I haven’t seen any real evidence to that effect. Shy of handing your bank number to scammers, the “Don’t use your computer to do X, use it to do Y” consumerist internet activism never seems to impact anything. How Big Tech actually does business seems driven by FinTech investment far more than user engagement.
Do you accept that facebook is harmful to the world, or would I need to try to prove that? There’s the time they tried to see if they could make people sad by adjusting the feed. (They could)
If you accept that, it’s a small step to “They benefit from having more users on their platform”. More users means more engagement, which means more ads, and advertisers pay more money for those ads. No one’s going to pay big bucks to advertise their stuff to an empty platform. Facebook’s going to have a harder time selling user data and metadata if users aren’t on there.
Now, getting one family to stop using facebook is a drop in the bucket. But every family that leaves makes it easier for the next family to leave.
Do you accept that facebook is harmful to the world
Yes. But I believe it is harmful because of the way it has been leveraged to crowd out the public sector and strangle competitive private alternatives. It has become one wing of a massive tech sector cartel.
If you accept that, it’s a small step to “They benefit from having more users on their platform”.
That doesn’t logically follow. No more than saying “Building more highways is bad for the environment, ergo the highway administrators benefit from having more cars on the road.” You’re looking at a problem of induced demand and concluding the problem is on the demand-side of the equation.
Now, getting one family to stop using facebook is a drop in the bucket.
It’s one node in a massive web. And it’s easy to say “Well, you have to do your part because <insert consumerist morality here>”. But mostly it’s just some random asshole on the internet telling me not to use my telephone because AT&T is run by a richer set of random assholes. There’s no material benefit to me and no collective coordinated action that I’m seriously participating in.
That doesn’t logically follow. No more than saying “Building more highways is bad for the environment, ergo the highway administrators benefit from having more cars on the road.” You’re looking at a problem of induced demand and concluding the problem is on the demand-side of the equation.
What? Yes it does. Facebook needs users to generate revenue. With no users, they can’t sell ads or user data. How else do you think they make money? Do you not think making money is a benefit for the owners of facebook?
It’s one node in a massive web. And it’s easy to say “Well, you have to do your part because <insert consumerist morality here>”. But mostly it’s just some random asshole on the internet telling me not to use my telephone because AT&T is run by a richer set of random assholes. There’s no material benefit to me and no collective coordinated action that I’m seriously participating in.
You’re reminding me of Eleanor from the good place. Do you also litter? Refuse to return shopping carts?
She’s a very selfish person who doesn’t care about other people. She only cares about what benefits her. So when someone says “there’s no material benefit to me” they sound like that kind of asshole.
Also it was a critically acclaimed show, not some obscure media.
Hotmail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail are all run by dirt bags.
Those aren’t the only email providers, and using email is less harmful than using Facebook.
I haven’t seen any real evidence to that effect. Shy of handing your bank number to scammers, the “Don’t use your computer to do X, use it to do Y” consumerist internet activism never seems to impact anything. How Big Tech actually does business seems driven by FinTech investment far more than user engagement.
Do you accept that facebook is harmful to the world, or would I need to try to prove that? There’s the time they tried to see if they could make people sad by adjusting the feed. (They could)
If you accept that, it’s a small step to “They benefit from having more users on their platform”. More users means more engagement, which means more ads, and advertisers pay more money for those ads. No one’s going to pay big bucks to advertise their stuff to an empty platform. Facebook’s going to have a harder time selling user data and metadata if users aren’t on there.
Now, getting one family to stop using facebook is a drop in the bucket. But every family that leaves makes it easier for the next family to leave.
Yes. But I believe it is harmful because of the way it has been leveraged to crowd out the public sector and strangle competitive private alternatives. It has become one wing of a massive tech sector cartel.
That doesn’t logically follow. No more than saying “Building more highways is bad for the environment, ergo the highway administrators benefit from having more cars on the road.” You’re looking at a problem of induced demand and concluding the problem is on the demand-side of the equation.
It’s one node in a massive web. And it’s easy to say “Well, you have to do your part because <insert consumerist morality here>”. But mostly it’s just some random asshole on the internet telling me not to use my telephone because AT&T is run by a richer set of random assholes. There’s no material benefit to me and no collective coordinated action that I’m seriously participating in.
What? Yes it does. Facebook needs users to generate revenue. With no users, they can’t sell ads or user data. How else do you think they make money? Do you not think making money is a benefit for the owners of facebook?
You’re reminding me of Eleanor from the good place. Do you also litter? Refuse to return shopping carts?
Why the fuck is Eleanor something people should know? Use your words
She’s a very selfish person who doesn’t care about other people. She only cares about what benefits her. So when someone says “there’s no material benefit to me” they sound like that kind of asshole.
Also it was a critically acclaimed show, not some obscure media.