Hacker News Reader

Comment by next_xibalba | Hacker News Reader

> The fact consumers love something doesn't make it a good thing.

It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist.

> they love also facebook

Ah, yes. The old "facebook is as bad as cigarettes" trope. It feels a lot like the claims around TV in the 70s and 80s. "It's rotting people's brains!" But society kept on chugging. It is one thing to object to Facebook's business model. It is another entirely to deem it "Bad For You". Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them.

View on HN

But something is seriously wrong with a society where it's impossible to avoid a thing that you consider harmful to yourself just because the larger market prefers it.

It used to be that one of the strengths of our economic system was that you could find something to meet your needs even if your needs weren't the same as the majority.

I don't know that this has ever really been the case. Particularly with mature product categories. And most especially for product categories with high barriers to entry in the form of large capital requirements. It was one thing to be able to go to the local candy shop for a chocolate bar if you didn't want a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup, but something else if you wanted a television set.

Are you thinking of an example where that once was true but has changed? I'm open to examples but can't myself think of any that are analogous.

I agree with you; I've noticed the same thing. It seems many niche or small markets are being abandoned in favor of the larger ones.

How is it impossible to avoid smart TVs? I don’t own a TV at all, I just use my desktop monitor. And then there are a bunch of examples in this thread about commercial displays.

It’s not impossible to not own a smart TV, it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want. Outside of hacker news, no one considers smart TVs harmful.

I consider cars harmful and yet hacker news gets up in arms when I propose banning them from cities.

> it’s just the mass market caters to what the vast majority want

All sorts of ways to dispute this assertion, the most easy probably just to point to the existence of the multi-trillion dollar advertising industry

> It does make it a good thing for them.

This ignores that companies pour billions into advertising, fake research and lobbying to influence consumer behavior.

It also ignores network effects and lack of choice: if all your friends are in Facebook and there isn't a viable alternative to socialize, you don't have much of a choice, besides being left out (which may not be such a bad option but may also make you miss valuable socialization).

why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist.

Is that the same as bad? What is this zealotry against paternalism and elitism? Perhaps you could focus more on outcomes than some social engineering crusade you have, deciding that certain philosophies are automatically "bad".

> It does make it a good thing for them. Which begs the question: why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves? The answers against the latter are, at their root, paternalistic and elitist.

I'm not clear on what your argument is here. Are you:

* denying that there is a fact of the matter about whether, for any item X, X is beneficial or harmful?

* asserting that something's being beneficial or harmful has no meaning apart from signifying present-day user preference?

* merely asserting that users fairly reliably tend to prefer what is good for them, and avoid what is bad for them?

> Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them.

It sounds like you are making a case here that Facebook is beneficial because it improves the lives of its users—am I understanding that correctly?

Are you engaging in good faith? Your reply seems a lot like [1]. I'll answer your questions if you first answer those that I posed (which you quoted):

> Why is it that you get to decide what is or isn't a good thing? Or: why shouldn't people be able to decide for themselves?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question

That is why what we need is not DumpTV, but Smart TV that is sane.

In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine?

> Billions of people like using the product and it hasn't hurt their lives. In fact, it has improved them.

I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine. I don't think your argument is made in good faith.

> I don't believe Facebook or TV are equivalent to cocaine.

Exactly. You were making a broad claim that it is "paternalistic and elitist" to decide what is "good for you" vs "bad for you". If it is paternalistic and elitist in some cases, but appropriate in others, then don't we need a way to figure out what side of that line various things fall on?

> In what way do your arguments not also apply to cocaine?

This is the comment to which I was responding. As I see it, there are two premises here which both have to be accepted (i.e. it is an "AND" not an "OR"):

1) Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine

2) Cocaine is bad for you

If I reject that Facebook/TV is analogous to cocaine, I reject the entire thing. I was not making a broad claim about people's autonomy vs. paternalism. I was making a narrow claim in relation to two (at worst) benign things: smart TVs and Facebook.

Bingo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com