> what's the point

I can think of two answers to that.

(1) Why does there have to be a point? How many of the other companies we discuss here have a point, other than the enrichment of their founders/investors? Personally I loathe the "financial performance is a company's only duty" attitude (which is contrary to the actual law BTW), but if we're going to say companies should have a point then we should apply an equal standard. Facebook should have a point. Google should have a point. Netflix should have a point. $random_startup should have a point.

(2) Every time Facebook or Google or anyone else does try to use their huge troves of data and powerful algorithms to be any more than a passive conduit for others' attempts to influence society, they get slammed for it. Some of that is happening right here, right now, in these comments. How do we reconcile "try to do good" with "don't meddle"? We need better answers for that, not just criticism.

Good points well made.

I think it's safe to say that Google and parent company Alphabet have legitimately, and for the most part positively, changed the world. Just their search facility without all the other "fluff" gives me access to more information than I ever dreamed possible when I was still using Microsoft Encarta as a teenager. They definitely lose points for lacking in transparency and shoddy advertising practices though...no question.

I suspect it's very very difficult to do the right thing by the world and keep your shareholders happy. Shareholders care about profit, and that is very rarely aligned with doing good - especially on a global scale! With all due respect to everyone on HN, which of course includes me, I doubt the person who has the answer to that billion dollar question is sat reading this thread.

And I can say the same about Facebook. They have kept me in touch with friends and family that I would have no relationship with at this point if it wasn't for Facebook's absurd levels of adoption (which is driven by an amazing product, which surprisingly has to be said since a lot of people here on HN like to discredit the technological / design achievements of companies like FB, Twitter, etc...)

I mean, you could even argue that the levels of adoption that they have achieved is a hugely positive thing in itself. If those 2B people were scattered across multiple platforms, you would not be able to have one platform which is basically guaranteed to be used by the vast majority of the people you encounter.

There's another thread going on right now where people are vigorously debating what the point of Blue Apron is, a company with ~1/200 the market cap and ~1/5000 as many users.

Google is in a similar position as Facebook as a primary arbiter of information and it's also vigorously debated.

I'm not sure if it has ever been true that our arbiters of information were ever truly altruistic and good, but it's hard to imagine that they have ever let us down as badly as they have lately.

I assume the point is Mark Zuckerburg's three cubic acres of money.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

And you know what? That's good enough. Money and power. Pretty much sums up why most big companies exist.

The part about making the world a better place I'm sure it's on their: "a nice to have" pile.

> "a nice to have" pile.

This pile is probably smaller than that other three-cubic-acres pile though.

Reminds me of this other thread from a post about a CRM for keeping track of personal associations:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14498633

Facebook has a huge opportunity to help people stay connected with those closest to them -- and keep track of a wider circle of friends and family members -- in ways that actually evoke empathy and care, rather than jealousy and attention-seeking.

But I suppose that would run counter to their advertising funnels...

How would they make money doing that?

Legitimate problem, and legitimate question. This is the kind of thing I come to HN to see asked and answered. Too bad no one's taken a stab at it. Maybe that's what the "Facebook killer" will get right. Or Facebook themselves, to prevent being "killed."

I personally didn't have much use of Facebook until I started using it to connect with those who suffer the same illness as me. Then I realized I had a worldwide support group to tap into. That's pretty important to me and to the billions who use this platform.

Uncontrollable love of cats?

Facebook "works" in the same sense opium "works"

When was Facebook about improving society? Oh sure they'll do that as long as it doesn't jeopardize profits, but after all we've learned about their social engineering, social experimentation, pattern recognition and various mechanisms to maintain engagement, is it really right to pretend they are any different than any other large corporation? The dollar is the endgame, and if improving society becomes a profitable endeavor, then and only then is it safe to say they will pursue it.

I think that's kind of my point. Notwithstanding that they have shareholders to please, and metrics to aim for, I just wonder when they're actually going to do something with their enormous reach.

Implementing a true technical democracy? Meaningfully helping people stay in touch (like the recent social CRM that was on HN)? Suicide prevention? Mental health awareness - I read a study recently about how certain Facebook posts can indicate somebody has a mental health issue.

They must have some angle on trying to do good. The recent implementation of the "mark yourself safe" feature is a tiny gesture towards actually trying to do good but it's trivial really. There must be so much more that can be done.

> The dollar is the endgame...

Is that not equally true for just about every tech company we discuss here?

Of course.

Profit-seeking isn't inherently a bad thing.

Personally I measure their worth of these companies based on the damage they cause in the pursuit of that profit.

I contend that your formula is still incomplete. Yes, we absolutely should count the damage companies cause in pursuit of profit. We should also count the non-financial good they do. The spread of "fake news" is a bad thing. Connecting with other people who have the same disease, as another commenter mentioned, is a good thing. Count both. I'm not trying to say whether the net for Facebook or anyone else is positive or negative. I'm just saying that we should apply the same standard for every company, and it should be standard that includes all relevant data. Too often, I see different and/or incomplete standards used to praise some companies and condemn others.

Don't forget the ethically dubious psychological experiments performed on unwitting Facebook users.

Honestly I consider Facebook as an entity to be a net drain on the species in spite of whatever good it may have done.

None.

When was the last time you consider 20 minutes spent on facebook browsing a well spent time?

Quite often. For one thing, it's the primary way I stay in touch with most of my non-immediate family, including my father and my half-brothers who live on the other side of the world. For another, it provides a higher density of humor and "awww!" than anything else in my life. Those are things I sorely need during/after a long day of work and housework and others' online negativity.

Facebook, and every other social media platform, is largely what you make of it. If you friend or follow garbage people, you'll have a garbage feed. If you carefully curate those lists, you can have a feed that's funny or touching or thought-provoking. "The common element of all your unsatisfying relationships is you" is not (just) a joke on a poster. It's good advice too, but not everyone's smart enough to take it.

I dont know about society as a whole, but it certainly improves the lives of those who work for facebook.

Money