301–310 of 609 posts
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
(AOL seems to be surviving and generating revenue, I suspect generations must disappear to end this)
Microsoft used to have a worst reputation when they were on the top of the world, undisputed ans ruthless. Look at them. A darling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean there’s also 15 years of memories going back to me in college. There’s sentimental attachment there.
Then download your data I always do download + delete
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users would need an order of magnitude superior alternative, and most critically, users would need to move en mass. Yeah. Network effect. Arguably nothing on Earth has ever had such a powerful network effect as Facebook. I dislike FB for all of the usual reasons, plus a few of my own. But I still have an FB account. I don't check it very often, and I've got notifications turned off. But ditching my FB account entirel…
> But ditching my FB account entirely means I'd lose access to dozens of people I wouldn't have a great way of contacting otherwise. That used to be a fear of mine, but after deleting my account I’ve found it to be a core feature. It forces me to be intentional with my relationships; if I want to stay in touch with someone I have to make the effort. Otherwise, the relationship is likely more parasocial than actively…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My question is... why do people like us continue to work there? They know what is going on there more than anyone.
can you make a purely ideological/ethical case for working at google/twitter/amazon/ms/apple over working at fb?
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
Consider this: Nestle has a terrible reputation. Absolutely, truly awful. Has that meaningfully impacted Nestle's sales? Probably not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People didn't stop using oil after the Standard Oil break-up. Nor Windows after its antitrust brush or cigarettes after the tobacco master settlement. The power of those companies was simply sharply reduced. I actually disagree with this. When the company is forcibly broken up there's a chance that it's "power" (what?) is reduced but if we look at Standard Oil, that quicky is shown to be not-what-happened. SO becam…
> all the tobacco companies did was shift their business into providing alternatives to cigarettes. But they're still made from nicotine. Isn't this okay? Asking genuinely -- I haven't followed this one way or the other. But my understanding was that the health problems were mostly caused by the smoke. Does nicotine itself cause problems when delivered via gum or vape or whatever? Certainly the current ingestion meth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but that is exactly why fb is getting targeted by media and politicians so much. It is more popular with older people who also happen to be active voters and news consumers.
Yep, exactly. The key question is to ask why this stream of concerted effort is pointed at taking down Favebook, and Twitter is left alone.
Families stay in touch and plan events on FB. Your mom, aunt, and uncle-in-law are rather likely to be on FB, but not Twitter. If they are on Twitter, Twitter doesn't hector you to "connect" with them with nearly the same fervor as FB.
That has somewhat profound implications. If one ditches FB, one loses access to your family to some small or large extent.
On the mild end of things you miss out on baby pictures and invitations to picnics. On the more distressing side of things, unfriending a family member or leaving FB altogether may be seen as a rejection of parts or all of the family.
Perhaps this doesn't apply to your family, but we can agree it applies to many.
The "family" aspect of FB also makes it much more of a fertile breeding ground for misinformation relative to Twitter. The boomers using FB are (on average) much less tech-savvy and don't know how to verify claims. But, as your neighbor/uncle/mom/dad/whatever, they are much harder to ignore than some Twitter rando.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First off, yes they are. Second, the CCP use "disinformation" as a reason for censoring too. Americans aren't orchestrating this, Democrats are. The Taliban comparison was in relation to the FB Myanmar issue the "whistleblower" brought up. Just as the TikTok comparison was in relation to the girl's study. The point is, the Dems are laser focused on Facebook because they want to silence conservatives, not because of s…
I completely disagree with your assessment. No one is trying to silence people for saying "poor people are worth less than me, taxes are inherently evil, non-whites are probably illegals, and abortion is murder". I'm using the most offensive stereotypes to make the point that no one is even trying to ban those ideas. The concern is the spread of lies known to be generated by bad actors, and how to handle it. Does "mo…
Similar to how CCP bans political dissent, Dems ban any stories on Hunter Biden for example.
The Dems also ban things that look bad on China, like the lab leak, I suppose because they share some of the same goals.
Also the election is perfectly reasonable to question. It's fine to question why the bell weathers and many other record indicators were broken during the 2020 election. It's fine to want to audit and make sure something is secure, especially after we spent $20 million and 5 years investigating the 2016 election for "Russian interference".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People didn't stop using oil after the Standard Oil break-up. Nor Windows after its antitrust brush or cigarettes after the tobacco master settlement. The power of those companies was simply sharply reduced. I actually disagree with this. When the company is forcibly broken up there's a chance that it's "power" (what?) is reduced but if we look at Standard Oil, that quicky is shown to be not-what-happened. SO becam…
> all the tobacco companies did was shift their business into providing alternatives to cigarettes. But they're still made from nicotine. Isn't this okay? Asking genuinely -- I haven't followed this one way or the other. But my understanding was that the health problems were mostly caused by the smoke. Does nicotine itself cause problems when delivered via gum or vape or whatever? Certainly the current ingestion meth…