Have we reached peak Facebook yet? I started using Facebook quite early in my country and used it mostly as a social network, communicating and exchanging stuff with friends from all over the world. A couple years later I deleted my account, being disgusted by the potential abusive potential of all the information Facebook had. I came back years later as it became THE tool for ad hoc social initiatives and a way to follow news from things of importance to you, like the local climbing gym or a band I like. Though I did not use it as a social network, I nevertheless used it. That is currently changing and I experience Facebook fatigue.<p>The comment sections are either empty, used as a notifier for friends or are right-wing/left-wing troll battle fields. Everyone seems overly emotional to get the most likes and bubble to the top. I removed subscriptions for newspapers to not accidentally have to stumble upon the inanen comments, something I dreaded only with youtube comments so far. Have the social network aspects of Facebook (and youtube) been destroyed by fatigue, other ways (WhatsApp?) of exchanging stuff immediately and ideological troll battles?
This is disingenuous critism that reiterates canned talking points, while failing to cover much of the manifesto's content. Zuck's document in question is actually fairly substantive and raises some intriguing questions that Facebook's leadership has to grapple to retain relevance in a diverse world that isn't all fairies and unicorns, but where people actually oppose each other politically, culturally, and along other axes.<p>While he frames it in terms of being a good actor as opposed to making a profit, I can't fault him for this in what is essentially a PR post. At least it acknowledges common criticisms of Facebook's moderation, content policy, and editorial behavior, and displays an awareness that hurried knee-jerk hotfixes won't allay all concerns, but that they need a strategies to stay relevant.<p>I'm no fan of Facebook the product, or their business model being an elaborate data harvesting scheme, but place criticism where it's due, not on long-form PR blog posts that admit they fucked up a few times and they can do better -- even if they play up examples where FB being in the right place at the right time with the right marketshare has has helped people.
While I live in Silicon Valley and mostly agree with the prevailing morality, it's alarming to see Facebook (and others like Reddit/Twitter) move so aggressively towards social engineering the entire world.
> The algorithm prioritizes what it shows a user based, in large measure, on how many times the user has recently interacted with the poster and on the number of "likes" and comments the post has garnered.<p>FB has changed so much for the better for me since I've joined an AutoRetro group featuring cars at least 25 years old and since I've started like-ing that group's posts. Now almost half of my feed is filled with photos of old Trabant, Lada or Opel Kadett cars, and I love that. The other half is indeed filled by mothers sharing their kids' stuff, which I don't give a crap about, and some fiery political stuff, which I care about but which I generally ignore, the reason being that there's not that much that I can change, politically-wise, by commenting on the Internet.<p>I've also found out that I've been a lot more relaxed and generally better off since I've stopped checking my feed on the phone when in public places (tramway, waiting in line at the Post office or at a general store). For those situations I always carry a magazine (the Economist folds really well) or a pocket book with me, and it's been for the best.
I think The Register's take does a way better job of describing this manifesto.<p><a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/zuckerberg_publishes_worldsaving_manifesto/?page=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/zuckerberg_publishe...</a>
>> If you type "how to leave" into the Google search window, "how to leave Facebook" will be the first suggestion.<p>Am I being too critical for thinking someone writing an article like this should know that Google searches / suggestions are personalized? Just because its suggested for them does not mean its universal.
Not to be overly melodramatic and totally dodging the contents of the article, but aren't we already in a social dystopia? Is there any way of qualifying "how dystopic" a society is?
Like all megalomaniacs, Zuckerberg fancies himself as some kind of messiah. He won't stop believing that, not even after his machine explodes in all our faces.
To play the devils advocate, the criticism of the article is misdirected. None of the problems mentioned were created or exacerbated by facebook. Addiction : just like any other addiction , filter bubble: people not making friends on the other side, right winger's followers: the shunning from mainstream media brought that.<p>Facebook makes the most obvious choice of algorithms. An alternative choice of algorithms (e.g. deliberately exposing you to views you don't like) would create a much bigger backlash.<p>Anyway facebook has a long history of "huuuge outcry" every time they make a change, but its users have the attention span of a fruitfly.
> <i>In France, rationalist Emmanuel Macron has 165,850 likes, while far-right Marine Le Pen boasts 1.2 million.</i><p>"Rationalist"?? What's rational about him? The guy did not have any political existence 6 months ago, has no party, has no program, tells everyday the opposite of what he told the previous day because the audience is different, and yet gets more than 20% in opinion polls. That's a <i>rationalist</i>, uh?
Sure, but if you name the solution to this problem "virtual identity suicide" (I had to look it up too) you're not going to get many adopters. That's like naming marriage "single status suicide". It's not even accurate. What things are named matters a lot because most people cannot tell the difference between the name and the thing named nor can they easily remove implied yet unintended meaning from text.
I have stopped using Facebook as a source of information, unfollowed all friends and pages and stopped posting about me eating outside (I did post about my travels which I'm planning not to redo). After a while of doing that, I don't feel any urge to visit facebook and check again. I even get no more urge to see my friends profiles and what is going on with them.<p>However, I have found it is not practical to remove Facebook because I use Messenger to talk with friends (either chat or voice). Much easier and cheaper than doing it with text (and it's way too easier for international friends). I removed the Messenger App from my phone though because it is abusive. I'm trying to find a way to communicate (P2P) with friends without facebook but it is too hard to convince them to install something else.
Why is it that every little single-purpose-at-best company nowadays acts like they are out to save the world in the most noble way possible?<p>Mark, please! You're a spam-your-friends-with-fake-news-and-baby-photos service at best. The world will go on long after Facebook ceases to exist. Please stop pretending that you're Mother Teresa here.
You made a throwaway to post a huge defense of facebook? Color me skeptical.<p>Edit: Correction, you are a sockpuppet, as you admit to in your 1st post, pointing out its primary use to manipulate discussion. Go away troll.