5 ms·

Not sure to what extend, if at all, I should engage here, as you do have some strong preconceptions that probably makes it less likely productive. > Steal from

Not sure to what extend, if at all, I should engage here, as you do have some strong preconceptions that probably makes it less likely productive. > Steal from everyone (taxation) [...] give the money to government-run Facebook, and everything will be great because Government Not touching this. As an exercise, take it upon yourself to figure out how much it cost per meter (or, I assume more familiar to you -- football field) for the road you last used, and where that money came from. > government-run Facebook? Yes. But, it depends what you think Facebook is, which I'm assuming isn't what Meta does with Facebook. They are in the business of collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests. All of this is of negative value to both end user and society. In a world with a "government run Facebook", it wouldn't exist. So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. And it would absolutely be a good case for something that could easily surpass the value of services provided by "facebook", if done right, without incentive beyond making good services. Not sure if you've noticed or paid much attention. None of the most important services do product development guided by <improving the service>. Google wouldn't have replaced Play Music. Your search result might be immediately useful but that would make you move on. I'd also wager that your YouTube client doesn't automatically skip the sponsor segments.

ericmay 1mo ago
> So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. I don’t have Facebook or use any social media (except LinkedIn) and yet I still plan events, connect, and communicate with others. I have not touched a mainstream social media site since probably 2013. We don't need Facebook, and we especially don’t need to spend a bunch of money on a poorly run government Facebook either.
- okamiueru 1mo ago
  HN sure has a different type of crowd compared to ten years ago. Out of curiosity, what brings you here? Also, what is your favorite AI model?
  - ericmay 1mo ago
    I just like to read articles and debate things. I use Claude but don’t have too strong of an opinion on any specific model provider.
    - okamiueru 1mo ago
      Debating requires that one engages with the premise. Making up a different one, and then share your thoughts on it, is something different.
      - ericmay 1mo ago
        Saying twice now “you didn’t engage with my premise” when someone points out a flaw in your premise or otherwise exposes the weakness in your premise.
        okamiueru 1mo ago
        Edit: removed. Wasn't worth it.
        ericmay 1mo ago
        Well, in this case I will "leave it" as a clear refutation of all your previous points. :)
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
  The point you are raising is a non sequitur to theirs. The fact that you can do these things without Facebook is not mutually exclusive with others using Facebook with the same intentions.
  - ericmay 1mo ago
    Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply to me here. The OP was responding to "government run Facebook?" and the premise is "we need Facebook-style technology to do XYZ things like plan events" but for-profit Facebook fills that need with these negative repercussions: "collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests." and then argues that it follows that a government run Facebook should exist to handle the things that the OP is asserting are necessary without any of the identified downside. The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. You don't. And I'd argue not only should we not have a government fun Facebook, we shouldn't have Facebook or other social media to begin with. I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. I'm simply responding to the words that they wrote. No matter how it is framed or how the goalposts are moved, you simply do not need Facebook nor do you need a government run Facebook.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
      > Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up. > The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it. > I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. Funny. I now wonder if I'm going to be dismissed as a sock puppet.
godwinson__4-8 1mo ago
[flagged]
- okamiueru 1mo ago
  Cool. Aside from all that. Roads are neat, right? PS: It is pretty darn cozy in the cradle.
docjay 1mo ago
The earlier link you provided is indeed refreshingly quick to navigate. What a joy that’s unnecessarily rare. It renders like trash and is unusable on my intentionally-not-updated iPhone, but still. Yay. “Provide incentive programs and reward those that take on such initiatives.” We have that too, we call it capitalism. It’s not very unique, but we heavily market it under the “land of opportunity” moniker. Do a thing of value and your reward is the lion’s share of that value. “You get what you’re given” seems to make some countries happy, but I’m sure you can understand the appeal of “you get what you earn”, even if neither of them matches the brochure. The scholars can debate the pros and cons of it, and where it goes wrong, but you’re talking about investment reward structures like it’s a fresh concept coming out of Scandinavia. On that note, let’s set aside the endless conversation around “government Facebook” and talk foundational: Size, diversity, and population. It’s funny when I see comments from micro->small nation states with relatively homogeneous citizens throwing up their hands like “Everyone should just agree on what to have for dinner, like we do.” Oh I’m sure you’re aware that ‘America be big’, maybe even visited New York and were impressed by all those not-tall non-blonde people waking around, but perhaps without fully appreciating that it alone has a 50% higher population than your whole country. Something more your speed would be the Atlanta metro area, which still has a ~10% higher population. Getting everyone to happily chip in a few bucks on a half pepperoni/vegetarian pizza (or, I assume more familiar to you — “Grøt med smør eller rørte bær”) is a lot easier when everyone can be fed by that pizza. But that leads to the larger point: we don’t have as much of a problem getting our Norway sized cities to provide various communal welfare services to the local residents, the problem is in scaling that up to 65 Norways.
- 8note 1mo ago
  the dearth of monopolies in america suggests that yes, you can all align om what to eat for dinner, and its that you get what you are given by Sysco
  - ericmay 1mo ago
    Can you? Ok you're right. We've all agreed Canada should be the 51st State [1]. Or did you have a different menu in mind? [1] I don't like this talk, I'm just using it as an example.
account42 1mo ago
It's sad that people today can't digital equivalents to things like the telephone network or the postal service existing without a private company being able to profit from them. What we consider infrastructure is still stuck in the 20th century.

ericmay 1mo ago

> So what is the service Facebook actually provides then? A way to manage communities and events. A way to find, connect, and communicate with others. I don’t have Facebook or use any social media (except LinkedIn) and yet I still plan events, connect, and communicate with others. I have not touched a mainstream social media site since probably 2013. We don't need Facebook, and we especially don’t need to spend a bunch of money on a poorly run government Facebook either.

okamiueru 1mo ago
HN sure has a different type of crowd compared to ten years ago. Out of curiosity, what brings you here? Also, what is your favorite AI model?
- ericmay 1mo ago
  I just like to read articles and debate things. I use Claude but don’t have too strong of an opinion on any specific model provider.
  - okamiueru 1mo ago
    Debating requires that one engages with the premise. Making up a different one, and then share your thoughts on it, is something different.
    - ericmay 1mo ago
      Saying twice now “you didn’t engage with my premise” when someone points out a flaw in your premise or otherwise exposes the weakness in your premise.
      - okamiueru 1mo ago
        Edit: removed. Wasn't worth it.
        ericmay 1mo ago
        Well, in this case I will "leave it" as a clear refutation of all your previous points. :)
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
The point you are raising is a non sequitur to theirs. The fact that you can do these things without Facebook is not mutually exclusive with others using Facebook with the same intentions.
- ericmay 1mo ago
  Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply to me here. The OP was responding to "government run Facebook?" and the premise is "we need Facebook-style technology to do XYZ things like plan events" but for-profit Facebook fills that need with these negative repercussions: "collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests." and then argues that it follows that a government run Facebook should exist to handle the things that the OP is asserting are necessary without any of the identified downside. The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. You don't. And I'd argue not only should we not have a government fun Facebook, we shouldn't have Facebook or other social media to begin with. I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. I'm simply responding to the words that they wrote. No matter how it is framed or how the goalposts are moved, you simply do not need Facebook nor do you need a government run Facebook.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1mo ago
    > Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up. > The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it. > I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. Funny. I now wonder if I'm going to be dismissed as a sock puppet.

godwinson__4-8 1mo ago

[flagged]

okamiueru 1mo ago
Cool. Aside from all that. Roads are neat, right? PS: It is pretty darn cozy in the cradle.

docjay 1mo ago

The earlier link you provided is indeed refreshingly quick to navigate. What a joy that’s unnecessarily rare. It renders like trash and is unusable on my intentionally-not-updated iPhone, but still. Yay. “Provide incentive programs and reward those that take on such initiatives.” We have that too, we call it capitalism. It’s not very unique, but we heavily market it under the “land of opportunity” moniker. Do a thing of value and your reward is the lion’s share of that value. “You get what you’re given” seems to make some countries happy, but I’m sure you can understand the appeal of “you get what you earn”, even if neither of them matches the brochure. The scholars can debate the pros and cons of it, and where it goes wrong, but you’re talking about investment reward structures like it’s a fresh concept coming out of Scandinavia. On that note, let’s set aside the endless conversation around “government Facebook” and talk foundational: Size, diversity, and population. It’s funny when I see comments from micro->small nation states with relatively homogeneous citizens throwing up their hands like “Everyone should just agree on what to have for dinner, like we do.” Oh I’m sure you’re aware that ‘America be big’, maybe even visited New York and were impressed by all those not-tall non-blonde people waking around, but perhaps without fully appreciating that it alone has a 50% higher population than your whole country. Something more your speed would be the Atlanta metro area, which still has a ~10% higher population. Getting everyone to happily chip in a few bucks on a half pepperoni/vegetarian pizza (or, I assume more familiar to you — “Grøt med smør eller rørte bær”) is a lot easier when everyone can be fed by that pizza. But that leads to the larger point: we don’t have as much of a problem getting our Norway sized cities to provide various communal welfare services to the local residents, the problem is in scaling that up to 65 Norways.

8note 1mo ago
the dearth of monopolies in america suggests that yes, you can all align om what to eat for dinner, and its that you get what you are given by Sysco
- ericmay 1mo ago
  Can you? Ok you're right. We've all agreed Canada should be the 51st State [1]. Or did you have a different menu in mind? [1] I don't like this talk, I'm just using it as an example.

account42 1mo ago

It's sad that people today can't digital equivalents to things like the telephone network or the postal service existing without a private company being able to profit from them. What we consider infrastructure is still stuck in the 20th century.