Is it a problem? If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them? It might not be the original intent, or the hopes of some (and only some), but if people are content with this outcome, there's little debate to be had.
The question presented here, though, is whether or not allowing Facebook to monopolize the industry is a threat to society. Services provided are irrelevant. This is a matter of centralization.
>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them?
Don't mistake addiction for contentment. How many of those people would like to be doing something else, but just can't pull themselves away from the slot machine?
and how many people tell themselves they'd like to do something else (say, learn a language or instrument) as a form of ego-protection because it's "what sophisticated people do"? The underlying assumption that we should all want to learn Latin and to play the Cello seems to have been roundly invalidated, despite continuing to be played out in the public sphere.
Probably not very many people tell themselves that. Seems more like something cynical and judgmental people assume other people tell themselves.
But I can tell you almost anything creative / productive / self-developmental feels more rewarding than the time I fritter away doing nothing on the internet, like idly scrolling Reddit.
I'm not content that my default mode is to do things that never feel rewarding. So any minute I can reclaim for something more self-developmental, like a Duolingo Spanish exercise, makes my life a little better and satisfying in my own eyes.
But _why_ do you want to learn Spanish? Is it because you are planning an extended stay in a Spanish-speaking country, or have Spanish-speaking friends, or is it because you have a romantic conception of multilingualism?
My point was that people often seem to romanticise fairly arbitrary personal development goals as being a lofty intent, but when push comes to shove you'll find them in front of the TV or playing a game. What does that say about our internal reward system and the value of forcing yourself to do something that you tell yourself you'll enjoy over something you genuinely enjoy? The idea that entertainment is a "lower pursuit" and learning arbitrary skills is a "higher pursuit" smacks of social construction.
Could you substitute "eating healthy" and "exercise" into this line of thinking? Or other alternatives that you yourself might agree are "better" while maybe being difficult to choose to do, and not as "enjoyable" as some less ideal alternative action?
That something is "enjoyable" in the short-term does not mean that it is beneficial in the long term.
Doing drugs, getting high, gambling, any other short-term dopamine hit is easy, and feels good in the moment, yet can pretty easily be characterized as bad in the long term, and objectively worse than alternative actions that in the short term are not as pleasurable and enjoyable. I use obviously extreme examples to illustrate the logic.
Figuring out which pursuits and behaviors fit into which bucket certainly is not quite so straight forward. But I think the OP you are responding to has something right when they describe it challenging to escape the easy/addictive and replace it with the difficult/beneficial.
If you only characterized exercise as "practicing picking up a heavy weight and putting it over there. Why do you need to do this? etc." then certainly the benefits can seem ridiculous.
That there is no direct practical need to learn Spanish, doesn't mean learning to speak it doesn't garner ancillary benefits.
There's a balance to be had here. I've tried to "be creative" all the time and it just doesn't work. You need those moments idly scrolling Reddit or HN (or going for a walk outside, or vegging out with TV or videogames) for your brain to a.) have new stimulus to process and b.) have time to process it.
I'd be terribly unhappy if all I did was surf Reddit, but I was also equally unhappy when I just tried to work, produce, and learn all the time.
I mean, if you really want to take it to that extreme, why is the argument against facebook videogames and not videogame culture as a whole? Seems like in this case, Facebook is just a scapegoat.
I completely disagree that videogames are bad (in moderation, of course, as all things). Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement. Compare this to other forms of entertainment media and games look good. There are vapid videogames on mobile and social which are little more than slot machines, but that doesn't mean all or most games are fruitless wastes of time. And even in mobile, if you get deeply into many of the top performing games, there is a lot of thinking and strategy involved. It's far from idle, passive, worthless entertainment.
What's more, games often help people connect to others, sometimes from around the world, in a shared interest. For people who are socially stressed or are going through a rough time without enough support in real life, this can be extremely helpful. And even for those who have plenty of social life, it's often fun to meet people in game.
In my opinion, this is the most dangerous aspect of games, though - they can fulfill that feeling of achievement that would otherwise belong to creative work, and satiate the need for that kind of work. The problem is that the achievements aren't helpful in the same way that eg building a company/invention/coffee table are.
I say this as a lifelong game player, and it's not to discount their positive effects - I think I'm a much better strategist and planner as a result of playing games as a kid.
Thank you! I very much agree with this. Most claims I see made against video games (as a whole or phone-based) tend to be made from atop a pedestal, and usually with very little willingness to open one's mind to the plausible benefits (visible or otherwise).
Video games covers a very broad market, but the race to the bottom in price in some segments seems to have been followed by unproductive time sink mechanics made by people who didn't realise (or perhaps didn't care) that Cow Clicker was a parody.
I've had to put the kongregate minigames site into my own /etc/hosts file as 0.0.0.0 to stop myself playing the "Idle"/"Clicker" genre.
Positive games do exist, but they are thinner on the ground than they used to be. I think.
> Games often involve problem solving, learning systems, practice and continual improvement.
A lot of videogames focus on instant gratification and variable time rewards. There have been some games focused on problem solving - games where instead of simply playing you'd find yourself spending 20 minutes looking over your handwritten notes trying to puzzle something out - but they're a minority.
Many things that are harmful in large doses but beneficial in moderation. Alcohol has many beneficial effects when used in moderation, but too much is both immediately a problem and can cause systemic problems. Drugs (of the legal/medical sort) are specifically used because of their beneficial nature, but most of them cause harm when used in excess.
The problems come when something has a feedback loop which promotes more usage beyond normal usage. Alcohol has this, and so does heroin. Different games have this to different degrees. Like most things I've mentioned, different people are susceptible to this to different degrees, which complicates the issue.
I think most of those who've responded to you recognize the argument is against Facebook, videogames, tv, etc and in general all vapid time sucks designed to keep the user in an unenlightened state
I'm not sure I agree there. I think most of the responses were in the same vein as "look at these mindless sheep who can't lift their heads from their phones".
> Can you judge how people should live their lives better than they can?
Me personally? No. We as a society in which that person lives? Yes, to the degree that it affects us. That's why we have public education and vaccination.
If you want to retire to a remote cabin in the woods with a ton of heroin and finish out your days, I have no complaints. If you want to do it such that others need to clean up after you (whether that be garbage on the street or an unpaid hospital bill from an emergency room visit), then you are subject to their desires to a greater or lesser degree. You aren't allowed to have the benefits of society without the drawbacks. That's what civilization is.
Oddly, most of the garbage that accumulates on the streets where I live consists of empty cigarette packs/butts, coffee cups, beer and soda cans, junk food and fast food wrappers, etc. And the hospitals are full of people suffering the consequences of recklessly consuming those things.
It's not all that odd. What society deems is beneficial as a whole is not necessarily what is beneficial for an individual. It's not necessarily beneficial even, it's just what's been decided is. A society without caffeine might be better off, but we've decided we don't believe so for a multitude of reasons. That doesn't mean we are correct, it just means we've made a choice.
Cogs that don't fit get ground down. That's not meant as some dig against modern society, all human groups feature this to some degree. Your prototypical small native american tribe is no different.
>If people are happy with that status quo, who are we to challenge them?
Because that happiness is an illusion. One that prevents them from seeing the seriousness of their situation. Whether it's texting-and-driving, or climate-change-denial. This "tool" is going to do us more harm than good.
Can you qualify that real quick by providing evidence that you are more capable than others at identifying degrees of reality vs illusion in activities?
what is "needed" seems more like a post-facto rationalization for each individual. everyone's future is uncertain. extra education generally provides more options and flexibility, while the same doesn't really apply to a more limited education.
Excellent point about centralisation. I can't help but feel many people either misunderstood or didn't read the article. In my view, the power Zuckerberg wields is staggering, although I've seen many postings here with contrasting views on that level of power.
The article is excellent. It's well structured and insightful. It also leads us to ask excellent questions and provides relevant content to mull over. As an example, Zuckerberg's message was fascinating in what it didn't say.
My superficial value add to truthhawk's article is as follows.
1. How much sway does Facebook actually have? Do most people seek information outside of Facebook? If they hear/see something enough, does it become truth?
2. Would Zuckerberg want to be president? I've always viewed the President as being a servant to power brokers behind the scenes. Wouldn't Zuckerberg have more influence by striking deals with potential candidates and hold leverage through Facebook profile analysis? Does Zuckerberg have the power to be more than a president?
3. Does anyone actually have the power to take on Facebook? Might that person be subjected to extra criticism (eg. during the next election) if they don't play ball?
4. Facebook exists and it is particularly powerful. If you were to decentralise the leadership (as discussed by truthhawk), would that add benefit? How? I see potential for a fragmented committee, or worse. Could Zuckerberg be like Jobs was to Apple?
5. Long term, assuming Facebook and Zuckerberg survive the test of time, who takes over? What sort of people would gravitate to that role? What might that mean for this wealth of information on many citizens of the world? Even if Zuckerberg is a benevolent dictator, the potential vacuum of power that will be created horrifies me, especially thinking about the personalities that may fight for it.
I don't believe Facebook will disappear any time soon. There are serious questions around Facebook that we desperately need to consider. This article is excellent as it helps focus us on this goal.
This is why I (mostly) love HN. It really makes me think about the world around me in so many interesting and meaningful ways. I may have given up on MSM and once-brilliant sites like Ars Technica (who now thrust biased gender and governmental politics down our throats). I hope HN can keep its secret sauce flowing.
The question presented here, though, is whether or not allowing Facebook to monopolize the industry is a threat to society. Services provided are irrelevant. This is a matter of centralization.