Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#71

Post by blueterminal »

kombucha111 wrote: post #55
blueterminal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an European myself, I really hope we will not succumb to tyrannical movements so easily. It is super scary to see what's happening in the USA at the moment with leftists' unquestioned total domination.

You are being severely misinformed. Nothing even close to that is happening right now. The movement is decidedly not tyrannical and certainly does not have unquestioned total domination. But the ideas behind it are very popular to be honest. People are sick of the current socio-economic arrangement, the abuse of authority and race relations on many levels.

When people lose their jobs if they make fun or just question certain group's behavior, what would you call it?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#73

Post by onion2k »

ecmascript wrote: post #13
fennecfoxen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Liberal society is ending, and you must swear allegiance to the People's Party, comrade. Otherwise, we will publicly denounce you, and will not permit you to engage in any business activity. There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!

It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.

Do you think humanity and empathy ends at a geographical border? You don't feel that the plight of people living under oppression is anything to do with you because they're far away?

The reason why everyone, everywhere is saying BLM is important is because we live in a globally connected world now, and ignoring people due to borders and distance is no longer reasonable. We are all citizens of the world.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#74

Post by mesozoic »

Wow they're in trouble. Both the left and right are not happy with them. The left cause they won't censor enough and the right because they sensor too much and put in a likely bias review committee. The Project Veritas video was pretty exposing and will likely fuel a senate investigation.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#75

Post by bzb3 »

tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

Why would they be unhappy or ashamed? Not everybody shares your views of politics.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#77

Post by onion2k »

blueterminal wrote: post #71
kombucha111 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being severely misinformed. Nothing even close to that is happening right now. The movement is decidedly not tyrannical and certainly does not have unquestioned total domination. But the ideas behind it are very popular to be honest. People are sick of the current socio-economic arrangement, the abuse of authority and race relations on many levels.

When people lose their jobs if they make fun or just question certain group's behavior, what would you call it?

Justice.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#78

Post by tzs »

tomp wrote: post #21

Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram. I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, a…

Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech.

The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information producers who are trying to cause harm ranging from people just doing it for fun to countries trying to undermine each other's stability.

A society must find some way to prevent or at least limit those who are intentionally trying to harm people from taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid.

The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for those whose speech should not have been included.

It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives. They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some other platform--but I can.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#79

Post by mk4p »

tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

Funny you should ask - I just saw this:

> You don’t realize the heavy conscious and mental burden that comes with being a Facebook employee until you quit

https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/1275363680767537154

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#80

Post by solarwind »

ciarannolan wrote: post #46
Veen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about gaffes like the 1619 Project, the shortcomings and errors of which the NYT steadfastly refused to correct in the face of criticisms from historians. At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.

What were some of the issues with the 1619 Project?

The main thesis of the 1619 project was that the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. This is categorically false according to actual historians, and so the NYT had to issue a correction (some 7 months later). None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War were consulted on the project, yet now it is being taught in some public schools
Post reply on HN