Hacker News Reader

Comment by freshfunk | Hacker News Reader

1B people disagree with you.

1B people aren't even asking themselves those questions.

If people didn't think FB was making things more open and connected, then why are they even on the site (and returning frequently)? It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

It may not be YOUR narrow definition of open and connected but clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

And that is relevant how, exactly? Even if it was: 6B people are NOT using it.

A good majority of that is in China where the govt has banned it.

Show me a service that's connected more people that hasn't been around for more than 20 years and not named "the Internet."

The greatest value FB brings is making it easier to connect and share (ie. be open) with others and 1B people derive enough value in that to come back on a regular basis. That's the point.

clearly they are deriving value from connecting and sharing with their friends and family.

Which they would be doing anyway if FB didn't exist. FB to them is convenience, nothing more. Many of them probably think that FB is "the Internet", just as many AOL users thought that in the 90's. They are only "connected" inside the walled garden; they have no idea of all the things that are outside it.

Wow that's pretty condescending.

Yes, it is a convenience... Much like email is a convenience over snail mail and Face Time is a convenience over meeting in person. Arguably the car is a "convenience" over the horse.

Discounting the breakthrough in technology that spawned the term "social networking" doesn't really help your position.

AOL may be a defunct company but in their hey day they brought millions of people online. They deserve more than your mockery.

I didn't say there was no value in convenience. Of course there is. I use email. I'm posting here instead of xeroxing and snail mailing what I write. But HN isn't trying to monetize my personal information, and it isn't trying to be my only portal to the Internet.

Yes, AOL in its heyday brought lots of people online--and made them think that going through AOL was the only way to get online. Facebook has brought a lot of people social networking--and has made them think that allowing Facebook to monetize their private information is the only way to do social networking. They are encouraging people to choose short-term convenience at the expense of long-term control over their own data and their own online lives.

My point is that saying "lots of people use Facebook" is not the same thing as saying "Facebook is doing things that are good for its users, or the Internet, or society, all things considered". Same for s/Facebook/AOL/.

Because they don't give a shit about openness and connectedness, all they care about is gossiping with/about their friends and drama.

Ah, "If many believe so, it is so", the Argumentum Ad Populum [1]. In Roman times, 1 million people believed that you could foretell the future by 'reading' the entrails of animals. That so many people believed this, doesn't make it necessary a reliable way to predict the future ;-)

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

More than a Billion people disagree on pretty much anything.

Not having much of a thought either way doesn't exactly count as disagreeing in my books. And even if that wasn't true: the arguments matter, not the amount of people that hold a certain opinion.

"Do you want to post this comment to your Facebook timeline?"

[ Yes ] [ in 1 minute ]

Reply on news.ycombinator.com