I think you are right that I should have used "like a" Ponzi scheme throughout the post, but the writing and the point would have lost a lot of its effect in explaining that.
Yes, describing things in an overheated, sensationalistic way has a more powerful effect than describing them in an accurate way. Congratulations on figuring that out.
By the way, referring to a business as a Ponzi scheme is prima facie defamatory. I don't think you have much to worry about, since I doubt Facebook will bother to sue you on the basis of a blog post, but you might write differently if you were more conscious of the fact that you're accusing someone of a crime.
I think it's pretty clear to anyone who merely reads the title and has some understanding of what Facebook is that the author isn't saying Facebook is literally a ponzi scheme, any more so than I would if I said 'Lotus Notes is a dinosaur'.
Everyone who uses Facebook knows it doesn't solicit, or give, money to/from its audience. There is zero question that Facebook is literally a ponzi scheme any more than it is literally a piece of shit.
The amount of comments here who say that the analogy is libel and which attack the author on this without responding to the points made saddens me.
I doubt Facebook, even if they didn't like the article, would wish to draw attention to the analogy contained therein.
I use Facebook, and I did in fact assume from the headline that the author was going to argue that it is a Ponzi scheme. It didn't seem like one to me, but one reason I read articles on HN is to be informed or persuaded of things I didn't initially believe.
By the way, I never called the author's accusation libelous. I called it defamatory, which it clearly is.
Me> Everyone who uses Facebook knows it doesn't solicit, or give, money to/from its audience. There is zero question that Facebook is literally a ponzi scheme any more than it is literally a piece of shit.
Me again> So you know FB doesn't solicit funds or provide them?
You> Facebook does, in fact, solicit funds -- from advertisers...
You're not listening to me. So I won't listen to you.
I assume you're implying that I missed the words "to/from its audience" in your comment. But when I read the headline "Facebook is a Ponzi scheme," why would I assume the author was claiming that the audience, rather than advertisers, were the victims of the Ponzi scheme?
What's more, I wrote that Facebook solicits funds "from advertisers, and from users who want to send virtual gifts to their friends." You chose to leave that last part out.
Yes, describing things in an overheated, sensationalistic way has a more powerful effect than describing them in an accurate way. Congratulations on figuring that out.
By the way, referring to a business as a Ponzi scheme is prima facie defamatory. I don't think you have much to worry about, since I doubt Facebook will bother to sue you on the basis of a blog post, but you might write differently if you were more conscious of the fact that you're accusing someone of a crime.