Repackage business models that exist in developing nations as a result of extreme income disparity or poverty and call it the new gig/sharing economy. Make sure the app captures as much data from the user's phone as possible; it's worth something.
Yes, it really is simple to leave Facebook, their web and app tracking ecosystem, contact list scraping, purchase of information from data brokers, and creation of shadow profiles.
Simply "leaving Facebook" isn't as meaningful a choice as you're suggesting it to be.
For devil's advocate testing of this, apply standard addiction/depression comparisons.
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around heroin amazing....If you don't like heroin just leave and don't be so dramatic about it."
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around depression amazing....If you feel depressed just get some exercise and don't be so dramatic about it."
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around sex addiction amazing....If you are addicted just stop having sex and don't be so dramatic about it."
The world is becoming more empathetic to addiction and mental strength - And is, in general, transitioning away from 'stiff upper lip' / policing policy towards nurturing / healthcare.
It's worth considering 'FOMO' (fear of missing out), social anxieties, desperation to belong in society etc... There are many factors like these (genuine mental patterns that people experience) that give credibility to the current narrative of 'social media is addictive and we should help people'.
It therefore seems that one's default stance should be 'I assume there is a genuine problem here that people need help with' rather than 'they must be pathetic, why don't they just quit'.
Well, I'm certainly ahead of the times, then. I deleted years ago. Was barely even on the platform. I don't get why it addicts so many people, it feels like the worst way to communicate with friends; I've got group chats across several apps and those are infinitely better even if limited. My only real regret is the "several apps" part.
So if Facebook doesn't care, why do people think Twitter cares? Or any social media?
I early on naively hoped Google+ would "save" social media... But honestly, even though I was a huge proponent in it's first year or so, it became clear the problem was really with the concept itself and not the platforms. I don't believe in global social networks anymore. I believe in a very loosely tied network of tiny to small communities for interests, groups of friends, etc. And I realise some social media platforms have tried to implement groups, but to me it never even really came close to offering what we already had with the web of online forums and IRC channels. To me, having a single global network where each person has their own group of friends is both too limiting and too wide open.
The benefit from Facebook that isn't really offered by anything other than Google+ is the "Christmas Card" news - you find out when your old friends and distant relatives have important things happening in their lives, like moving, getting married, having kids, etc. Also people like to live vicariously through their friends, which they can do through photos of their lives, especially kids and trips.
Facebook prioritizes "connection", but doesn't question whether all of those connections are -good- ones. I know there are a million comments out there about how deleting Facebook led to someone having less anxiety, depression, etc., but I'm also in that camp for a reason that I don't think gets mentioned a lot.
I suffer from PTSD due to childhood abuse and neglect (and I'm talking heavy drug use, physical, verbal, and psychological abuse, gas-lightning). But when my parents, my abusers, added me on Facebook I felt obligated to add them due to pressure from family members and friends who don't get how the abuse affected me, and out of guilt because I had a child and didn't want to deprive them of some relationship with their grandchild. I do know that responsibility lies with me for not ignoring them or speaking up about it. However, leaving Facebook severed that connection again, and I felt slightly more free knowing I wouldn't have to interact with them or let them have a view into my life.
I started using Facebook because I wanted to cure my loneliness and make some friends in college, which did actually happen. At first. Now it's just a platform that reminds me of the past by forcing these "connections", suggesting people who I had long forgotten and never wanted to speak to again.
"But when my parents, my abusers, added me on Facebook I felt obligated to add them due to pressure from family members and friends who don't get how the abuse affected me..."
How did Facebook force them to add those people as friends?
Because the structure of Facebook encourages those kinds of pressures.
No, facebook the company did not force them at gunpoint to add their parents. That's correct. There are degrees of pressure, yes? If someone found them too much to put up with, is it unreasonable to accept the term 'forced' as apropos?
Yes, it is unreasonable to call "encouraging" (your term) "forcing" ("forced" - "obtained or imposed by coercion or physical power" - Google's definition).
[EDIT: to the people downvoting this, the subtleties of language matter. There is a big and specific difference between concepts like "encouraged", "presssured" and "forced"]
Are you saying that definition is not in line with what that term means in practice? What do you think "forced" means, if something quite different that?
Colloquially 'forced' is often used in a sense weaker than coercion. For example, a train delay might force you to take the bus. A move in Chess can be forced because all alternatives immediately lose. In this weaker sense, it might be taken as "left with no better option".
Yes, to force means to leave no alternative or option, and in this sense Facebook is not forcing those connections, and it's unreasonable to say it is forcing them.
So, in my examples, nothing forces you, in the strictest sense, to take the bus instead of walking. And in Chess nothing forces you in the strictest sense to not make a move that immediately loses.
So perhaps loosen your grip and understand what the OP was saying?
Under the everyday notion of forcing someone to do something, Facebook is not forcing people to friend others.
The definition I cited was for illustration. Since when does backing up you point with a definition mean you're being slavishly robotic?
Since you're trying to imply my usage of the term is narrow and unrealistic, what's the different notion of "forcing" someone to do something that would make it true that Facebook is forcing people to friend others that they otherwise wouldn't want to?
I can't read the commenter's state of mind, but the word "forced" seems to be used colloquially/artfully, to portray what they personally and subjectively experience with Facebook, and not meant necessarily as an objective description of Facebook's feature/UI/UX.
From a Facebook designer's point of view, the UI/UX most surely is intended to be "encouraging". But it may also be the case that for some users, the social dynamic may feel particularly oppressive.
Maybe "force" is too strong a word. However, it strongly pushes them by generating lists of people you may know even if you haven't talked to them in over a decade. It also makes it easier for someone to just click "Friend this person" rather than having to find someone's number and pick up the phone.
Guilt is a strong motivator, as least for me, so granting someone that access makes it a lot more difficult to set appropriate boundaries.
It's up to you to accept a friend suggestion or request. And the UI makes it easy to delete any friend request. If there's pressure it comes from outside FB itself.
> If there's pressure it comes from outside FB itself
When I was a kid, long before Facebook, my mom would frequently receive an anonymous chain letter in the mail.
The letter would have some dramatic emotional appeal, or it would claim to be raising money for a poor family in the church, or it would promise pyramid riches, or it might have some mystical mumbo jumbo warning about breaking the chain.
But in the end, the stories about heartbreak or helping people or mysterious calamities were complete horseshit. Their only purpose was to convince my mom to copy the letter and send it to 12 other people, thus expanding the base of the pyramid for the benefit of whoever started the chain letter.
Facebook is the modern chain letter.
Just like chain letters, Facebook has lots of horseshit stories about connecting people, with implied mysterious social consequences for not participating.
But underneath all that, the real purpose of Facebook is to amplify social pressure to get people to expand the base of the pyramid for Facebook's benefit.
I view FB as a negative force in the world but mostly not malicious.
Although FB software doesn’t “force” any connection, as the comment above so well illustrates, there can be incredible social pressure enabled by FB to do something such as stay connected to an abuser.
If you consider FB to be literally the software only, rather than the software plus community, then you may be technically correct. This IMO is a narrow and limited view of what companies and products are.
I'm saying no-one is being forced to friend anyone (whether by the software or the larger social context).
To me there is a clear and significant difference between "pressuring" someone and "forcing" someone, and I'm honestly a bit baffled by why this simple (to me) and small point seems controversial in the subthread anchored in the grandparent comment.
It also reminds you at the most inappropriate times about people either via "people you might know" and other annoyances on whom you should be connected with. These unwanted reminders can certainly create unwanted distress.
Yeah, force might be a strong word but I think for some it indeed creates social pressure and fear of repercussion if they dont friend people they "should be" connected with because of social structures, etc.
I think creators of social platforms need to be vastly more aware that just because you know someone or are related to them doesn't mean it's a positive. They need to stop assuming that making certain associations is all to the good. Such default assumptions tend to do the most harm to very vulnerable people who most need some kind of support for protecting themselves.
How do we solve this problem of discovery w.r.t. smart suggestions based off degrees of separation from mutual friends or other data on either end algorithmically?
Anyone have any insight into a more thoughtful recommendation approach that can be represented algorithmically?
Also any social platform would be hurting user growth metrics if they made you jump through hoops for discovering if someone you know has a profile. This is super nuanced, thanks for the unique perspective.
How about not recommending people some algorithm thinks you should be "friends" with? If you can't bother to remember or type a person's name in and manually make that connection, chances are you're just fine without it anyway. I used Facebook in college back in 2004-2008 before they had any kind of suggestions and I had no problem amassing over 1,000 "friends." On a side note the whole site is totally different now and I don't use it anymore.
one of the most difficult things to relay about why facebook is a danger (probably more so in years gone then now) is they can not visualize the effects (both in the real world and mentally) . This was probably how drugs where viewed back in the 70s it was all seen as fun and games and mostly harmless.
If you say to someone dont speed, drink and drive as it may cause you to get into a car accident its clear to see the devastating impact speeding and drink driving can have, people can imagine it, they can see it and dont want to be involved in it, but when you tell friends and family facebook has the potential to brainwash, manipulate and control you its hard for people to understand how because it is related to understanding how data can predict and be used understand behavior, its a very new concept for many people just being understood in the last few years.
To the majority of users they control facebook, its not the other way around, they can delete images, comment on things, vote on things and and do what they need to on the platform from the saftey of their own home, to majority of people it gives them a voice when before no one cared about what they had to say, but as the ads that they are shown seep into their thoughts without them knowing, the articles and propaganda about the latest political events change their behavior and their emotions and mental well being are affected as they see their friends lives supposedly much better then theirs, they just get more and more sucked in.
As someone with a comp sci major from 15 years ago and understanding the power of data i have been having this conversation with people for years and even now with so much of these facebook powered problems occurring more and more in the media, many still dont see the effects, though at least now , the dangers are hitting the bigger more general audience. At least there is progress there and hopefully this will allow the public to make a more informed decision before they put up their whole lives and the lives of their kids on social media before their kids are even old enough to approve or accept that they want a social media account.
Going cold turkey is never easy. If you're having trouble withdrawing, consider what I did over the past few years:
1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone; next
2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone; then
3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone; then
4. Delete the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps from your phone; and finally
5. Log out of Facebook on your desktop.
It took me 2 years to go through from step 1 to step 5. It has made me happier and more productive. I still have a Facebook account. But the friction of grabbing my laptop and logging in forces me to consider "is this what I want to do? Or am I thoughtlessly reaching for the crack pipe?"
(It's been months since I've cared to log into Facebook. Feels more like trudging through spam in an old e-mail inbox, now, than anything compelling.)
The biggest issue for me is Messenger. There's a few people I only communicate with on it, and I'd hate to lose that, even though it's not frequent communication. Otherwise, I've had mine deactivated (so I could keep messenger) for going on a month now, and don't miss it apart from some updates for groups I'm in.
It was for me, too. That said, if you simply ignore Facebook Messages and periodically drop in with "didn't see this until just now; shoot me an e-mail or text next time," everything you want to see eventually makes it over.
I recently sent the message “hi I’m deleting my facebook so text me instead at <number>” to everyone I communicated with in the last few months. Turned out to be only a handful of folks.
Facebook is not going away, not soon, at least. Not until a fit replacement shows up.
I look at people around me, they love how easy it is to create a new facebook "group" just to get people together working on something (event, workgroup, plain discussion around a topic). Nothing matches this so far.
Nobody wants mailing lists (I do!), or newsgroups, or going to 2 or 3 other website (more registrations needed) to be able to do the same facebook does so simple.
Unfortunately.
PS - extra tip: take advantage of the containers in the new firefox, and make sure you isolate your facebook usage in one, at least it wont track you around the web
This is really stuck up and unrealistic. People need connection and Facebook provides that. Provide an alternative or suck it up. Positive and negative causes both feed off of what Facebook has to offer. Being high and mighty isn't going to be enough to fix what is wrong here.
57 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadEdit: typo
As an outsider I find the fuzz around Facebook amazing.
So what Facebook does only care about money. Are they supposed not to?
If you don't like Facebook just leave and don't be so dramatic about it.
Simply "leaving Facebook" isn't as meaningful a choice as you're suggesting it to be.
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around heroin amazing....If you don't like heroin just leave and don't be so dramatic about it."
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around depression amazing....If you feel depressed just get some exercise and don't be so dramatic about it."
- "As an outsider I find the fuzz around sex addiction amazing....If you are addicted just stop having sex and don't be so dramatic about it."
The world is becoming more empathetic to addiction and mental strength - And is, in general, transitioning away from 'stiff upper lip' / policing policy towards nurturing / healthcare.
It's worth considering 'FOMO' (fear of missing out), social anxieties, desperation to belong in society etc... There are many factors like these (genuine mental patterns that people experience) that give credibility to the current narrative of 'social media is addictive and we should help people'.
It therefore seems that one's default stance should be 'I assume there is a genuine problem here that people need help with' rather than 'they must be pathetic, why don't they just quit'.
So if Facebook doesn't care, why do people think Twitter cares? Or any social media?
I early on naively hoped Google+ would "save" social media... But honestly, even though I was a huge proponent in it's first year or so, it became clear the problem was really with the concept itself and not the platforms. I don't believe in global social networks anymore. I believe in a very loosely tied network of tiny to small communities for interests, groups of friends, etc. And I realise some social media platforms have tried to implement groups, but to me it never even really came close to offering what we already had with the web of online forums and IRC channels. To me, having a single global network where each person has their own group of friends is both too limiting and too wide open.
I suffer from PTSD due to childhood abuse and neglect (and I'm talking heavy drug use, physical, verbal, and psychological abuse, gas-lightning). But when my parents, my abusers, added me on Facebook I felt obligated to add them due to pressure from family members and friends who don't get how the abuse affected me, and out of guilt because I had a child and didn't want to deprive them of some relationship with their grandchild. I do know that responsibility lies with me for not ignoring them or speaking up about it. However, leaving Facebook severed that connection again, and I felt slightly more free knowing I wouldn't have to interact with them or let them have a view into my life.
I started using Facebook because I wanted to cure my loneliness and make some friends in college, which did actually happen. At first. Now it's just a platform that reminds me of the past by forcing these "connections", suggesting people who I had long forgotten and never wanted to speak to again.
I say, "Good riddance".
> Now it's just a platform that reminds me of the past by forcing these "connections"
It doesn't force those things.
How did Facebook force them to add those people as friends?
No, facebook the company did not force them at gunpoint to add their parents. That's correct. There are degrees of pressure, yes? If someone found them too much to put up with, is it unreasonable to accept the term 'forced' as apropos?
[EDIT: to the people downvoting this, the subtleties of language matter. There is a big and specific difference between concepts like "encouraged", "presssured" and "forced"]
So perhaps loosen your grip and understand what the OP was saying?
The definition I cited was for illustration. Since when does backing up you point with a definition mean you're being slavishly robotic?
Since you're trying to imply my usage of the term is narrow and unrealistic, what's the different notion of "forcing" someone to do something that would make it true that Facebook is forcing people to friend others that they otherwise wouldn't want to?
From a Facebook designer's point of view, the UI/UX most surely is intended to be "encouraging". But it may also be the case that for some users, the social dynamic may feel particularly oppressive.
I'm explicitly stating.
Guilt is a strong motivator, as least for me, so granting someone that access makes it a lot more difficult to set appropriate boundaries.
When I was a kid, long before Facebook, my mom would frequently receive an anonymous chain letter in the mail.
The letter would have some dramatic emotional appeal, or it would claim to be raising money for a poor family in the church, or it would promise pyramid riches, or it might have some mystical mumbo jumbo warning about breaking the chain.
But in the end, the stories about heartbreak or helping people or mysterious calamities were complete horseshit. Their only purpose was to convince my mom to copy the letter and send it to 12 other people, thus expanding the base of the pyramid for the benefit of whoever started the chain letter.
Facebook is the modern chain letter.
Just like chain letters, Facebook has lots of horseshit stories about connecting people, with implied mysterious social consequences for not participating.
But underneath all that, the real purpose of Facebook is to amplify social pressure to get people to expand the base of the pyramid for Facebook's benefit.
If you delete a friend request people can send a new request
The only option is to leave it there and be reminded you have new friend requests or delete the request and block the user
It actually forces you to take action to block people you removed from your life long ago.
It should work the other way around
Although FB software doesn’t “force” any connection, as the comment above so well illustrates, there can be incredible social pressure enabled by FB to do something such as stay connected to an abuser.
If you consider FB to be literally the software only, rather than the software plus community, then you may be technically correct. This IMO is a narrow and limited view of what companies and products are.
To me there is a clear and significant difference between "pressuring" someone and "forcing" someone, and I'm honestly a bit baffled by why this simple (to me) and small point seems controversial in the subthread anchored in the grandparent comment.
I think creators of social platforms need to be vastly more aware that just because you know someone or are related to them doesn't mean it's a positive. They need to stop assuming that making certain associations is all to the good. Such default assumptions tend to do the most harm to very vulnerable people who most need some kind of support for protecting themselves.
Anyone have any insight into a more thoughtful recommendation approach that can be represented algorithmically?
Also any social platform would be hurting user growth metrics if they made you jump through hoops for discovering if someone you know has a profile. This is super nuanced, thanks for the unique perspective.
So far it hasn't happened. Many were called and none were chosen. Look for The Others.
If you say to someone dont speed, drink and drive as it may cause you to get into a car accident its clear to see the devastating impact speeding and drink driving can have, people can imagine it, they can see it and dont want to be involved in it, but when you tell friends and family facebook has the potential to brainwash, manipulate and control you its hard for people to understand how because it is related to understanding how data can predict and be used understand behavior, its a very new concept for many people just being understood in the last few years.
To the majority of users they control facebook, its not the other way around, they can delete images, comment on things, vote on things and and do what they need to on the platform from the saftey of their own home, to majority of people it gives them a voice when before no one cared about what they had to say, but as the ads that they are shown seep into their thoughts without them knowing, the articles and propaganda about the latest political events change their behavior and their emotions and mental well being are affected as they see their friends lives supposedly much better then theirs, they just get more and more sucked in.
As someone with a comp sci major from 15 years ago and understanding the power of data i have been having this conversation with people for years and even now with so much of these facebook powered problems occurring more and more in the media, many still dont see the effects, though at least now , the dangers are hitting the bigger more general audience. At least there is progress there and hopefully this will allow the public to make a more informed decision before they put up their whole lives and the lives of their kids on social media before their kids are even old enough to approve or accept that they want a social media account.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
Facebook interest has been steadily trending down for years.
1. Turn off notifications for the Facebook app on your phone; next
2. Turn off notifications for the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps on your phone; then
3. Delete the Facebook app from your phone; then
4. Delete the Facebook Messenger, Instagram, et cetera apps from your phone; and finally
5. Log out of Facebook on your desktop.
It took me 2 years to go through from step 1 to step 5. It has made me happier and more productive. I still have a Facebook account. But the friction of grabbing my laptop and logging in forces me to consider "is this what I want to do? Or am I thoughtlessly reaching for the crack pipe?"
(It's been months since I've cared to log into Facebook. Feels more like trudging through spam in an old e-mail inbox, now, than anything compelling.)
It was for me, too. That said, if you simply ignore Facebook Messages and periodically drop in with "didn't see this until just now; shoot me an e-mail or text next time," everything you want to see eventually makes it over.
Take the plunge! The water’s great!
I’m using Facebook so much less now that every time I login it send some me a “friend suggestion” notification.
The last 20 or so people recommended are not even people I know. I’ve never even heard their names before.
I look at people around me, they love how easy it is to create a new facebook "group" just to get people together working on something (event, workgroup, plain discussion around a topic). Nothing matches this so far.
Nobody wants mailing lists (I do!), or newsgroups, or going to 2 or 3 other website (more registrations needed) to be able to do the same facebook does so simple.
Unfortunately.
PS - extra tip: take advantage of the containers in the new firefox, and make sure you isolate your facebook usage in one, at least it wont track you around the web