Earlier quoted context omitted.
By using reactjs you are supporting their R&D. It improves their attractiveness for top researchers.
What if you use a website that uses reactjs? How culpable are you?
Less culpable.
Facebook's seized files published by MPs
301–310 of 507 posts
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making the world simpler. Correct. But we're not talking about people here, we're talking about a corporate entity as a whole. It's a bit more complex than a person. It has an incent…
> Nice spin on it, but Facebook is still a bad actor (despite what you say). This needs to be a conclusion, not a premise. I do not have a firm belief about whether or not this is true, but I keep seeing people list bad things about FB and draw a straight line to “thus it is evil”. Ideally, we would list the good/bad it does and assign weights to these points to determine if it is net harmful. I want to be convinced,…
There are certain forums in which the groupthink makes discussion of certain topics in good faith impossible.. sadly, HN is one of those when it comes to Facebook being anything other than cartoonishly evil.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#303I worked at Facebook for 5 years on Workplace and Internal Tools. I am typically very critical of the company nowadays, but even so find the discussion here difficult to digest. People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making…
It's not that you're wrong. You're not. People are complicated, and everyone's the hero of their own story. There are plenty of people out there who give millions to charity but steal from the poor. As a general rule, though, when someone accuses you of being bad and your best argument against it comes down to "what is bad anyway?," you're probably on the wrong side.
Is Facebook universally bad? No. It's done lots of good things. And lots of good people work there. But Facebook is also doing lots of bad things. Your policy chief hired a PR firm to push antisemitic conspiracy theories about George Soros. "People are complicated" isn't an excuse.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's remember this is not Facebook's data, this is their users' data. No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Facebook collected, maintained , and analyzed the data. It's their data, the fact that their users allowed Facebook to collect it does not change that fact. GDPR allows users to view the data Facebook collected about them. If users want manually request their data from Facebook and p…
>> this is their users' data > No, it's not - short of a change in law it is Facebook's data. Er, actually it is. Under GDPR, and under previous data protection rules that lacked meaningful enforcement, users own their data. Companies at most get to "borrow" and/or keep it safe for them. Alas, this fundamental fact seems to not have quite made it everywhere yet.. https://digitalguardian.com/blog/tackling-gdpr-challen…
What about data that Facebook generates about you, but you did not provide? Is that information required by the GDPR to be provided to you, or does the GDPR only state that any information you provided to them must be returned? There's no way I'm reading the GDPR nor would I even understand all of it if I did.
We know that FB makes connections between you and other users even if you've never made those connections yourself. We've heard about the shadow profiles, etc. These are all data points that FB generated on their own. It seems like this is the information that is valuable. Information gleaned from ML analysis of images posted would also be their own. That has way more value than the image itself would. FB is doing way more under the hood than just slurping in the data users posted, and then displaying it back to them.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say the HN response is, no, you can't be good and work at FB.
Pretty sure you're right, but I figure at least a few people might be able to realize that "you should be ashamed" just doesn't lead in any productive direction. What if I was ashamed? Would leaving be the only positive reaction to that? As great as I think I am, I don't think Facebook would miss me. They'd just replace me. I'd just carry the taint to my next company, while my replacement also becomes tainted. Good j…
Leaving is by definition going to hurt them - if it wouldn’t, they would have already replaced you. It’ll either cost them (interviews, higher pay for someone else), leave them with a marginally worse developer, or both.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People are complex. They are more complex than an action, or even a group of actions. To take a person and alias them into being "good" or "bad" based on an action or a series of actions is to explicitly dehumanize them for the sake of making the world simpler. Correct. But we're not talking about people here, we're talking about a corporate entity as a whole. It's a bit more complex than a person. It has an incent…
> Nice spin on it, but Facebook is still a bad actor (despite what you say). This needs to be a conclusion, not a premise. I do not have a firm belief about whether or not this is true, but I keep seeing people list bad things about FB and draw a straight line to “thus it is evil”. Ideally, we would list the good/bad it does and assign weights to these points to determine if it is net harmful. I want to be convinced,…
> This needs to be a conclusion, not a premise.
What makes you think it's a premise and not a conclusion?
> Ideally, we would list the good/bad it does and assign weights to these points to determine if it is net harmful.
I have 11 years of data points and experiences about FB, I'm not going to enumerate all of them whenever there is another. I'll just say "typically fucking Facebook".
At this point, I don't even feel obligated to remember it all -- I can trust myself enough. We do that with "evil" people in our lives, too. We don't remember every dirty detail. We remember that there were a bunch of things, and that overall, we had it at some point. I save the conclusion and the checksums and that's enough.
If you think I'm operating on a premise, instead of having come to a conclusion, how is that not you operating on a premise?
> I want to be convinced
Maybe, maybe not. What you are doing is delegitimizing even the conclusions others arrived at, by simply calling all of that mere premises. You saw a bunch of posts that struck you as knee-jerk, so all of it is knee-jerk.
You have to form your own opinion either way, that burden is not on others. Do you also expect anyone who says anything positive to give some kind of thorough, 1000-page assessment of all the benefits and cons? No, of course not. Same goes for criticism.
I for one don't care about the "evilness" of people I never met. For me the harm done through ignorance or fear or "evil" (which is just another form of weakness really) or not caring enough is the same harm.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this sets an awful precedent and it's astonishing that an action like this would be applauded. But you do you.
And what precedent is that? The idea that companies aren't above the law? That's a precedent I wish was more enforced. I'm proud of my parliament today (and it's not often I can say that), even if in other parts they're tearing themselves apart.
What laws did Facebook break that warranted seizing and publishing internal documents?
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#308Sometimes, even amidst the Brexit madness, I love our Parliament. Publishing and seizing documents like this is a move that proves politicians have the spine to look after people's interests. Time to get serious, act on this, and break up Facebook forever.
Seizing documents for a valid inquiry is one thing.
But does that follow that publishing them is OK too?
From the outside, it looks like these politicians are frustrated that a foreign CEO ignored their demand to appear before them (because he has no legal obligation to do so), and have decided to retaliate by releasing embarrassing private internal documents obtained during an investigation in the hopes that Facebook will be politically and financially damaged.
I get that people hate Facebook, but does that justify any level of bad behavior as long as it harms them?
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If we can be more inclusive with the labels we choose, that's a good thing. You are claiming these words are "not inclusive" at first place, which is purely a matter of ideology, not semantics. Words have different meaning in different contexts. If you can't understand that, off course you will find everything "offensive". Starting with the word "inclusive" itself which basically is newspeak at that point. You are…
> You are claiming these words are "not inclusive" at first place, which is purely a matter of ideology, not semantics. Words have different meaning in different contexts. If you can't understand that, off course you will find everything "offensive". But "blacklist" could be seen in a negative light in at least some circumstances whereas that's not possible for "blocklist" in any circumstance. So why not use it? What…
Well, who decides what is deemed "not inclusive" now? you?
> So why not use it? What's the harm?
The harm is you likes with your intimidation and harassment tactics on social media trying to force your morals and political beliefs on everyone else in every possible circle and the insane finger pointing at those who refuse to fall in line because they don't agree with your ideology.
Antirez, author of redis has something to say about it, given the pressure he was victim of under the threat of being "casted out" of the open source community since the verbiage of his project was deemed "non inclusive". And he is not the only victim. You've gone too far.
> You're misunderstanding their point. They are not saying "whitelist" is too confusing, just that "allowlist" is equally as good and in some cases maybe even slightly better.
A word already exists for this, "whitelist" and it has nothing to do with race. You chose to make it about race, because you subscribe to a specific political framework, not out of "good intentions". You chose to deem it "problematic", because it's just another political battle for you and any victory is good to take. This is madness. Do you want me to list the groups across history that used the exact same dirty tactics? Although I'd rather not.
edit: there is an obvious sophistry in the act of complaining about racism yet furthering racist "idioms" by claiming a word that has "black" in it is automatically associated with race, or the idea of "slave" is automatically referring to European slave trade thus it hurts the feelings of people of African descent. This rejection of semantics and context itself is not "language evolution", it's straight out language hijacking. Now of course, you're free to believe in whatever you want, but we are passed that fact, we are now in an era where people who don't subscribe to that same ideology are harassed, intimidated and coerced into submission.
Re: Facebook's seized files published by MPs
#310Good for them, thank you! The sooner facebook is controlled and broken up into pieces, the better. They are a massive net negative on civilization. Do you work at Facebook? Shame on you.
Break it up how? Like whatsapp and Instagram?