Item — HN Reader

Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply to me here.

The OP was responding to "government run Facebook?" and the premise is "we need Facebook-style technology to do XYZ things like plan events" but for-profit Facebook fills that need with these negative repercussions: "collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests." and then argues that it follows that a government run Facebook should exist to handle the things that the OP is asserting are necessary without any of the identified downside.

The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested. You don't. And I'd argue not only should we not have a government fun Facebook, we shouldn't have Facebook or other social media to begin with.

I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise. I'm simply responding to the words that they wrote. No matter how it is framed or how the goalposts are moved, you simply do not need Facebook nor do you need a government run Facebook.

1 comments

> Use of non-sequitur doesn't apply

It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up.

> The flaw in the premise is that you need Facebook or a government fun Facebook to do any of the things the OP suggested.

This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it.

> I'm sure the OP is going to come in now and say that wasn't their premise.

Funny. I now wonder if I'm going to be dismissed as a sock puppet.

If it is of any consolation. You are spot on, and saved me the effort (which had run out). I'd recommend to leave it alone as well, as it isn't worth it to try and explain logical fallacies. Or, heck, you do you. I'm just too old for it

Yeah, I get it but always prefer to give it a shot. I know the person I'm replying to is not the only one who will read my comments. Cheers.

Just saying "that's a logical fallacy" doesn't make it so. Running away from challenges to your stated opinions or arguments doesn't make them correct either.

If you really want to play this whole "logical fallacy" game, then I can start demanding sources and specific definitions of words used too and you can spend hundreds of characters defining specific terms so that your own discussion points aren't themselves some variation of a "logical fallacy".

Folks who toss those things around usually don't know how to use them correctly (as we see here with you and others) or they hide behind them when their various points are met with challenges they can't overcome.

It's more that you are being too obtuse to be worth the engagement. You see it as running away from a challenge. I see it as leaving an area because it's become unpleasant. I already told you that you're here for an argument, and I'm not interested. Define the situation however you want, and feel good about it, for all I care.

> It does, in precisely the way I described. Your comment was not engaging with the point they brought up.

Ok that's incorrect because I did engage with the point they brought up in that comment, and then even quoted it specifically.

> This is not in their premise. Nobody "needs" it for those things, I will grant and have granted. Regardless, some still "use" it for those things. OP never said people can't replace it with other means to do what Facebook currently does for them, just that they apparently don't want to, as revealed by their use of Facebook for the doings in question. If you still think that's wrong, please point me to the passage in their comment which contradicts it, because I am failing to find it.

If that was their premise I would just reject it off-hand as the equivalent of just saying stuff. People use Facebook. Cows moo. Sometimes it rains on Tuesday. Who cares?

The point isn't whether or not people use or need Facebook, what was in question and being discussed was the negative aspects and whether some other version of a Facebook could be swapped in to have the "good" parts of Facebook without the "bad".

For example:

  >  government-run Facebook?
  > Yes. But, it depends what you think Facebook is, which I'm assuming isn't what Meta does with Facebook. They are in the business of collecting, profiling, and selling to data brokers, and influence to foreign countries or private interests. All of this is of negative value to both end user and society. In a world with a "government run Facebook", it wouldn't exist.

Underlying this is the presumption that we should have a service like Facebook, and the question is who should run it and what the effects might be. You can see the OP outlining these negative effect here for yourself.

My point is I disagree with the need to solve this problem by creating what will inevitably by giant software conflagrations that ultimately, in my view, do not serve any real purpose because not only does the government version serve no purpose, the private market version doesn't either.

If you want to actually challenge my point instead of engaging in "nuh uh that wasn't the premise" you could just say well other people think they need it or really want it and you're just stating an opinion, or something along those lines.

if it doesn't serve a purpose then why users