6 ms·

What? Are you delusional? I rarely ever get this concerned at HN comments, but to say outright that one should be willing to give up any liberties or rights a c

What? Are you delusional? I rarely ever get this concerned at HN comments, but to say outright that one should be willing to give up any liberties or rights a corporation deems are dangerous, in order to participate in a group that has no inherent need for their products anyway, is beyond nonsensical. This is more than can be called a "social contract"; Facebook is committing social theft by stealing away any local groups into its servers.

0_____0 7y ago
pretty sure parent comment is tongue-in-cheek
- RandomGuyDTB 7y ago
  Actually, on re-examination I thought I might've been a bit angrier than one should be when commenting on this site, but the poster confirmed they were serious.
heartbeats 7y ago
Well, let's put it this way: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." You can stay away from Facebook and then feel really smug ten years from now when it eventually collapses. But until then, you'd have missed out on a lot of important things. The only winning move is to realize that you do not have a choice, and that the terms of service are just an illusion. For the record, I think Facebook's existence is regrettable. But the notion that you have any ability, choice, freedom, right, or opportunity to opt out from it is laughable. As for the idea of the social contract, I think you are actually spot on: > Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority [...] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Individuals have: [?] consented explicitly [x] consented tacitly [x] to surrender some of their freedoms [x] to submit to the authority [Facebook] [ ] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights [x] in exchange for maintenance of the social order In fact, it could even be argued that this de-facto state of affair ought to be made de-jure. Certainly, it is the case already today that many of my local government agencies are more active on Twitter or Facebook than they are over phone or e-mail. In fact, they rarely use e-mail for regulatory reasons. If someone is suicidal, has an extreme drinking problem, or holds extremist political beliefs, we consider this a transgression and rightfully lock them up/commit them to involuntary psychiatric care. Why is this not the case for all self-harmful behaviors? Considering many employers etc. already want it, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider people hermits for refusing to participate, just as we consider an individual defect for not owning a smartphone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY
CaptainZapp 7y ago
I just finished a yoga retreat, on which they organized the group on Facebook. At the intro the karma yogi requested our phone numbers for WhatsApp, which, like FB, I refuse to participate in (I happily provided my number, though) You know what? A bit of an obstacle for the organizers and slightly more hassle for me (for example: I'll have to mail one of the participants so that he mails me the pictures shared on WhatsApp). Else than that? A complete no-brainer for all involved. I totally get why those tools are used to help organize such an event. They totally got why I refuse to come close to anything Facebook with a vengeance and were happy to work around it. As an added bonus I was the only one in the group who shut the phone off on Sunday evening and didn't touch it again until the retreat finished the following Friday. If people really believe that I'm an antisocial hermit, which cannot be trusted? Well, fuck them very much!
- heartbeats 7y ago
  In many groups, that's not how it works - you either join up on Facebook, or all dice are off the table. If so, then it's quite apparent ex-facto why they want to move to Facebook - if people are not willing to go through that hoop to join in, then why would they want them?
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    So, you're implicitly suggesting that unless I accept a user agreement of one of the dirtiest companies in business I should not be a part of society? I'm really rather glad that we quite obviously don't inhibit the same world.
    - heartbeats 7y ago
      I'm saying that's already how it is, and that it might as well be made official, i.e. law. To be clear here, I tried to do this, and all it earned me was ostracism. It is not a virtuous act at all, despite what some may like to give you the impression of. In Finland, Internet access is considered to be a human right, and it's not feasible to do a lot of things otherwise, such as banking errands. Considering Facebook == the Internet to many people, I don't see why the same rules can't apply there.

0_____0 7y ago

pretty sure parent comment is tongue-in-cheek

RandomGuyDTB 7y ago
Actually, on re-examination I thought I might've been a bit angrier than one should be when commenting on this site, but the poster confirmed they were serious.

heartbeats 7y ago

Well, let's put it this way: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." You can stay away from Facebook and then feel really smug ten years from now when it eventually collapses. But until then, you'd have missed out on a lot of important things. The only winning move is to realize that you do not have a choice, and that the terms of service are just an illusion. For the record, I think Facebook's existence is regrettable. But the notion that you have any ability, choice, freedom, right, or opportunity to opt out from it is laughable. As for the idea of the social contract, I think you are actually spot on: > Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority [...] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. Individuals have: [?] consented explicitly [x] consented tacitly [x] to surrender some of their freedoms [x] to submit to the authority [Facebook] [ ] in exchange for protection of their remaining rights [x] in exchange for maintenance of the social order In fact, it could even be argued that this de-facto state of affair ought to be made de-jure. Certainly, it is the case already today that many of my local government agencies are more active on Twitter or Facebook than they are over phone or e-mail. In fact, they rarely use e-mail for regulatory reasons. If someone is suicidal, has an extreme drinking problem, or holds extremist political beliefs, we consider this a transgression and rightfully lock them up/commit them to involuntary psychiatric care. Why is this not the case for all self-harmful behaviors? Considering many employers etc. already want it, it doesn't seem far-fetched to consider people hermits for refusing to participate, just as we consider an individual defect for not owning a smartphone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMChO0qNbkY

CaptainZapp 7y ago

I just finished a yoga retreat, on which they organized the group on Facebook. At the intro the karma yogi requested our phone numbers for WhatsApp, which, like FB, I refuse to participate in (I happily provided my number, though) You know what? A bit of an obstacle for the organizers and slightly more hassle for me (for example: I'll have to mail one of the participants so that he mails me the pictures shared on WhatsApp). Else than that? A complete no-brainer for all involved. I totally get why those tools are used to help organize such an event. They totally got why I refuse to come close to anything Facebook with a vengeance and were happy to work around it. As an added bonus I was the only one in the group who shut the phone off on Sunday evening and didn't touch it again until the retreat finished the following Friday. If people really believe that I'm an antisocial hermit, which cannot be trusted? Well, fuck them very much!

heartbeats 7y ago
In many groups, that's not how it works - you either join up on Facebook, or all dice are off the table. If so, then it's quite apparent ex-facto why they want to move to Facebook - if people are not willing to go through that hoop to join in, then why would they want them?
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  So, you're implicitly suggesting that unless I accept a user agreement of one of the dirtiest companies in business I should not be a part of society? I'm really rather glad that we quite obviously don't inhibit the same world.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    I'm saying that's already how it is, and that it might as well be made official, i.e. law. To be clear here, I tried to do this, and all it earned me was ostracism. It is not a virtuous act at all, despite what some may like to give you the impression of. In Finland, Internet access is considered to be a human right, and it's not feasible to do a lot of things otherwise, such as banking errands. Considering Facebook == the Internet to many people, I don't see why the same rules can't apply there.