41–50 of 215 posts
Facebook removes post. The fact that other people believe this post should stay (for whatever reason) is immaterial. It's not their site. Water is wet, news at 11.
Facebook removes post. The fact that other people believe this post should stay (for whatever reason) is immaterial. It's not their site. Water is wet, news at 11.
You tell me when I can open a segregated lunch counter, or refuse to bake a gay wedding cake, and I'll consider your argument to have merit. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time until Facebook and company are brought to heel under that "public accommodation" approach.
And of course, only those who are unpopular are brought to heel. No-one is forcing the UNCF to give scholarships to poor white children …
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the freedom to leave his rule? This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one. But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.
> if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations, create one Is anyone working on this?
> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels." Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users. > "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it." A…
> Wrong. Facebook is for making money. I know you're not wrong here, but at what point does social responsibility trump profit? Should it?
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
You're a serf on the content farm, begging your lord for a favor.
At least he knows who the lord is and in principle the lord can set things straight. A step above complaining to the void or casting a throwaway vote.
Let me guess... you live in a non-swing state, yet registering your preference for Coke vs. Pepsi is vitally important.
Well that's funny. I cannot find the picture anywhere. I even tried disabling uBlock and then was promptly reminded of why I use it.
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similar situation with Saddam or Gaddafi really. I don't understand why people were so upset with them.
So you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the freedom to leave his rule? This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one. But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.
I've decided that since I don't actually enjoy being punched in the face, I'm going to avoid face-punching services altogether.