatsApp competitors exist.
Messaging: people have been switching on hordes to every new free messaging system in the 90s and early 2000s, we will adapt to something else.
Netflix and video in general: same thing without the 90s/early 2000s.
Amazon: very convenient store, we'll spend a little less and somebody will fill the void.
Apple: can't say, never bought anything from them.
By the way, when I couldn't message on WA today I thought day they finally cut me off because I still didn't accept their new privacy policy from months ago :-) I resolved to wait and see for a couple of days.
Back then the IM population was a lot smaller. Also with "Free Basics" and other things in some regions of the world Facebook plays a game which makes it impossible to switch. (Using Whatsapp is free, for others one ahs to buy mobile data credits)
> "Ok." - Zuckerburg
shuts down $100B company
The group chat functions don't really exist in SMS (maybe in MMS but they never work properly), photos (same), whatsapp desktop, you can text when you have WiFi but no 4G (or using a different sim card when travelling), etc.
I hate the stupid strategy tax that makes me have an FB account to use their headset, and has it go down when they have an outage. I hope they can learn from MSFT that "Facebook Everywhere" is ultimately a self defeating strategy.
People will do this wherever they can talk in a group online, not just Facebook properties. It's... pretty bad actually, I think the only tool that exists right now is censorship, because the bullshit gets created, spread, and wholeheartedly received way faster than debunking will.
And censorship is a power that can't be safely entrusted to nobody.
I doubt, if FB goes away, that any of the issues you're implying will go away or even get much better. In fact, the lack of a real look into the negative effects of consumer news product reinforces this idea that only the elite can know the truth, and the masses just have to get in line and shut up.
News media proliferated nonsense from fed sources to justify the Iraq war, they gave Trump 24/7 airtime for a while because it increased ratings. They constantly forgo any real accountability for their actions, and pretend that they aren't just another addictive consumer product that warps peoples' brains.
The reasons I've seen are:
> it creates a risk of bad self-image for young girls
It's a parent's job to educate your children. There are much worse things than Facebook out there.
> it collects data
Literally no harm in knowing that someone is interested in JavaScript, cats and fetish porn, and targeting ads to that user.
> it's addictive
So is sex, marijuana, and collecting stamps.
> it helps organize protests
Good.
I'm guessing that either you're not a parent, or your kids aren't teens.
But most parents of teens realize that kids, and especially teens, are often much more influenced by things like social media & peers (and peers via social media) vs. influence their parents have on them.
https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-pushes-qanon-racism...
That's the whole point. Oh they're just trying to make a buck like everyone else is exactly the problem.
They are a running a paperclip maximizer that turns passive consumers of misinformation into "engaged" radicals and the system that is Facebook has no incentive to correct this.
I'd argue that it's absolutely in Facebook's self-interest to reduce their active role in promoting fascism, racism, homophobia, etc.
Two questions:
- What do you think should be done about the legacy media that is doing the same?
- Should social media promote boring posts, or actively censor political content in favour of a certain viewpoint, or anything else? Perhaps a real-life name registration for anyone with over 1000 followers, like in China?
Incorrect assertion. Those posts promote hatred and/or violence toward humans for traits those humans did not choose. e.g. race, sexual orientation, etc.
Legacy media aren't actively amplifying the voices and recruiting efforts of white supremacists.
Facebook is. They acknowledge that they are. They chose to actively allow and encourage it for profit.
Direct quote: "That website on Facebook."
There are people who believe that "Facebook" literally equals "Internet". Facebook, Internet ... Internet, Facebook.
Rinse and repeat for your alternative echo chamber regarding Google, the Microsoft Bing, &c.