191–200 of 266 posts
Facebook blocks you exporting your contacts, to prevent you from taking your social network elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see him as among a group of people who believe that financial success gives them both the credibility and authority to dictate the rules of society. It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
Watch out you are treading perilously close to one of the "things you can't say"[1] in the context of this site. Some people block people on twitter for implying just this sort of thing... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
Marc Andreesen. olefoo is talking about Marc Andreesen.
"Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity." -- Mark Zuckerberg[1], defending Facebook's "Real" Name policy. Based on his total disregard for privacy and his clear thirst for power, I want nothing coming from him or his company to ever influence actual policies. [1] http://www.siliconbeat.com/2014/01/30/quoted-mark-zuckerberg...
By now it's pretty clear, to me at least, that Zuckerberg simply doesn't get it. He could have fixed the issues for over a decade. And even in 2019, after all the evidence of mismanagement and public distrust, he still refuses to relinquish any control of the company. This is a tone-deaf opinion piece. I'd argue as far back as 2010 that indiscriminately selling user data was a bad idea especially when you are the sol…
That has never been Facebook's business model. The Hacker News crowd is smart enough to discuss these sorts of topics without dumbing down and misrepresenting the facts.
Facebook indiscriminately sells ads. In the past they also indiscriminately gave third parties access to user data. Doing that let them grow their market share and helped their primary business, but is not how they make money and is not a core part of the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see him as among a group of people who believe that financial success gives them both the credibility and authority to dictate the rules of society. It is a deeply troubling mindset that goes beyond just being 'out of touch'.
Watch out you are treading perilously close to one of the "things you can't say"[1] in the context of this site. Some people block people on twitter for implying just this sort of thing... 1. http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
I think this group, amongst all others that I interact with, is critical enough to call a bad faith argument a bad faith argument. However, I think all of us need better training/practice on how to identify bad faith arguments. I see the turn that has been occurring on HN against Elon as one example of that. It may take time but it happens. Compared to other spaces on this here Cyberspace - higher quality and higher s/n ration on argumentation is what keeps me coming back to HN. When people disagree with me here, I actually learn something.
Added: My twitter account got blocked because it spent most of it's time autoreplying to people about how the freakonomics podcast became an advertising pitch for the Koch brothers. I only use facebook because my mother prefers it to text. I can't stomach reddit having known the founders as people. My HN account really only exists because someone said a nice thing about a talk I gave - which drew me out of the shadows. I like it here, can I stay? I'll even wear a north face fleece. I drive an EV I promise.
F*ck MZ. He is the last person I want advice from on making the Internet better. FB is part of the problem and I have little to no hope they will ever be part of the solution.
Zuckerberg is a rational actor that's smart enough to know that he's not going to want any knee-jerk solution put together by idiot politicians. I'm confident that he doesn't want FB being permanently hobbled by laws or acts of Congress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zuckerberg is a rational actor that's smart enough to know that he's not going to want any knee-jerk solution put together by idiot politicians. I'm confident that he doesn't want FB being permanently hobbled by laws or acts of Congress.
He's a rational actor who also somehow doesn't actually get it in a broad sense. Consider Kara Swisher's interview with him on Recode Decode… or Doug Rushkoff (Team Human book/podcast etc) wondered publicly if part of the problem was how Zuck dropped out of college. Rushkoff speculated about all these deeper philosophical, economic, political, humanism, etc. courses that might have got Zuck to actually get a more mat…
Privacy policy, protocols, rules, process, identity and what not are strictly off limits.
Also, if MZ says something ought to be done in this way, I would give a serious look at the advantages of not doing it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with Mark as far as social networks are concerned. The 'social' part of the name is important, and social relationships cannot function without some sort of stake. Having a unified identity guarantees that people are held accountable for what they say, it reduces fraud, trolling, and it means people have 'skin in the game' when participating in a social environment, it's the basis for trust.
"Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The four points being: * harmful content * election integrity * privacy * data portability I think Zuckerberg's intent is to dilute the real issue (privacy) with these other three points. FB has a bad record when it comes to privacy and they are actively taking measures against it. For example, they lobby against privacy laws [1]. They create shadow profiles and they make it difficult or impossible to delete your acc…
It's not about forcing people to do something.
No ads, about any topic, can force anyone to do anything.
Yet billions of dollars are spent every year on ads. This money is spent not because it can force people to do things, but because it can influence people. This influence leads to real, concrete effects.
Coca Cola isn't forcing anyone to buy Coke, but they can influence people, and on a population level their ads can lead to more people buying Coke.
The key to understanding this is to not consider the matter in terms of any one individual, but in terms of a population of people, and thinking of the influence as a statistical nudge in a particular direction.