Facebook reconsidered

[Belle]

I've never liked this social media platform, but here's an interesting item from one of its original creators:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/form ... ?r=US&IR=T

[lennygoran]

I've never liked this social media platform, but here's an interesting item from one of its original creators:

Belle I use it from time to time-keeps me up to date with some of my younger relatives--even with some of our CMG membership! Regards, Len

[Ricordanza]

Yes, Facebook can be abused, but I have found it to be valuable in many ways, including reconnecting with classmates from high school, even elementary school.

[John F]

The Facebook people didn't create online networking, which goes back to the earliest days when the Internet was opened to use by the general public. (Previously it was limited to Amereican government organizations and the research universities they dealt with.) Back in the 1980s when I got my first personal computer, the format for networking was the "bulletin board," for posting and downloading messages and files on a remote server. Then came services such as CompuServe which put a user-friendly interface on the BBS, making it easier for computer neophytes to use. Though the bulletin boards, renamed forums, were sorted into subject matter topics, they amounted to social networks where people with common interests could meet. When email service was provided, that drew many users to these services who otherwise probably wouldn't have joined.

The first social network of the kind that eventually spawned Facebook was Friendster, created in 2002. (The -ster was from Napster, the popular free file-sharing site where people exchanged copyrighted music recordings; the record industry killed it in 2001.) Friendster was extremely popular for a while, then it was overtaken by a new social network called MySpace, which in 2006 was the most-visited web site in the world, more even than Google. Then came Facebook and for some reason, who knows why, computer users moved on to it from Myspace and have stayed there. That's where they are now.

Also developed by CompuServe and its competitors was instant messaging, a variant of email, which evolved into Twitter and its competitors.

So if anything is "destroying the way society works," it's not Facebook in particular but social networking generally, or the Internet generally, or the affordable personal computer and modem which allowed any of us to dial up a remote server and use whatever programs, files, or sites are hosted on it. As for the present day, I'd say it's Twitter, not Facebook, whose use or abuse has made the biggest difference, thanks or no thanks to the current occupant of the White House.

Like any other human invention, the Internet can be used for good or ill or neutral purposes. It has brought together in Classical Music Guide people of good will from around the world who otherwise would never have known or known about each other, and broadened our perspectives not just on the specific topics we discuss but on the world we live in. At the same time, the Internet has enabled terrorists to plan and carry out disastrous attacks on us in ways previously not possible.

Of course the abusers of the Internet have much to answer for. As Palihapitiya says, in some quarters there is "No civil discourse. No cooperation. Misinformation. Mistruth." But these have always been the dark side of human society, and every technological advance has been turned to these uses as well as the positive ones: the telephone, radio and television broadcasting, the printing press, postal systems, language itself. Palihapitiya grossly exaggerates his and his fellow Facebook creators' importance in claiming such responsibility and blaming themselves for it. What they did was going to be done, indeed it was being done before Facebook existed, and was going to have the same effects, because what we're talking about isn't really web sites, the web generally, or technology, it's human nature.

[jbuck919]

Then there were message boards, such as, for instance, the Classical Music Guide. Though I am now the most prolific poster and very senior, I only found out about this place when one evening I googled "classical music message boards."

[Belle]

All interesting comments. Undoubtedly sites like "Facebook" have engaged younger people and this is the demographic most at risk. In a discussion about this article last night on TV a panel talked about young people not being able to put away their 'devices'. Many are not engaging with society in the time-honoured way and are also succumbing to the most frightful bullying by their peers and others. I've had experiences with trolls and bullies myself - so much so that I've sharply reduced my interaction on the internet altogether. Dave Rubin said about Twitter, "it's not real life: if a crazy fox ran across the road wearing a pink hat you wouldn't go near it". That's how I feel: I've experienced my share of those crazy foxes in pink hats - they are pervasive - because most hang about the internet knowing nobody in the real world would tolerate them. As John said, 'the dark side' of human nature. It has happened on small classical music boards too and I'm over it. The role of moderation is key to the success of the internet - particularly message boards. You'll often see the most frightful comments under a U-Tube excerpt; it beggars belief how young people can deal with these things.

I think this technology can never replace people sitting or standing opposite each other making eye contact and having to consider somebody else apart from themselves.

[John F]

I forgot to mention another medium that emerged in 1980, and it still exists though many Internet service providers no longer include it in the services they offer. It's called UseNet, and its "forums" are called NewsGroups. These number in the tens of thousands; most are unmanaged and unmoderated, so anyone can post to them without registering as a member; and they are used not only for discussion groups but to distribute pirated software, often with viruses in it, copyright material, spam, and other material that moderated forums do not allow, such as pornography. Since anybody can say anything in a newsgroup, trolls and flame wars are common. But back in the 1980s they were the only free medium for discussion groups, and as such were a precursor of CMG and Facebook.

[jserraglio]

It's called UseNet, and its "forums" are called NewsGroups.

RMCR (rec.music.classical.recordings) is such a group, and though it is not what it once was, it still contains lots of useful information on a slew of classical music topics and relatively little these days in the way of trolling, flame wars or objectionable content.

[John F]

That's good to hear, though since my Internet service provider (Spectrum, formerly Time Warner Cable) hasn't done Usenet since 2008, I can't check it out for myself. I don't miss it, CompuServe Music Forum and now Classical Music Guide are plenty for me.

[Ricordanza]

It's called UseNet, and its "forums" are called NewsGroups.

RMCR (rec.music.classical.recordings) is such a group, and though it is not what it once was, it still contains lots of useful information on a slew of classical music topics and relatively little these days in the way of trolling, flame wars or objectionable content.

Yes, I visit (and on rare occasions, post) RMCR. It's now hosted by Google Groups.

[John F]

I didn't know that Google Groups not only hosts its own forums but provides access to at least some Usenet newsgroups, not just an archive of them. Thanks for the information. Reading the Wikipedia article about Google Groups, I gatgher they don't do a very good job, but for those whose ISPs don't provide usenet access and really want it, I guess it's better than nothing.

[Belle]

It's called UseNet, and its "forums" are called NewsGroups.

RMCR (rec.music.classical.recordings) is such a group, and though it is not what it once was, it still contains lots of useful information on a slew of classical music topics and relatively little these days in the way of trolling, flame wars or objectionable content.

It's good to know there is CMG and that other RMCR you mention (which I haven't visited and didn't know about) as being relatively free from trolling, flame wars or objectionable comment. Actually, it's a breath of fresh air when the cyber space is so unencumbered. In my experience the types who do this are deeply insecure, often very disturbed, and the only way they have to increase their own sense of self worth is by diminishing others - seldom having anything by way of intelligence to contribute. These losers cannot get along with anybody and I personally celebrate being rid of them!! One wit on another large forum described a serial troll to me privately this way, and I regard it as the gold standard: "he is a lonely, under-appreciated, vainglorious tool". It certainly did provide the necessary background laughter one needs to maintain equilibrium in the face of sick puppies. And they project endlessly; when they accuse others they are really telling you all about themselves. Watch out for that strategy!!!