Call me paranoid, but I sincerely believe facebook has grander ambitions than simply connecting people and enabling us to stalk old flames. Especially in light of facebook's insatiable desire to track our behavior across the web. The more information they capture about us, the more totalizing and dense the cocoon facebook spins around us becomes. Facebook isn't really about friends anymore; I think it's fair to say there's been an explosion of outside media/corporate branding on facebook. Am I deluded because I think this could go really sinister, really quickly? Yeah, probably. But on the other hand, it isn't to our credit to be completely naïve about the issue.
a) I fail to see how facebook's grander ambitions have much to do with this topic b) if Facebook were to truly create a "perfect algorithm" that only showed me "what i liked," they would never show me ads. That was what you presented as your greatest concern in an above comment, that users wouldn't be introduced to negative things and this was a bad thing. It is completely counter to Facebook's goals to produce this algorithm and show me only what I like - so that earlier point is moot. In addition, it further demonstrates how this comment I'm responding to is only tangentially related to the discussion we were having before. c) This in no way belies my point that you still select what friends you add or do not add on Facebook, which was also relevant...to the discussion we were having before you went off on a huge tangent. That discussion was about whether or not a user would be able to discern that the news feed is filtered by more than him- or herself. d) Are you deluded? Yes. Do you know a lot of people who consider Facebook to be life or something? e) I'm not being naive. However, this (the issue of Facebook being a big sinister prying presence in everyone's life who may warp information based on what it wants its users to think or see) was not the issue that we were discussing. Curation and manipulation are different. In that case, why don't we start talking about how you aren't wringing your hands about Rupert Murdoch and should be? Do you have valid concerns about the presence of Facebook in people's lives? Sure. Were you communicating effectively about what they were? No. You appear to be jumping from point to point because you already know what your argument is - Facebook is a big bad evil - but have not settled on how you are going to prove it, or how it is related to the article at hand.Facebook isn't really about friends anymore;
If you can't see the connection between Facebook's ambitions and the role the newsfeed plays in our lives, this isn't a conversation worth having. Yes, the strategy is to analyze what you've like and show you more of the same. Yes, I understand that you dislike advertisements but continue to see them. That's because the newsfeed is a work in progress. Facebook's end game is to create the perfect advertisement: a targeted ad that you do -in fact- like, or an ad so indistinguishable from other content that you don't notice it is an ad. I'm hardly the tinfoil hat-type, but are you telling me this hasn't crossed your mind? You can't cry foul (or "tangent", as it were) when the "topic" you staked out was beside the point in the first place. Obviously, the topic you feel you've sacredly delineated ("you still select what friends you add or do not add on Facebook") doesn't merit discussion. Being able to see the interconnectedness of things should be a positive, not a strike against. It's an online forum, not a 5th-grade English paper. There are no points awarded for hewing close to some dismal little thesis. An ostrich buries its head in the sand. To you, the most salient argument to be made is that you choose who to friend on facebook. You somehow think this illusion of control means that the filtering process is neutral, anodyne, not worthy of further inspection. Ok, ostrich. And—just because connecting dots really seems to bother you—I'm going to refer you to Death of the Author. The article may or may not be stupid (that was your original point, yes?): but what actually matters is what you, the reader, make of it. How's that for a tangent?Do you know a lot of people who consider Facebook to be life or something?
Clearly you've never spent time around teenagers.
Do you at any point in this conversation see me actually disagreeing with the potential of Facebook to do negative things? No, in fact I state that I think there's validity to your argument - but not your points. Yes, I can. We had established a back and forth about a discussion and topic. In my response to the article, I was not establishing a back-and-forth with the author of the article about what he'd written. Your side did not go well in the discussion so you began to jump around in an attempt to shore up your argument. I pointed this out. You didn't like it. You're right, but there are points for being able to communicate and be comprehensible. Yes, I never was one, either. Thanks for the heat!Facebook's end game is to create the perfect advertisement: a targeted ad that you do -in fact- like, or an ad so indistinguishable from other content that you don't notice it is an ad. I'm hardly the tinfoil hat-type, but are you telling me this hasn't crossed your mind?
You can't cry foul (or "tangent", as it were) when the "topic" you staked out was beside the point in the first place.
It's an online forum, not a 5th-grade English paper. There are no points awarded for hewing close to some dismal little thesis.
Clearly you've never spent time around teenagers.
So what is your point exactly? Is it the one that didn't deserve to be made? Debate only thrives when there is something worth debating. "Heat" is not the antithesis of light but rather the source of it....In my response to the article...
...not establishing a back-and-forth with the author of the article about what he'd written...
Having difficulty reconciling these two. Help me out?