Yea I mean if you're not getting anything out of using Facebook, just disable notifications and stop using it. Other people may get joy out of it, idk that's fine.
FYI for those curious, this link takes you to the "How do I delete my account page" at facebook.
I haven't used Facebook in around 5-7 years. One day 2-3 years ago my wife was fooling around with our media PC and accidentally logged me in (lastpass) when she wanted to check a video link. Broke my record!
More substantially, but not wanting to preach...I'm amazed as I visit customers, partners and coworkers around the country and see how much time/effort people (especially middle aged corporate people) spend on the Book.
Some of the most successful people I know aren't on Facebook and I don't think that's a coincidence. It's the new smoking, an expensive/unhealthy pacifier for poor people.
For me it's a self-correcting problem. I don't care about what most people are posting, I've unfollowed probably more than 75% of people, and I spend maybe 5 minutes a day scanning for interesting updates. I don't post anything because there's nothing I would ever share, that'd be appropriate for the grab-bag of friends, family members, former coworkers, and randoms that I've Friended over the years.
The impressions you get from Facebook, or Twitter, or even Hacker News are going to be shaped in large part by what you choose to focus on. If you expect to find outrage and envy, and focus on the things that confirm your expectation, you will probably come away outraged and envious. If you expect to find joyful news and humor, and focus on the things that confirm your very different expectation, you will probably come away happy and amused. You can guide this process further by who you choose to befriend, who you choose to mute or highlight, and even what you post yourself.
Social media lets you become connected. What people, what facts, or what feelings you connect to is largely up to you.
A meta comment... the blog post has the tag "Filter Bubble" which might be ironic because Facebook stories on HN and similar tech sites will be overwhelmingly negative. As a matter of fact, I have never seen a positive Facebook-as-social-networking-site story on HN. (To clarify, there were a few positive Facebook stories about their various open source projects but not about the social networking function.)
For instance, if I consider a random grandmother who logs into Fb to see her photos of grandkids and catch up on other retirees, she's probably not going to write an blog post saying Facebook is a cancer. She feels Facebook enhances her life. If you lecture her on swapping out Facebook time with meeting people in real life, she'll say her grandchildren are in another city and you're an insensitive idiot.
I don't have a Facebook account nor am I a Facebook sociology expert but I wonder if this forum (filter bubble) gives a massively warped picture of how Facebook adds value to peoples lives. (Especially the people who are not programmers or techies.)
All things in moderation I suppose. I don't have an issue with Facebook's basic premise, just the emergent behavior of it's community and what the managing company has become. When I used it, it had both positive and negative outcomes, like many things. I just found that many of those around me were causing serious self through overuse of the platform.
I think it is a social parallel to alcohol. Somewhat helpful for meeting new people, not so helpful as a replacement for a social life.
The problem occurs when a public mega corporation is managing the entire flow of this product though. Imagine if every bar in your town was owned by Walmart and they were hell bent on keeping everyone engaged as often and for as long as possible, data mining and optimizing all your interactions. People would probably see that as a bad thing.
I agree. I also don't like the fact that my "likes" are being sold. One of my friend took a snapshot of an ad featuring my "like" an ad about "Asian Dating" website... How embarrassing!
Or, to take your alcohol metaphor closer to what Facebook tries to be, imagine if Budweiser was actively striving to curate all the content you consume, to be your main source of news, to be your main channel of communication with other people and to track all your habits as much as it can, all so they could get you to drink as much Budweiser as they could make you.
Facebook is a lot more than what you portray in your comment. A random grandmother who logs into Facebook to see photos of her grandkids could get that same value from many other sources: Google Photos, Instagram and just plain old e-mail come to mind immediately.
I closed my Facebook account this year, precisely because Facebook ended up consuming too much of my time with bullshit I shouldn't be spending time or energy on, instead of providing value you mention. Yes, it does say something about me and how I choose to spend my time and react to content on Facebook, but it also says something about Facebook's algorithms.
Whenever people tell me "well, Facebook algorithms simply react to your inputs", I feel that they're forgetting that you could design an infinite number of algorithms that take the same set of inputs and produce different outputs. There are people behind those algorithms. There's human intent behind them, just as there's human intent behind other Facebook's practices people criticize.
In short, we're not criticizing Facebook-the-simple-photo-sharing-app, we're criticizing people who made Facebook into a complex machine designed to cash in on some of the darker aspects of human nature.
> a complex machine designed to cash in on some of the darker aspects of human nature
Like the US government.
As for algorithms, why single one out? Google, Twitter, and Hacker News all create algorithmic filter bubbles. What's the alternative? Getting rid of the algorithms and going back to direct human manipulation of the content we see? We already have Fox News for that, and it's not an improvement. The algorithm is part of the experience, which is why it's not at all true that our hypothetical grandma could get the same value from Google Photos. Who are you to say that their opinion of the value they receive is worth less than your opinion?
Facebook does for that grandmother what Email could not. But that still doesn't make Facebook all a saint.
In alternate reality, children and grandchildren should be calling her often on possibly Skype or better services. They should be emailing her their pictures.
But above probably proves that by now, Facebook is not running their business for grandmother or her kids. Hence, the cancer.
Had a 2 week holiday where I no internet access. Was very worried going into it that I would be bored without a steady stream of news and online distractions like FB. I didn't miss it at all and was most relieved to be away from FB. Recently, the app notifications had gotten out of hand with bullshit. "X just posted a photo. How about commenting on it?".
Coming home, I decided to keep my FB account but delete the app from my phone and remove FB from the list of sites I visit every day.
Think part of the problem with FB is that I'm technically inclined. If I were less aware of what it does and how it works, I could just bop around consuming stuff without feeling a pressure to clear all the alerts. Or even be completely oblivious to the fact there alerts.
One of the reasons I decided to keep an FB account is for access FB's emergency alert "I'm okay" feature. I lived through a natural disaster, and FB was really freaking useful to be able to communicate with people. I could set one status, and everybody could see it, without having to communicate over and over again with the same "I'm okay" information.
21 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 44.2 ms ] threadI haven't used Facebook in around 5-7 years. One day 2-3 years ago my wife was fooling around with our media PC and accidentally logged me in (lastpass) when she wanted to check a video link. Broke my record!
More substantially, but not wanting to preach...I'm amazed as I visit customers, partners and coworkers around the country and see how much time/effort people (especially middle aged corporate people) spend on the Book.
Always liked that comparison.
Social media lets you become connected. What people, what facts, or what feelings you connect to is largely up to you.
For instance, if I consider a random grandmother who logs into Fb to see her photos of grandkids and catch up on other retirees, she's probably not going to write an blog post saying Facebook is a cancer. She feels Facebook enhances her life. If you lecture her on swapping out Facebook time with meeting people in real life, she'll say her grandchildren are in another city and you're an insensitive idiot.
I don't have a Facebook account nor am I a Facebook sociology expert but I wonder if this forum (filter bubble) gives a massively warped picture of how Facebook adds value to peoples lives. (Especially the people who are not programmers or techies.)
I think it is a social parallel to alcohol. Somewhat helpful for meeting new people, not so helpful as a replacement for a social life.
The problem occurs when a public mega corporation is managing the entire flow of this product though. Imagine if every bar in your town was owned by Walmart and they were hell bent on keeping everyone engaged as often and for as long as possible, data mining and optimizing all your interactions. People would probably see that as a bad thing.
I closed my Facebook account this year, precisely because Facebook ended up consuming too much of my time with bullshit I shouldn't be spending time or energy on, instead of providing value you mention. Yes, it does say something about me and how I choose to spend my time and react to content on Facebook, but it also says something about Facebook's algorithms.
Whenever people tell me "well, Facebook algorithms simply react to your inputs", I feel that they're forgetting that you could design an infinite number of algorithms that take the same set of inputs and produce different outputs. There are people behind those algorithms. There's human intent behind them, just as there's human intent behind other Facebook's practices people criticize.
In short, we're not criticizing Facebook-the-simple-photo-sharing-app, we're criticizing people who made Facebook into a complex machine designed to cash in on some of the darker aspects of human nature.
Like the US government.
As for algorithms, why single one out? Google, Twitter, and Hacker News all create algorithmic filter bubbles. What's the alternative? Getting rid of the algorithms and going back to direct human manipulation of the content we see? We already have Fox News for that, and it's not an improvement. The algorithm is part of the experience, which is why it's not at all true that our hypothetical grandma could get the same value from Google Photos. Who are you to say that their opinion of the value they receive is worth less than your opinion?
In alternate reality, children and grandchildren should be calling her often on possibly Skype or better services. They should be emailing her their pictures.
But above probably proves that by now, Facebook is not running their business for grandmother or her kids. Hence, the cancer.
Coming home, I decided to keep my FB account but delete the app from my phone and remove FB from the list of sites I visit every day.
Think part of the problem with FB is that I'm technically inclined. If I were less aware of what it does and how it works, I could just bop around consuming stuff without feeling a pressure to clear all the alerts. Or even be completely oblivious to the fact there alerts.
One of the reasons I decided to keep an FB account is for access FB's emergency alert "I'm okay" feature. I lived through a natural disaster, and FB was really freaking useful to be able to communicate with people. I could set one status, and everybody could see it, without having to communicate over and over again with the same "I'm okay" information.
Not able to delete my account completely, because some of the social events I partake in are organized via FB.