51–60 of 368 posts
Can't see this article as connections to malicious domains like facebook.com are blocked on my network - anyone has the full text on a PasteBin or something?
Constant video surveillance, direct-to-eyes on-glass advertising, targeted advertising beamed on every approved spot, interests profiling via retina movements/focus and God knows what else will undoubtedly come about if AR glasses become "cool" and ubiquitous like mobile phones.
Maybe we'll be able to see one another's social points, as earned on the Facebook Ubiquity Platform for All Things Interaction, when gazing upon one another? Maybe we'll be able to haze filter out those naughties who haven't earned enough, or have had points taken away for naughty behaviour like posting against the "community guidelines"?
Maybe we'll be able to use image recognition + the voter records to put an angel or devil next to the people we agree/disagree with politically? How novel would that be? And talk about a time saver! Who wants to even acknowledge those who don't vote in line with our party!?
But seriously though, what options do those of us have to not be part of this dystopian fucking nightmare that the tech elite have in store for us? Save up and try to buy a hut near their fallout shelters in NZ under the hopes that they won't shit where they hide?
Can't see this article as connections to malicious domains like facebook.com are blocked on my network - anyone has the full text on a PasteBin or something?
Claiming that facebook.com is "malicious" doesn't serve to make a point, it just makes you look reactionary.
Many of the answers are the same: Facebook. At least for developers, Facebook is generally seen as a net negative for the world in it's current form.
>I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values... As long as our governments are seen as legitimate, rules established through a democratic process could add more legitimacy and trust than rules defined by companies alone. This is a big chicken and egg problem. Mark wants the government to set the rules but what happens when Facebook doesn't m…
The unimaginably deep dark pools of data collection, the targeting, Internet.org's absolutely transparent attempt to get developing nations trapped on Facebook under the guise of philanthropy, the complete non-response to extremism on their own platform until way after it was a problem, the list goes on and on.
That's the last 10 years. Now Mark says they're building a more private, smaller platform? Private for who?
Mark says he wants to enable small businesses to connect with customers through their networks. What he's really saying is he wants every last piece of society to operate through his network so Facebook can get it's cut of the local laundromat.
I hate these grand-yet-bland, corporate flavored prognostications. There's absolutely no reason we should believe any of these things he's excited about will be a net benefit for the rest of us.
> I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values. > One way to address this is through regulation. > I've called for new regulation in these areas and over the next decade I hope we get clearer rules for the internet. Surprising to hear a near-monopoly call for regulation. > Another and perhaps even better way to address this is by establishing…
It would be harder for a fledgling competitor to comply with an increased regulatory burden than it would be for Facebook. This is especially likely given that Facebook would be influencing the regulation. That is one incentive for Zuckerberg to advocate for regulation even though he runs a monopolistic firm.
The US government needs dramatically less influence from moneyed lobbyists and tech powerhouses, not more. God help us if it goes the opposite direction. It would make the utter scandal that was the US government granting immunity to the telecom companies for facilitating widespread surveillance by the US government look like a child's game.
> I don't think private companies should be making so many important decisions that touch on fundamental democratic values. > One way to address this is through regulation. > I've called for new regulation in these areas and over the next decade I hope we get clearer rules for the internet. Surprising to hear a near-monopoly call for regulation. > Another and perhaps even better way to address this is by establishing…
Not to be confrontational, but what is Facebook’s monopoly? I don’t use it or any of their other products and I’m not missing anything. We could say monopoly of social, but then there is Twitter et al, for messaging, I have iMessage and email, for photos, I can email or iMessage them. For online advertising, there is Google and others, for offline ads, there is print and TV. I’m not getting what Facebook’s monopoly i…
Analysis of whether a company is a monopoly should involve things other than market domination, for example anticompetitive behavior like buying all competitors. Even if you feel you have a choice as a consumer, the analysis of whether Facebook or any company has an economically detrimental monopoly should include their actions to stifle competition and achieve pricing power.
Can't see this article as connections to malicious domains like facebook.com are blocked on my network - anyone has the full text on a PasteBin or something?
Claiming that facebook.com is "malicious" doesn't serve to make a point, it just makes you look reactionary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is essentially a hive mind cult. Look at my join date. At some point, you could dissent with your own opinion. Nowadays it’s downvotes and outrage. Shields up — ready for the downvotes. Not a great model for FB to follow. You’ll start getting DMs from people like “dang” telling you to behave, LOL.
It's a schizophrenic hive mind cult. I think I see some patterns where topics that used to get downvoted get upvotes instead, and I hope that's because others have decided that they don't like what this says about the community, and so they upvote them on general principle. (The Cynic worries that someone's astroturfing budget ran out).
Whether a topic gets upvoted or downvoted seems to depend on which camp gets to it first, and the bias introduced by the first comment, which will inevitably determine how long the topic lasts, barring moderator intervention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As for me, I didn't get a DM, just a shadow ban for a controversial comment (xiphias is my original user name). A few months after not ever being voted up somebody wrote to me that she sees that I'm shadow banned even though I'm writing constructive comments. At the same time I don't know anything even comparable to HN, so I shy away from controversial wording / topics, and this way things that I write goes through t…
Lobsters is probably the closest, I’d think. It’s not super active, though. Why not build it yourself? I got shadowbanned on Reddit after creating one of the more popular subreddits. It’s a weird feeling. With decentralized moderation, who sets the constitution? This is why AI/ML in response to this self-governance stuff is a meme.
The why not I build part: network effects are strong, so I think it's really hard to do something that people would use.