"Your comment isn't really useful :/ you're obviously an outlier. Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook."
Facebook has 200 million users or so. The world has over 6 billion people. Hence, only 3% or so of the world's population uses Facebook. Moreover, Facebook is basically a rolodex. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, people would use email instead. They would have no other choice.
Let's talk of real problems. Over 1,000 million people live in extreme poverty. That's 5x the total number of Facebook users. So you talk of people going insane if they lost Facebook, and I find that extremely distasteful when 100s of millions of parents everyday struggle to feed their children. I am not being sensationalist, I am just putting things in perspective. Americans whine when unemployment reaches record levels and they can no longer afford Starbucks coffee everyday, but guess what, some people have real problems, like lack of food, lack of potable water, drought, disease, war, etc. I suggest you take some months off and go backpack around this world to see how fortunate we spoilt Americans / Western Europeans truly are...
You are confusing a "real problem" from an entrepreneur's point of view, and a "real problem" from a global social perspective.
I have been to Africa. I have fed the hungry, healed the sick, and vaccinated children myself with my own two hands. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't be in contact with the friends I made over there without -Facebook-. So don't tell me that Facebook "is basically a rolodex", because for me it isn't.
Good point. But I stand by what I wrote before. The comment I replied to stated that:
"Most people would go insane if they couldn't access youtube or facebook. Social media, music, video are real problems that people have, and need solutions to."
Hence, it's about people's problems, not entrepreneurs' problems. Of course, it all depends what we mean by "people" and "problems". Fortunately, most Americans do not suffer from Malaria, Dengue, Cholera... most Americans are able to feed their children and have access to potable water. Same for Western Europeans. So, if by "people" we mean the richest 5% of the world's population, then social media may be a problem indeed. But what about the other 95%? Are they untermenschen of some sort?
"This is HN. Let's not discuss that", I hear you reply. Well, yes and no. We talk so much about software, but (personally) I would like to see some more diversity here on HN. I would like to hear more stories of some inventor who comes up with a cheap desalination technology, or some grad student who find out a really cheap way of diagnosing certain diseases. These may not make a huge change on the top 5% of the world's population, but it could have a huge impact elsewhere. There are markets for cheap, efficient technologies and solutions, but there aren't that many incentives. Facebook and Twitter are luxuries. Let's try to keep that in mind for the sake of keeping our feet firmly on the ground...
Look, these are worthy causes you refer to, nobody disputes that. but you're basically presenting a a kind of zero-sum fallacy - there is only so much labor power available, disease and poverty are humanity's most pressing problems, therefore all other activity should halt while those are tackled.
This is a naive viewpoint. I am not going to argue that Facebook is somehow better than a cure for malaria, but the problem facebook solves - 'how can I efficiently keep in touch with the many different people I know?' - is important enough for individuals to find it very useful, and the network effects, plus what we learn about large-scale social networks, may well turn out to have broader implications. For example, a recent CDC study drew the conclusion that the most effective way to handle the current swine flu problem might be to target vaccinations towards young (< 40) adults who are the most likely to spread the disease, as opposed to those who are generally stereotyped to be the most vulnerable. In fact, the CDC have been employing social media in order to disseminate information about the flu, which has proved more economical then the usual strategy of news conferences and advertising. This was hardly part of Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook strategy, but it turns out his product is becoming useful for such tasks.
Youtube seems even more flippant than facebook, devoted as it is to sharing video for entertainment purposes. On the other hand, if I wish to learn about malaria or some other serious problem, YouTube offers a way to access video about subject almost immediately. Putting such stuff on TV reaches a wider audience than any given YouTube video, but by necessity a passive audience and only at a given moment in time, rather than when someone is motivated and active enough to seek out that information. Again, not the goal of YouTube, but such a useful fringe benefit that we now take online video availability as as essential factor in future internet growth...and indeed, MIT are using YT as part of their strategy for OCW. One person's luxury can easily turn out to be someone else's utility.
Frankly, I think HN is quite good about propagating news of innovative non-computer hacks as well. Dean Kamen's water purification system was recently the subject of extensive discussion, and the criteria for what constitutes hacking is already pretty loose - tech-related, cheap and innovative generally qualify.
"But how does being judgemental towards the ignorant help the unfortunate?"
That's a really good point. I think it's not a matter of helping the unfortunate, but a matter of not insulting the unfortunate. I was fortunate to have been born in a relatively rich country. Others were less fortunate. I may not have the power to change things, but at least acknowledging the bigger problems, prioritizing them and putting things in perspective is the at least respectful. Someone who's miserable about Facebook's server outage is, basically, implying someone who is miserable because his son is dying of some preventable disease and he can't afford the healthcare...
Please! You are the one who called lack of Facebook a "real problem". I merely pointed out that there are actual real problems. Sure, I agree that this is HN and that this is NOT the place to discuss actual real problems (the truly real problems cannot be solved by software), but your reply was rather unintelligent and unimaginative. You used to do better than that...
Facebook has 200 million users or so. The world has over 6 billion people. Hence, only 3% or so of the world's population uses Facebook. Moreover, Facebook is basically a rolodex. If Facebook disappeared tomorrow, people would use email instead. They would have no other choice.
Let's talk of real problems. Over 1,000 million people live in extreme poverty. That's 5x the total number of Facebook users. So you talk of people going insane if they lost Facebook, and I find that extremely distasteful when 100s of millions of parents everyday struggle to feed their children. I am not being sensationalist, I am just putting things in perspective. Americans whine when unemployment reaches record levels and they can no longer afford Starbucks coffee everyday, but guess what, some people have real problems, like lack of food, lack of potable water, drought, disease, war, etc. I suggest you take some months off and go backpack around this world to see how fortunate we spoilt Americans / Western Europeans truly are...