221–230 of 252 posts
Be that as it may, I'm not sure we want to be dependent on Facebook to regulate the businesses and political organizations that advertise on its platforms.
Perhaps the US should consider creating a Federal Trade Commission that could regulate advertisers, and perhaps a Federal Election Commission to regulate election-related spending, including advertising.
TIL Facebook had a "chief of advertising integrity." Be that as it may, I'm not sure we want to be dependent on Facebook to regulate the businesses and political organizations that advertise on its platforms. Perhaps the US should consider creating a Federal Trade Commission that could regulate advertisers, and perhaps a Federal Election Commission to regulate election-related spending, including advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that Oil Companies can improve their behavior only by putting their business at risk.
I don't think it's a justifiable for risk mitigation reasons to act as the oil industry has. What they can do more of is invest in more R&D for moonshot energy products. Or invest into existing green energy areas. I believe there are just better short term returns on PR (deceiving the public as much as possible), buying help & protection from regulators, and the status quo generally. I also believe the powers that be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm finding these two sentences hard to reconcile. > If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk, they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. > Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large
Imagine yourself as the CEO of a manufacturer that pollutes rivers, and you sincerely want to stop polluting, but if you stop polluting, the company's costs would increase to the point it would no longer be able to compete against all the other companies that continue polluting -- and they're trying to eat your lunch you every day. So, if you stop polluting you would quickly lose relevance, be forced to shut down pla…
Zuckerberg called early users “dumb fucks” for trusting him with their data. That’s the demeanour of someone with bad (selfish) intentions from the start. Just because the damage he ended up doing is worse than the initial damage he predicted, it doesn’t excuse his continued morally bankrupt behaviour.
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
I can't find it now, but I remember a story from somebody in the Lean Manufacturing world about a place that was having safety problems, so they appointed somebody Safety Director. This signaled to everybody that safety was that one guy's problem, not theirs. Accidents went up further and stayed up until they got rid of the Safety Directory position and made everybody responsible for safety. That resonated for me bec…
Corporation has become so much evil and greedy, they have used every strategy so they cannot be taken down or cannot be regulate properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As a corporation, Facebook truly seems to be trying to improve its behavior for the benefit of society at large Sorry, that's a hard disagree from me and I think you couldn't be further off the mark. Facebook's entire raison d'etre from day 1 is to take as much data from as many sources as possible, then use the most powerful computers, programmed by the brightest minds, to use that data to maximise their profit wi…
My point is that Facebook can improve its behavior only by putting its business at risk. If Zuckerberg, Sandberg, et al could improve Facebook's behavior without putting the business at risk , they would do it in a heartbeat. But it appears they can't. Their efforts are thus sincere but highly constrained: They will never voluntarily do anything that would put the business -- their life's work -- at risk. If I may us…
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
Honest question, what did Mark Zuckerberg do that makes you think he has “no integrity”?
[1]https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/6/17203114/facebook-mark-zuc...
"Chief of Advertising Integrity" does anyone take that title seriously? Forget advertising, Facebook and it's CEO himself has no integrity.
1 The story of the Onavo founder they took on after the Onavo purchase was one example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are pros and cons of having dedicated teams for work that also has to be accomplished by other teams. For instance, it's not a good idea to skip having a security team using the logic that "other teams will just think its that one teams job." The security team provides expertise and (with cooperative management or other teams) can enact policies that influence the rest of the organization to the benefit of secu…
Aww, c'mon, tell me that QA/security/accessibility/whatever isn't regarded as a meaningless hoop to be jumped through as quickly and with the least effort possible so that you can get real work done. Ain't nobody got time for that rigamarole.