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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#61

Post by henearkr »

victords wrote: post #51
henearkr wrote: post #18

This aligns with how I have always seen Facebook, in contrast to Google for example. In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization, whereas Facebook centers on the revenue and does not shy away morally doubtful decisions (like selling user data without regard for their anonymity, which Google avoids by restricting sensitive access to closed-lo…

> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization No, they're not. They just have better PR. They're both for profit companies with their share of controversies, but Google just has better PR.

PR is different from what the employees see from within.

Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative stench of the word PR (and because for most people it does not mean "decision").

Re: Mark in the Middle

#62

Post by secondcoming »

loxs wrote: post #35
C1sc0cat wrote: post #21

He is Fucked if Biden wins - and I suspect the dual stock structure used to maintain control might get looked at by the SEC. The Board need to tell him " Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

As an outsider (from a different continent), it doesn't seem at all likely that there is a chance for Biden winning. It probably looks the same from where Zuck is sitting. We might, of course, both be wrong :)

Unfortunately you'll be downvoted to hell once the US west coast gets out of bed.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#63

Post by jcims »

raverbashing wrote: post #32
ThomPete wrote: post #4

I will never understand the extreme intellectual fragility of cancel culture. A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?

> A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement You mean the "anti-maskers" who throw a fit for wearing a face covering for 30min when they have to go to the supermarket?

No because there’s no desire to build or maintain a relationship with the person. You just emotionally reduce them an NPC and do damage control until they are gone. Pretty much how social media works.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#64

Post by mensetmanusman »

bitxbit wrote: post #52
mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

There’s no discussion to be had when you’re FOR equality and the other side is arguing against it. There’s equality and fairness. The rest is garbage. There’s no need to meet in between and compromise. If you compromise with sh tty ideas you are gonna get sh t on your shirt.

People will disagree about the definition of equality.

Good advice is to spend a reasonable amount of time on defining precisely what is meant by equality. You will likely find you are arguing past each other because your life experience has given you a different definition than someone else.

This is more true over internet communication, because most human-human communication is non-verbal, and text compresses this communication to oblivion.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#65

Post by shiba_developer »

onion2k wrote: post #43
actuator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. She has changed a lot since writing Harry Potter. It's obvious that she no longer believes in supporting marginalised groups or telling people that it's OK to be who you want to be. Her re…

Oh yeah, because trans people are living saints and can never ever be murderers.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#66

Post by pjc50 »

ThomPete wrote: post #4

I will never understand the extreme intellectual fragility of cancel culture. A lot of kids must have grown up never facing and learning to to deal with disagreement or what is it that have created such a thin skinned generation of seemingly well educated people?

A lot of kids have grown up with "disagreement". The leading edge of this is trans people; if you're trans you'll find that basically everyone "disagrees" with that, sometimes to the point of violence. I think people are very used to dealing with that kind of "disagreement". What they would like is for it not to be based on prejudice, wrong assumptions, and cruelty, and to be able to get on with their lives without having to run into "disagreement" at every turn.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#67

Post by pjc50 »

shiba_developer wrote: post #65
onion2k wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. She has changed a lot since writing Harry Potter. It's obvious that she no longer believes in supporting marginalised groups or telling people that it's OK to be who you want to be. Her re…

Oh yeah, because trans people are living saints and can never ever be murderers.

The number of trans murderers is incredibly tiny - can you name even one? While trying to assert that being trans makes someone more likely to be a murderer is a slur.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#68

Post by pjc50 »

> "In my work with Joel, I’ve found him to be ... very rigorous and principled in his thinking [and therefore I'm happy to work with him despite being a Republican]"

The set of people for whom this is true is shrinking by the day; remaining Republican requires an increasingly bizarre set of intellectual contortions. For example, you'd have to believe that appointing a Supreme Court justice right at the end of your term is completely unreasonable for Obama and perfectly reasonable for Trump.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#69

Post by [deleted] »

Miner49er wrote: post #13
joejohnson wrote: post #2

Interesting how they reiterate over and over how right-wing media proliferates on the platform but imply that centrist/liberal propaganda does not. Is there evidence of this?

Article about it, with some data backing it up: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-... They censor anti-racists: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil... AFAIK their new News tab has far-right publications like Breitbart, but no leftist publications.

[deleted]

Re: Mark in the Middle

#70

Post by facebookbadfru »

henearkr wrote: post #61
victords wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In their business plan Google (now Alphabet) favors a "greater good" for society rather than purely revenue optimization No, they're not. They just have better PR. They're both for profit companies with their share of controversies, but Google just has better PR.

PR is different from what the employees see from within. Moreover, Google supported its "responsible" positions by carbon-neutral engagement, retracting from Chinese market, stopping mining email data, and more. I don't really understand why you would describe this as PR, if so then every decision is PR, and in this case "good PR" would amount to "good decisions" and I'm fine with that but not with the pejorative ste…

Facebook ticks all of those?

It's banned on china.

https://sustainability.fb.com/

No proof on privacy issues but certainly neither seem saint.

Any other concrete examples?

Post reply on HN