> Tobacco was invented in 5000 BC according to wikipedia. At that point in time it had basically none of the bad side effects you mention due to shorter life spans. It probably had numerous positive side effects.

Another reason that tobacco historically had "basically none of the bad side effects" is that people didn't smoke it nearly in the quantities they do today. Then a few startups (well, they weren't called that back then) came along and it "has made a small number of people incomprehensibly rich, to the great detriment of humanity".

> Now you don't like facebook??? Well, honestly, I do. I like it to keep in touch with people and it had real value to me when I moved to a city where I didn't know a single person as it made me feel less alone. I'm sure many others have benefited.

Strawman. Nowhere in his post jdietrich mentions Facebook.

> The companies mentioned are highly successful.

No one argues that these companies aren't successful. The argument is that the fact that they are highly successful does not mean that they are a good for society as a whole.

> I could care less about any of the companies mentioned

You mean, you couldn't care less, right? :P (Sorry, that particular Americanism is a pet peeve of mine.)

I have nothing to add to the discussion at large, so...

I find the phrase, "I could care less" charming. I'm not sure if it was originally intended as simple sarcasm (or more likely a misspoken phrase) but to me in its form it has a gentle subtlety. A slightly tongue-in-cheek, "typically when discussing the amount I care about a topic, it falls within an average range. However on this particular topic, I care for it so little that I must be explicit that it would actually be possible for me to care less. For a more meaningful topic, such a statement wouldn't be necessary."

I respect your logic, but the strawman here is valid. Facebook is a social network and now it is a big one. Pinterest (I don't even know the spelling), could be the next FB). I don't have a pinterest account, but it probably serves real value to the women who use it. Someday, it could be an FB.

also, I slur couldnt care less when I speak bc I have no idea the right way to say it!

jdietrich argues:

"I think nearly all of these 'social' startups are bad news" (emphasis added).

This allows that some "social startups" might be a good idea, and is not (at least, not as I interpret it) an argument against social media in general. Besides, Facebook has long stopped being a "startup" so this comment does not apply to it.

As I understand it, jdietrich argues against the recent trend of "socialising" every aspect of our lives through increasingly frivolous apps that provide instant gratification but lead to shallow and superficial interactions.

This does not mean that you can't have meaningful interactions through social media. Your example of using Facebook to keep in touch with people when moving to a new city is an illustration of that. However it does not invalidate jdietrich's argument in any away.

It's "couldn't". "Could care less" is content-free, like "up to X or more". I could, or I couldn't. Whatever. "Couldn't care less", on the other hand, implies that your apathy has hit rock bottom, and there is no room for it to go any lower. "Could care less" is a mistake perpetuated by people who just repeat things that sound good without understanding them.

> You mean, you couldn't care less, right? :P (Sorry, that particular Americanism is a pet peeve of mine.)

"I could care less" is an American idiom, and this is a US site. Ad hominem.

It's US hosted, but it's certainly used by people in many countries, what does it even mean to say it is a US site? The network makes geography meaningless. PG could host it in Sunnyvale or Singapore and none of us would notice or care. Ok some would notice, this is hn after all.

I was only half serious with that remark (hence the smilie). It was not intended to be an Ad Hominem attack to weaken wtvanhest's argument (though it could have that effect -- thanks for pointing that out). I am aware that "I could care less" is a wide-spread US idiom and understand the intended meaning it conveys; but it still makes me cringe whenever I see it.

There's plenty of Americans that are annoyed by it, too.

Also please go learn what "ad hominem" actually means. It does not simply mean "insult".

I know what it means. Why add it to the end of an argument out of the blue if it's not intended that way? Still it was late at night and I should have added my own smiley. ;)

I always read "I could care less" as "I could care less ... but that would require expending actual effort and no."

Then again, I'm not a knee-jerking grammarian prescriptivist.

I should get that on a t-shirt thanks. Actually I'm British and don't have strong feelings about the phrase either way. If I did, I still don't criticize people for using idioms of their own culture.

Tobacco was not a particularly great cause of morbidity and mortality until the invention of the cigarette rolling machine. The cheap, mass-produced cigarette offered an instant hit of nicotine which was more convenient than pipes and more affordable than cigars.

Tobacco is a natural leaf that became a mass killer because it was packaged in small, easy to consume units that provided an instant dopamine hit, then relentlessly marketed. I feel it is an extremely good analogy to the current crop of 'social' startups.

Businesses exist in order to make profits for their shareholders; The benefit they provide for their customers or society is merely a happy coincidence. Until the Pure Food and Drug Act, most medicines did more harm than good. Asbestos was incredibly profitable for a great many businesses. I have every right to criticise a business if I believe their product is harmful, regardless of how popular or successful that business might be. To do so does not make me judgemental or immature, but simply an engaged citizen. The belief that all successful products are socially beneficial is clearly absurd.

Many natural leaves are mildly or severely poisonous, and anything that someone enjoys (or which even surprises them, or involves motor function) can cause a 'dopamine hit'. The pureness or naturalness of tobacco really isn't the issue and neither is dopamine.

I disagree primarily with your first statement:

>Success is not validation of an idea and we should be ashamed to think so.

To me, it is the very definition of success. If you think that a product is harmful you can state that, but belittling its success because you don't feel like it is best allocation of resources sounds very similar to what the governments of both China and Russia did prior to the cold war and some might even go as far as to say it is a somewhat communist view.

I admit, when I read your comment, I skipped over this by accident:

>It has hardly occurred to Curtis or anyone in these comments that an idea could be both successful and stupid.

There is probably an interesting debate here from a finance perspective on what should and shouldn't be invested in at the early stage. (or what should or shouldn't be worked on). I'm not smart enough to know what is stupid or not stupid, but it is still an interesting concept.

I think there's some confusion here over what jdietrich meant by "Success is not validation of an idea." He was merely pointing out that just because a product is successful (i.e. everyone buys it) doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea (i.e. a net positive contribution to society). It may be a good idea, or it may be neutral, or even potentially a net harm (such as in the case of cigarettes). He's not trying to redefine success, he's just saying it shouldn't be the only consideration when judging an idea.

I think we can at least agree on that point.

Side note: I'll admit that there is no single objective interpretation as to what actually constitutes a "good idea," which further complicates the issue. I just figured "net positive contribution to society" was general enough to make my point.

except that determining what is a "net contribution to society" is an extremely difficult task.

Maybe after a lengthy analysis, you may come up with a good list of points and counter points, but to whimsically dismiss some of the fastest growing websites in the world without even making an attempt to show how they are not a good idea is not a worthwhile comment.

They're the internet equivalent of junk food.

Yeah, ok.

But none of this is what Dustin's post was about.

The post was about people asking him if he thought their product could be successful, and how he mistakenly dismissed them as being destined to fail.

Your views maybe valid, but your commentary is off topic.

OP talks about successful products and stupid ideas, and jdietrich questions OP's definition of these terms. I don't see how this is off-topic.

It isn't off-topic. User 'tomhoward' just has a very narrow view of the world.

I don't feel like "but I like it, so your argument is wrong" is a very good counter-argument to "facebook makes human interactions worse".

wrong. I'm describing the value I get. The fact that I get value means it does have value. My guess is that some of the other millions of users also get value. That is a fair guess. His/her comment is ridiculous.

Right, and my point was simply that you getting value does not invalidate the argument that this may or may not be bad for humanity. I'm sure pretty much everyone who uses it gets a non-zero amount of value from it, but the person, right or wrong, was arguing about the negatives outweighing the value, not whether or not there was value.

Exactly. You might get value from doing heroin like millions of others, but that doesn't means it's good for people/humanity. I'm not saying FB doesn't have value (it does because it connects people) but I, for one, remember the world being a better place without FB as many others would most likely agree here on HN. More importantly, innovation had more value when 1000 people were trying to create software/hardware/services to help people vs. 1000 instagram and social networking clones for a quick Series round or exit.

You are describing the value you think you are getting. Someone else describes the value they think you are getting. What is ridiculous and what is not kind of depends on how well they observe and how well you reflect.

You make an interesting point about the shorter lifespans when tobacco was first smoked. Wikipedia says cultivation sites in Mexico date back to 1400-1000 BC or possibly even further [0].

On the other hand, you say, "This is the WORST type of comment on HN...I'm just sick of reading comments like this." Please try to be civil -- Hacker News normally has such a positive community.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco

"Smoking's history dates back to as early as 5000–3000 BC when the agricultural product began to be cultivated in South America; consumption later evolved into burning the plant substance either by accident or with intent of exploring other means of consumption."

I am willing to be a real asshole for the first time on HN because I just don't get this type of comment. This is constantly garbage and it makes me so frustrated to see people who think they are better than someone else because they decided to pursue what they think is right whether or not they are actually right.

> I am willing to be a real asshole for the first time on HN because I just don't get this type of comment. This is constantly garbage and it makes me so frustrated to see people who think they are better than someone else because they decided to pursue what they think is right whether or not they are actually right.

Do you ever stop to think what the impact of technology on society, and human relations, is? It's not 'garbage' - it's not proven right either, as society hasn't disintegrated any further than the 17th or 18th century, but I do see an impact in how little people talk to each other, in the addiction to feel-good gratification (or instant gratification - why else am I reading HN?), and in attention span.

To my reading the OP doesn't think they are better than others. When you've had a chance to reflct I'd be interested to know the reasons behind your reaction.

You are correct about the dates –– I found the article that you were quoting [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking

Does he make an interesting point or just a superficially plausible one? Adult longevity != life expectancy at birth, to a pretty considerable degree.

What's wrong with raising concerns about the big-picture societal effects of the technology that we're creating? Many things can provide value but also come with a high price. This doesn't make them immune from criticism.