341–350 of 627 posts
Sorry but nothing she shared is incriminating. It’s just the challenges internally that Facebook has to deal with given their scale and how much content is shared every second. She makes a false choice that somehow Facebook can 100% make it safe but they just choose not to. It doesn’t matter who regulates it, who is in charge, the technology aspect of figuring out what is “dangerous” content and what isn’t is still i…
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.
The London Stock Exchange doesn't allow such dual class share structures for exactly this reason. That's partly why it has become so unpopular with tech companies. They are considering changing the rule but many of London's brokers and institutional investors strongly oppose it.
If I'm not mistaken there are some index funds that will exclude companies with dual class shares.
This is why "tech" companies can pursue outlandish projects that produce no revenue. Shareholders effectively have insufficient rights to question such decisions and hold the founders to account.
The fact that congress has not done anything about FB (other than fruitless hearings) shows how badly in shape we are to confront the risks of social networks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.
I’m not really well versed in the history of consumerism, so I ask: Is there a common pattern to what happens with companies which produce harmful products for their customers? Facebook is by no means the first company to do something like this. E.g. Which cigarette company went furthest in marketing to children, are they still in business? Did any car companies refuse to include seat belts after their safety records…
Sorry but nothing she shared is incriminating. It’s just the challenges internally that Facebook has to deal with given their scale and how much content is shared every second. She makes a false choice that somehow Facebook can 100% make it safe but they just choose not to. It doesn’t matter who regulates it, who is in charge, the technology aspect of figuring out what is “dangerous” content and what isn’t is still i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think we should want good people to stop working for Facebook. That never made sense to me. Facebook isn't going anywhere, and as such it should be improved, and the only way that will happen is if good people keep going to work there and trying to make it better.
You can say that for Fox News, or for some company that makes the predator drones. But many would clearly not want to work for such companies. Yet Facebook, a lot of tech folks decide “meh it’s not exactly a war crime” or are blithely/willfully ignorant of its consequences. After this unrefutable proof now, anyone who joins Facebook better learn to live with their decision, if that’s the kind of dilemma they care abo…
They may just be smart enough to know that it's not irrefutable proof.
Sorry but nothing she shared is incriminating. It’s just the challenges internally that Facebook has to deal with given their scale and how much content is shared every second. She makes a false choice that somehow Facebook can 100% make it safe but they just choose not to. It doesn’t matter who regulates it, who is in charge, the technology aspect of figuring out what is “dangerous” content and what isn’t is still i…
What right does Facebook have to exist at the scale it does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is always disclosed when a company files to go public. It's not secret. It's actually good for long term shareholder value in most cases.
Weeeeeell... it isn't a secret, that is true. And technically speaking there is no problem here. But it is easy to imagine that this happened to be able to hoodwink someone with the "Zuckerburg only controls 10% of the shares!" style soundbites without being forced to point out that means control of the company. Realistically this practice should probably be banned on the basis that Facebook could achieve a similar o…
It's assumed that investors have a responsibility to read the information a company publishes for investors, so if someone were to invest blindly they'd only be hoodwinking themselves.
Sorry but nothing she shared is incriminating. It’s just the challenges internally that Facebook has to deal with given their scale and how much content is shared every second. She makes a false choice that somehow Facebook can 100% make it safe but they just choose not to. It doesn’t matter who regulates it, who is in charge, the technology aspect of figuring out what is “dangerous” content and what isn’t is still i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest solution is the one FB will never accept, and yet the harm to the public would be virtually zero: Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. Return to being just a way to connect with friends and family. No one needs to get their news from Facebook. There are plenty of other sites on the Web for that. Same for all these other "engagement" services. Of course, this would cut th…
> The simplest solution … : Eliminate all news, politics, and other public policy groups and apps. I assume users want this content. I never see news, politics, etc because I’m not interested and FB has learnt I won’t engage in it. I’m not trying to say this makes me good or bad or special. I’m saying that they use feedback each user individually and it seems allot of people want that stuff.
It has actually become a bad user experience.