Facebook is a doomsday machine

[Pointedstick]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/617384/

People tend to complain about Facebook as if something recently curdled. There’s a notion that the social web was once useful, or at least that it could have been good, if only we had pulled a few levers: some moderation and fact-checking here, a bit of regulation there, perhaps a federal antitrust lawsuit. But that’s far too sunny and shortsighted a view. Today’s social networks, Facebook chief among them, were built to encourage the things that make them so harmful. It is in their very architecture.

[vnatale]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/617384/

People tend to complain about Facebook as if something recently curdled. There’s a notion that the social web was once useful, or at least that it could have been good, if only we had pulled a few levers: some moderation and fact-checking here, a bit of regulation there, perhaps a federal antitrust lawsuit. But that’s far too sunny and shortsighted a view. Today’s social networks, Facebook chief among them, were built to encourage the things that make them so harmful. It is in their very architecture.

Maybe so. But for some it is a highly useful tool.

I believe it is THE primary tool for musicians getting out the word about what it is going on with them. I find few musical groups or musicians who do not maintain an active presence on Facebook. There are also a lot of other fruitful activities that people pursue on Facebook. Facebook Messenger is an excellent tool to rapidly get out information for people belonging to a specific Facebook group.

Vinny

[Mountaineer]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/617384/

People tend to complain about Facebook as if something recently curdled. There’s a notion that the social web was once useful, or at least that it could have been good, if only we had pulled a few levers: some moderation and fact-checking here, a bit of regulation there, perhaps a federal antitrust lawsuit. But that’s far too sunny and shortsighted a view. Today’s social networks, Facebook chief among them, were built to encourage the things that make them so harmful. It is in their very architecture.

Maybe so. But for some it is a highly useful tool.

I believe it is THE primary tool for musicians getting out the word about what it is going on with them. I find few musical groups or musicians who do not maintain an active presence on Facebook. There are also a lot of other fruitful activities that people pursue on Facebook. Facebook Messenger is an excellent tool to rapidly get out information for people belonging to a specific Facebook group.

Vinny

No offense, but I'm thinking of the synergy of these two posts!

[Kriegsspiel]

Facebook (anyone else remember when it was thefacebook?) was cool back when it was used solely to e-stalk chicks and set up parties. Everything after that has been a travesty.

[Ad Orientem]

Aside from a blog, I have never been on any form of social media. Facebook is something I have regarded from the moment I became aware of its existence, with deep suspicion. And that has long since evolved into a strong conviction that it is deeply sinister.

[dualstow]

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/617384/

People tend to complain about Facebook as if something recently curdled. There’s a notion that the social web was once useful, or at least that it could have been good, if only we had pulled a few levers: some moderation and fact-checking here, a bit of regulation there, perhaps a federal antitrust lawsuit. But that’s far too sunny and shortsighted a view. Today’s social networks, Facebook chief among them, were built to encourage the things that make them so harmful. It is in their very architecture.

I highly recommend 'Zucked' by Roger McNamee, but now that I've clicked I'm definitely going to read this article.

[Pointedstick]

the article posted is a bit of a read but worth it .. lots of interesting ideas about being mega-scale and the influence it has, the doomsday machine analogy is tough to follow, but i suspect more accurate than not.

The article was fascinating to me, and I encourage people to read the whole thing.

It strikes me that the point this article is making is about the differences between a protocol and a platform.

A protocol is open and has multiple implementations, so nobody can really gain a monopoly, because every implementation of the protocol can be replaced with a different one without losing any of the information produced or transmitted using that protocol. Some examples are the protocols that underpin web browsers, email providers, and SMS messages (I'm simplifying a bit).

But a platform keeps its protocol secret and ensures that it doesn't work with anyone else's platform or protocol. Because the different platforms don't work together, there is an inherent incentive for everyone to flock to a single standard platform to minimize the negative effects from a lack of interoperability between platforms. It would be as if people using GMail could only send and receive messages with other GMail users, or Ford vehicles could only run on Ford roads. Clearly everyone would be incentivized to use or buy the most popular thing to maximize the product's value to them as individuals. However this rational individual maximization strategy creates a monopoly because it causes competitors to be shut out due to their smaller platform being inherently less valuable than the larger one.

Basically, the more common a protocol becomes, the more implementations there will be, and everyone will benefit. Whereas the more common a platform becomes, the fewer competing platforms there will be and the greater the incentive becomes for the largest to become an abusive monopolist.

[Xan]

Great points, PS. I still hold out hope for a decentralized social network, like Diaspora. https://diasporafoundation.org/

[vnatale]

The article was fascinating to me, and I encourage people to read the whole thing.

It strikes me that the point this article is making is about the differences between a protocol and a platform.

A protocol is open and has multiple implementations, so nobody can really gain a monopoly, because every implementation of the protocol can be replaced with a different one without losing any of the information produced or transmitted using that protocol. Some examples are the protocols that underpin web browsers, email providers, and SMS messages (I'm simplifying a bit).

But a platform keeps its protocol secret and ensures that it doesn't work with anyone else's platform or protocol. Because the different platforms don't work together, there is an inherent incentive for everyone to flock to a single standard platform to minimize the negative effects from a lack of interoperability between platforms. It would be as if people using GMail could only send and receive messages with other GMail users, or Ford vehicles could only run on Ford roads. Clearly everyone be incentivized to use or buy the most popular thing to maximize the product's value to them as individuals. However this rational individual maximization strategy creates a monopoly because it causes competitors to be shut out due to their smaller platform being inherently less valuable than the larger one.

Basically, the more common a protocol becomes, the more implementations there will be, and everyone will benefit. Whereas the more common a platform becomes, the fewer competing platforms there will be and the greater the incentive becomes for the largest to become an abusive monopolist.

Though Apple is much smaller than MIcrosoft could they be accused of doing something similar to the above when they allow no third parties and control all aspects of the Apple experience? Or, does this only apply to a Microsoft wherein everyone does have to cooperate with their Windows operating system and for the regular consumer it's either buy Windows or Apple? With most of them choosing Windows since they have by far the largest installed base and the most compatibility with other computer parts and software and so on? Or, have I severely missed the mark in both of my examples?

Vinny

[Pointedstick]

No you're not wrong. macOS, Windows, iOS and Android are all platforms. Android won the mobile platform war and Windows won the desktop platform war. It's not quite as bad though because what they won was the right to be a host for user-run applications. Operating systems are sort or more like infrastructure, really: you don't care about your OS itself so much as its ability to run the software you do care about. So it's possible for that software to be written for non-dominant OSs and keep the minority OS platforms from being completely shut out. It's different for communication-related platforms though. Because the whole point of communication is interconnectedness, every platform's utility is derived solely from its number of users. Thus communications platforms inherently tend towards abusive monopolies. The early authors of the web understood this, which is why they implemented things in the form of open protocols instead.

[dualstow]

Great points, PS. I still hold out hope for a decentralized social network, like Diaspora. https://diasporafoundation.org/

Remember when I suggested diaspora as a potential lifeboat for this forum before things stablilized with the current setup?
It was kind of a mess. I hope it has improved since then. (Probably has).

EDIT: here
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/for ... f=9&t=7501

[Maddy]

Did you know that the vast majority of counties in the U.S. are using Facebook as the principal communication mechanism for keeping its citizens informed in the event of an emergency? Google "Emergency Management," "County" and "social media," and see for yourself.

To me, this is a frightening development by which virtually every county in the nation has ceded control of its emergency management functions to a highly partisan private enterprise known for some time to be involved in the business of disinformation and censorship.

[vnatale]

Did you know that the vast majority of counties in the U.S. are using Facebook as the principal communication mechanism for keeping its citizens informed in the event of an emergency? Google "Emergency Management," "County" and "social media," and see for yourself.

To me, this is a frightening development by which virtually every county in the nation has ceded control of its emergency management functions to a highly partisan private enterprise known for some time to be involved in the business of disinformation and censorship.

What do you see as the alternative?

I go to my town's police department's town departmental web site and this is what I see:

https://montague-ma.gov/p/28/Police-Department

Just facts. Nothing current.

In contrast go to its Facebook page and see all that is there:

https://www.facebook.com/GreatOfficersW ... rCommunity

For those of you who are able to go to Facebook here below is what is there now.

Note several aspects about it compared to its town departmental page.

It is current.

It allows for interaction with anyone on Facebook.

It has a well articulated statement regarding the purposes and limitations of the Facebook page.

Note that 6,224 (!!!!) people have liked the page. That is astounding given that the entire population of Montague is only 8,316!

That tells me that the vast majority of the people find my police department having a Facebook page as highly useful.

What exactly do you think this "highly partisan private enterprise" can do to my police department's Facebook page to undercut what the police department is attempting to accomplish on its Facebook page?

Vinny

Capture.JPG (136.25 KiB) Viewed 4190 times

[Xan]

It's both unseemly and an astoundingly bad idea to tie official correspondence to one particular company. Especially since it's hard to change, once people are used to going to Facebook for this information.

They could just as easily be updating their web page. If they did all this on their web page, then they'd be in control, rather than hoping that Facebook keeps working the way they want it to.

[Pointedstick]

It's both unseemly and an astoundingly bad idea to tie official correspondence to one particular company. Especially since it's hard to change, once people are used to going to Facebook for this information.

They could just as easily be updating their web page. If they did all this on their web page, then they'd be in control, rather than hoping that Facebook keeps working the way they want it to.

It's the power of laziness. Creating and updating a Facebook page can be done by anyone; creating, maintaining, and updating a web page to proper modern web standards of security, usability and maintainability requires at least one expensive trained professional, possibly more.

[Kriegsspiel]

The government has pretty much always used private companies to put out information. Privately owned newspapers, TV channels, radio, etc. As Pointedstick said, I can understand why a lot of them (government & private companies) choose to just make/maintain a facebook account rather than their own website, even though it annoys me that they do.

EDIT: As I was writing that, I remembered something that (I think) Tristan Harris said on JRE one time, that facebook was giving out cell phones that had free access to facebook in third world countries, but not free internet. So all their news came from facebook. And an inside joke at the company was that if you wanted to predict which countries were going to become "at risk," you see which ones accepted the facebook Free Basics program. Timestamp here.

[dualstow]

Did you know that the vast majority of counties in the U.S. are using Facebook as the principal communication mechanism for keeping its citizens informed in the event of an emergency? Google "Emergency Management," "County" and "social media," and see for yourself.

To me, this is a frightening development...
...

What do you see as the alternative?

How about Nextdoor dot com
It could evolve into the same monster but so far I think it's ok.

[vnatale]

Did you know that the vast majority of counties in the U.S. are using Facebook as the principal communication mechanism for keeping its citizens informed in the event of an emergency? Google "Emergency Management," "County" and "social media," and see for yourself.

To me, this is a frightening development...
...

What do you see as the alternative?

How about Nextdoor dot com
It could evolve into the same monster but so far I think it's ok.

BIG-TIME fail! This is what I got back when I went there: "Your address —01351 — isn't within the borders of a Nextdoor neighborhood."

I have been thinking of putting a poll here regarding people's social media usage. But I think I am remembering there has already been one for a Facebook poll?

My general impression is that the sentiment here is that there is a general disdain for Facebook, see no use for it, it's a negative, I don't use it.

I have said this at least once before, if not twice. If you are a musician or a music group, you maintain a presence on Facebook. I've yet to encounter a music group that does not. It's such a free, excellent tool for them. Maybe I should start asking them if they have the same fears expressed here of Facebook due to it being this private partisan organization.

Vinny

[Pointedstick]

There's no doubt that Facebook is useful because of the size of its userbase and the ease of creating a semi-permanent web space to advertise your stuff and connect with people. This thread and the article are about the costs that come along for the ride.

As with many things in life, what's good for individual people/musicians/grandparents wanting to see pictures of their kids/etc. may not be good for all of us collectively when the net effects are taken together and the social forces they unleash are investigated.

[Maddy]

What exactly do you think this "highly partisan private enterprise" can do to my police department's Facebook page to undercut what the police department is attempting to accomplish on its Facebook page?

Presumably, anything that it can do--and has done--with respect to conservative avenues of discourse. Censor them, "fact-check" them into nonexistence, or simply shut them down.

Imagine having Antifa or BLM descend upon your neighborhood and having to rely, for your information, on Mark Zuckerberg's notion of what you should, and should not, know.

[vnatale]

After all the defending I did of Facebook I earlier today look (below) at what I was greeted with when I next opened Facebook!!

First of all, it took them five plus months to catch up with this? Secondly, I really did not understand how I violated and did want to engage in discussion with someone but no one was available. Thirdly, I won't be appealing. Finally I do not care that I've been banned for thirty days from either going live or advertising. I have never done either and I have no intentions of doing so.

Does all of this change my opinion of Facebook? Not one bit. They are a huge organization with the attendant bureaucratic responses.

I've been banned several times for a day because I was uploading too many pictures in a short period of time. Learned how to deal with that by spacing them out over a longer period of time.

I get a lot of value from using Facebook. At no charge. This annoyance is just that. An annoyance. Small costs to pay for engaging with Facebook the way that I do.

Vinny

Capture.JPG (56.38 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

Capture2.JPG (24.93 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

Capture3.JPG (27.12 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

Capture4.JPG (27.1 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

Capture5.JPG (31.42 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

Capture6.JPG (38.37 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

[vnatale]

Then looks what comes up when I soon after went to my "Memories page"!

Something I'd put on Facebook four years ago.

Hitler is in that picture and the one that ended up with me getting this current "ban".

Yet with the second one it is they who put it in front of me and which they will presumably allow me to share it again?

Again, rather inconsequential to me in the bigger picture. More amusing than anything else.

Finally, I'm not going to take to Facebook or Twitter and complain about "being banned" by Facebook. They are a private organization with their rules. I am not forced to participate in Facebook.

Vinny

4Capture.JPG (64.68 KiB) Viewed 4154 times

[vnatale]

What exactly do you think this "highly partisan private enterprise" can do to my police department's Facebook page to undercut what the police department is attempting to accomplish on its Facebook page?

Presumably, anything that it can do--and has done--with respect to conservative avenues of discourse. Censor them, "fact-check" them into nonexistence, or simply shut them down.

Imagine having Antifa or BLM descend upon your neighborhood and having to rely, for your information, on Mark Zuckerberg's notion of what you should, and should not, know.

I predict that the first time Facebook shuts down any police department's Facebook page that no later than the next week we'd be seeing Congressional hearings regarding it.

Your estimates of the probabilities of Facebook shutting down any police department's Facebook page? Is is any greater than 0.01%?

In general I try to not concern myself with things I consider to either be of little consequence or extremely low probability or both.

Vinny

[Pointedstick]

[re: Vinny's last few posts]

But I thought Facebook only censored conservatives!

---

Regardless, to be honest, content like that is one of the reasons I left Facebook many years ago. It had increasingly become a platform for the most politically extreme members of my social circle to post unending streams of partisan political stuff. Of course none of it convinced anyone, so the net result was a lot of arguing and destroyed social relationships. What a drag.

[vnatale]

[re: Vinny's last few posts]

But I thought Facebook only censored conservatives!

---

Regardless, to be honest, content like that is one of the reasons I left Facebook many years ago. It had increasingly become a platform for the most politically extreme members of my social circle to post unending streams of partisan political stuff. Of course none of it convinced anyone, so the net result was a lot of arguing and destroyed social relationships. What a drag.

I attributed it to being just like how the virus does not care about your political leanings neither does the bureaucracy care once it gets a hold of something and then the rules are blindly followed with no human common sense going into the decision.


I do put a lot of political things (mostly anti-Trump) on Facebook along with tons of pictures, music related items, humorous items, New York Yankees / baseball related items.

Some of the political items generate discussion. Sometimes I choose to stay involved with them. Most times I'm just starting them. A friend expected me to moderate the subsequent discussion because the discussion was going on on my Facebook page. I have never taken on that role.

As I stated most of my political things were anti-Trump. But for my 0.05% were anti-Biden, those were always the ones that drew the most attention. I'd regularly hear back that I must have, therefore, been a Trump supporter. That I should be unfriended.

These days the political content from me is way down and it's mostly music and humor related. Mostly things I find coming to me that I then pass on.

I do get great value out of Facebook in many ways. Two recent examples.

Just as you, Pointedstick, yesterday completely turned me around on my attitude towards mini-splits - from thinking no way to now they might be THE way - when I asked the same question on Facebook for what I should do going forward I went from wanting to hold on to my present oil tank at all costs to now being scared to death to ever put any more oil in it!

Finally. Recently my dentist of 46 years retired.

Of course, my first step was to solicit our resident forum dentist - MangoMan - as to what I should do. He gave me advice, which seemed good. He approved my letter I created to get recommendations of other people.

I ended up asking about 250 people! Almost all of the through Facebook, which made it quite time efficient to privately ask that many people the question.

I ended up with 81 responses from people who knew me in some way.

I considered that invaluable information to have so much information on so many dentists.

When I presented it to MangoMan I think his response was that I was being "excessively thorough". He was definitely not expressing approval by saying that but I took it as a compliment and a description I liked a lot, as that is just my way.

After I put all the information on an Excel worksheet and scored it all, it was obvious who to choose. My process led me to being quite confident of my choice.

I had been going to my former dentist 3 times a year. It was always stressful because it was one of the few times in the year I had to be awake by a certain time but, most stressful, was that it was about 30 miles and 45 minutes from my house. From when I left until I got back home, it would always be a full three hours for the teeth cleaning and then the dentist's exam.

The one I picked is only 4 miles and 5 minutes from my house! There was another even closer who is on my street but he did not get as high a score.

Like every other tool we use Facebook is just another tool. Depending upon how you choose to use it and how it serves your needs will dictate whether you believe it to be a useful tool or not for you. I can well understand why many choose to avoid it.

Vinny