@falgsc

@falgsc [1/5] in all seriousness, I think it would be a doomed proposition to separate the good from the bad in a personal information extraction system like Facebook. Facebook behaves the way it does because the executive team instructs the product teams to design features to maximize profit from ads and information extraction.

@falgsc [2/5] examples:

- keep people on the site as long as possible, despite this being harmful to users
- distribute false content to ramp up emotional tension
- promote the disclosure of personal information
- promote stalking (something I've experienced personally on that platform)

@falgsc [3/5] perhaps you could pull out some concrete features that are clearly harmful to users and the community as a whole, but with a gargantuan codebase like Facebook's, there will always be misfeatures lying around every corner and in every part of the product.

@falgsc [4/5] did you know that, in the web world, A/B tests are run on many tiny features without users' knowledge or consent to try to figure out which are the most effective at getting people to:

- stay on the site (so they can serve them ads)
- divulge personal info
- stalk other users (called "social engagement")

even in the absence of ads, site stickiness is still harmful to users' health

@falgsc [5/5] I'd argue that Facebook isn't even that *good* of a platform—I think we deserve a better one. and such a project benefits from a clean break from Facebook instead of getting caught in projects to reform or appropriate Facebook into something better.

@falgsc [bonus/5] because you asked, I don't use Facebook or Twitter. I don't use Google search at all, but unfortunately I have to use other Google services at work.

you're implying they're not replaceable, when in fact there are great alternatives available, thanks to some amazing work from the open source community. if you find it hard to live without the products Google/Facebook/Twitter push, you might want to check out some open alternatives (you're already on one)