| |
| ▲ | jolmg 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | People can choose Facebook or to get in contact with people individually via phone, email or visits, but they prefer Facebook because it's more convenient to put a message there and count as maintenance of a group of relationships. People can choose between accepting the cameras or participating in the democracy they belong in and protest and pressure their representatives, but it's more convenient to accept. It's true there are people without choice, but most people aren't without choice, and they choose convenience. | | |
| ▲ | NietzscheanNull 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a specious argument because it neglects to take into account information asymmetries and change over time. When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection and its downstream implications. People initially chose Facebook because it truly offered a novel and improved service, and the true cost users would pay for it wasn't obvious to anyone yet. The "wall", chronological friends-only feeds, etc. provided genuine value, and at that point the public at large were almost completely oblivious to how much personal data was being collected from them (and even less as to how it might be used in ways counter to their own interests). Once they'd fully captured the vast majority of user share, Facebook clawed back value by deprecating the chronological feed, serving ads and "high-engagement" posts in place of friend submissions, and generally ramped up their data harvesting significantly further since. Most people would agree that the service is far worse than what they initially signed up for, but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. They're effectively held hostage by network effects that were intentionally planned and designed around producing that lock-in effect and guaranteeing that all potential alternatives either withered on the vine or were absorbed (e.g. Instagram). To the extent there's a "choice," it's a coerced choice on purpose. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > When Facebook was first launched, there wasn't any widespread understanding of the breadth/intensity of their data collection Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them? > provided genuine value Yes, the convenience. > how much personal data was being collected from them "They collected it; I didn't give it to them." > but feel like there's no longer a viable alternative that would allow them to maintain the same level of communication with the people they care about. Yes, "the pesky convenience is forcing me." > Facebook users are not "choosing convenience" by staying on the only platform that all of their friends and family use exclusively. "My friends and family are forcing me." Despite my comments, I'm not totally against the use of Facebook, but I am against the surrender of personal agency and blame-shifting these comments are demonstrating. | | |
| ▲ | Timon3 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Come on, you're trying to tell me that people didn't understand that when they give someone a thing, that someone has the thing they gave them? This is a bad faith argument, because Facebook collects far, far more than "the thing they gave them". | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's true they collect more, but I wouldn't say "far, far more". They get the most from what you provide yourself. That's unless you have relationships that share too much about you. | | |
| ▲ | Timon3 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Did they stop tracking people through their like buttons by now? If not, there's no argument - they're literally tracking non-users on every site they can! Besides Google, what company is doing as much tracking as much as Facebook? Wasn't it just last year that it became known how Facebook and Instagram apps track your browsing through WebRTC? That alone is far far more than people knowingly give them. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Learning about their tracking web browsing through WebRTC ports from the apps, you have a point on users not knowingly providing that. Still, if you dissociate from Facebook (not having their apps, not being logged on, etc.) then that tracking would've been ineffective. The rest of my comment stands on their being able to leave it. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | indoorfish 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | De facto no choice is still no choice. A captured market isn't the same as people choosing convenience. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The world when Facebook was introduced: "Oh well, I guess I have no choice. There's nothing like Facebook, so I'm forced to upload my family photos to these people. I'm not responsible for doing that. Let me just find somebody to blame, maybe the family that's already using it? Nevermind that there are alternatives for keeping in touch. We don't talk about that. They're just not as convenient, so they're obsolete." | | |
| ▲ | lenkite 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You do know that there were over a dozen social media networks that facebook bought over and effectively extinguished or merged into their behemoth right ? They deliberately ensured that choices were extremely limited. Any "alternative" that got popular and not under control of another behemoth was effectively taken over or killed. So your "use an alternative" logic just does not compute. | | |
| ▲ | jolmg 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | >> alternatives for keeping in touch Phone calls, knocks on doors, emails, regular meetups at places. |
|
|
|
|
|
