Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jan Barendrecht's avatar

Facebook's business model is based on compulsive buying via advertising. Whereas often the population issue is raised by environmentalists and related interest groups, not a peep about limiting consumption, thereby limiting pollution and resource depletion. For most people contemplating the issue "good enough" and "contentedness" will do far more than reading posts on Facebook.

Compulsive buying functions best when people are unhappy, so Facebook does just that (apart from the censorship / shadow banning etc. issues) which has been documented:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong-people-dont-do/201603/science-explains-how-facebook-makes-you-sad

For a 2nd opinion:

The Facebook Experiment: Quitting Facebook Leads to Higher Levels of Well-Being

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27831756/

Expand full comment
JustPlainBill's avatar

The outcome of the Aventino Secession puts me in mind of a few movements in which adherents were told to boycott elections. It has always seemed to me that something similar would result.

I have never had or wanted an account on Facebook or X. I do sometimes look at their content if it is linked to in something else I'm reading. Some people do get obnoxious or nasty, but nevertheless, I remain opposed to content moderation in principle--I'm an adult, and can "walk away" if it becomes too obnoxious, just like in real life. People are free to post whatever they want, and I in turn am free not to read them. I have really enjoyed Substack in this respect; bloggers may do light moderation according to their own tastes, but whether it is that or the fact that it is a better "neighborhood", I very seldom see people misbehaving to excess.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts