191–200 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oppressive Speech: https://doi.org/10.1080/00048400802370334 Performative Hate Speech Acts. Perlocutionary and Illocutionary Understandings in International Human Rights Law: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334199177_PERFORMAT...
You are attempting to frame state controls on speech as some form of "liberation". This is quite literally 1984 "Freedom is Slavery" kind of thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hate Facebook, but your statement begs the question: "who defines what is harmful"
I think we should agree that women and girls physically harming themselves is "harmful". > Frances Haugen: And what's super tragic is Facebook's own research says, as these young women begin to consume this-- this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more. Facebook's own…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I have a relative who processes digital intakes for a CA ACLU chapter, and they get a huge number of interview-related complaints, which get referred directly to legal assistance who are interested in such cases. My opinion is we likely don’t hear about it because each case is small, and companies have no incentive to publicize settlements.
The ACLU lost its legitimacy when it stopped defending the civil liberties of people they don't agree with.
Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the above. They need new leadership. The tactics that got them here will not carry them further. There are tons of examples of the positive impact of new leadership, on companies like Apple, Microsoft, Uber, Disney, Ford, etc. And there are certainly plenty of exa…
By the Matt Levine definition of securities fraud, they seem to be I trouble: - say one thing in public - know in private the thing is false - have that result in a lower stock price -> securities fraud
Knowing it is unhealthy for teenagers does not have direct negative impact on advertising revenues per se . It is perhaps feasible to argue that keeping this information under wraps without a legal requirement to disclose is the optimum management fiduciary thing to do to maximize shareholder value by avoiding bad press.
Of course there will be lawsuits around this as other things, but it is not all that clear
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are attempting to frame state controls on speech as some form of "liberation". This is quite literally 1984 "Freedom is Slavery" kind of thinking.
Can you be more specific? Give examples of what you mean, if you can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To expand on the sibling comment, Facebook has two classes of shares. Class A shares have one vote and are the shares that are traded on stock exchanges. Class B shares get 10 votes each and are held by Zuckerberg and friends. Zuckerberg has enough Class B shares that he really can't be outvoted by other investors.
> Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.
In the Facebook registration statement from 2012, one can get an idea of who owns these class B shares.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512...
If you want to save society, the mental health of our children, and preserve a sane and functional democracy, etc, etc. Stop working for Facebook. Quit working for that leadership. Let their talent erode and their technical debt lead to atrophy. Don't expend your finite life living and slaving for this empire of evil. The next best step is to pledge to not hire ex-Facebookers.
I quit Facebook 6 years ago, and Twitter a few months ago, didn't have any other "social media" websites. Not missing a thing. Nobody cared. Still talk to all the same people. So there's that little nugget of knowledge if you're reading this and wondering if it was hard to quit.
"Social media" never: Got me a job Got me a raise Made me a friend Helped me find X Helped me Changed my mind Made me happy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook has two classes of shares I had no idea companies could legally create vastly unequal schemes like that. How do people even find out about things like this? Is this information available somewhere? Impossible to make good investment decisions without this sort of knowledge.
Not just Facebook that is structured like this. And as someone said, it's very public. You must be making investment decisions without looking at any corporate documents.
Well, I've never actually invested in any company before. Mostly because of stuff like this. I always assumed there's some insider information I'm missing out on.
This individual is not a 'whistleblower'. Nothing revealed is illegal or fraudulent.
To quote Matt Levine, “everything is securities fraud”. If FB is representing to the public that they are doing better than they actually are on fighting these issues, and the truth damages their share price, then they have committed securities fraud and will be sued by shareholders.