251–260 of 719 posts
Very curious to hear what those necessary changes are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever considered the possibility that people just don’t think what you’re saying makes sense?
If it "didn't make sense" they wouldn't have to ban it. They ban simple questions when people are looking for answers. They banned the Hunter laptop story even when the emails were DKIM verified and his business partner came out against him. Look who they protect through these bans. They protect Biden, China, the establishment party. Do they ever try to protect YOU? No.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I find it weird for a whistleblower to be so "lib", as the kids say. What do you mean? I don't follow the latest slang, but I would've assumed this would mean "liberal", except I don't see what that would have to do with the rest of what you said.
(only explaining, not expressing any political beliefs here) Leftist internet slang for holding a centrist opinion at all costs based on the common belief that the current democratic establishment and its supporters spend too much time trying to please or listen to both sides and reach a compromise even when one side is expressing ridiculous or fascist opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…
> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Um, no it's not?
I like to imagine there are a bunch of Facebook Homefeed engineers out there who ran dozens experiments, tuning this-and-that, and found the ones that boosted revenue, and user engagement by X%. No one thought too deeply at _why_ some experiments were successful. Perhaps it was chalked up as "our new ML model is matching users to content they care about more efficiently". Then they shipped it, and everyone celebrated…
To add to your point, there’s not a soul in tech that ever went ‘I wonder if the results of this A/B test are ethical?’. Our industry is just not built with this sensibility, the same way Finance is not self-aware of greed . If it makes money in Finance and meets regulatory guidelines, all is fair. If it’s the optimal solution in tech, and doesn’t break laws or cause a noticeable usage drop-off, all is fair. When the…
I personally ran analysis like this to detect high and unexpected latency on people with cheaper cell phones (disproportionately minorities in the US). The results of my analysis led to changes that reduced this disparity (although the changes were minor and helpful for other reasons).
The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…
There's an even simpler solution: ban free social media. Require each platform to charge a minimum of $x/user/year. You remove kids by default (no credit card/bank card), and the focus of product managers is less on driving addictive browsing, and more on driving renewals (presumably through quality features, content, and fostering community). The customer is no longer the advertisers (or shady Governmental data scra…
To me this is a fake story being promoted as a way to further a political narrative. Nothing the whistleblower has revealed is shocking or previously unknown. Yes facebook tweaks an algorithm on your news feed to drive engagement and make money. Yes facebook allows some content that some would consider not to align with mainstream US narratives. My two cents this is an attempt to force facebook to kowtow to the US an…
What is so fake about this story?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…
> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? I have yet to see convincing proof of widespread or significant harm caused by tracking/retargeting. These arguments always seem to rely on hyperbole and redefining terms and norms. No, I don’t work at FB. No, I don’t work in digital advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…
> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime? I have yet to see convincing proof of widespread or significant harm caused by tracking/retargeting. These arguments always seem to rely on hyperbole and redefining terms and norms. No, I don’t work at FB. No, I don’t work in digital advertising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it "didn't make sense" they wouldn't have to ban it. They ban simple questions when people are looking for answers. They banned the Hunter laptop story even when the emails were DKIM verified and his business partner came out against him. Look who they protect through these bans. They protect Biden, China, the establishment party. Do they ever try to protect YOU? No.
The premise that good ideas that make sense end up winning is unfortunately false. Many bad ideas tend to have a remarkably long half-life, and generally they can exhibit much greater virality at the network level.
Unless you're saying other people are so stupid we need to control their content so they can make the right choices?
At that moment, let's just keep everyone in a jail cell so they don't hurt themselves.
Who is the arbiter of truth? The government? You?