171–180 of 493 posts
Well said and all best wishes for the future. > My last day will be June 12th. Well ... it might just come a little sooner than that ;-) Much respect. I salute you.
> Well ... it might just come a little sooner than that ;-) Why would it come sooner? You think they would fire him a week early just so he can claim unemployment from them?
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
He's trading practically 0 money (actually might be paid more in his next job if he selects one with a bit less growth potential) for a lot of virtue signaling value. I mean nothing evil, but not that admirable and altruistic. Real good deeds aren't announced.
I wonder if this is related to JWZ's call yesterday for Facebook employees to quit. [edit: Removed link. JWZ: Not cool. Archive.org link in reply below]
JWZ links to disgusting image when accessed with HN as referrer, I suggest you remove this link.
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
He's trading practically 0 money (actually might be paid more in his next job if he selects one with a bit less growth potential) for a lot of virtue signaling value. I mean nothing evil, but not that admirable and altruistic. Real good deeds aren't announced.
I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
Of course it is. Arguably the people with that privilege should have more obligation to exercise it in the service of what’s right.
If you can make a compelling argument in the marketplace of free ideas, you don't need to censor.
If they are going to censor Trump for calling the looters 'thugs', they need to censor the people calling for violence against cops (which is way worse)
The engineer describes Facebook as being on the "wrong side of History." I take this opportunity to remind my fellow readers that History is not an infallible goddess to be worshipped. The moral arc of the past several hundred years has bent towards liberty and tolerance, but this has not been consistent and was not inevitable. It is precisely when your values are on the "wrong side of History" that you should be def…
I think you don't understand the phrase. Optimists believe that the future will be better, that people will be wiser. They believe that those future enlightened people will look back at some people and actions, and believe that they were on the wrong side of history. It's not a popularity contest. It's a belief that we get better over time by making moral actions. "It is precisely when your values are on the 'wrong s…
The politician in question, far from offering a meaningful alternative that advances freedom, attempts to use his office to restrict opposing speech as well. He may well win re-election and further implement policies which advance the ideas the Facebook employee objects to.
Elsewhere in the world, the Chinese Communist Party builds its surveillance state, installing their secret police in Hong Kong to crush protests.
Free speech may die within my lifetime, and the Chinese Communist Party in particular is fairly well positioned to make a claim that history will be on their side. Of course I'm a god damn pessimist.
I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…
My bet is most people would not realize this was available and would continue to see whatever the default options were. And so you get back to square one, what should the defaults be?