81–90 of 335 posts
It is insane to me that we allow any advertising to young children at all, whether online, on TV, or anywhere else. I think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous and I genuinely don’t understand why this isn’t the consensus opinion.
It is insane to me that we allow any advertising to young children at all, whether online, on TV, or anywhere else. I think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous and I genuinely don’t understand why this isn’t the consensus opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have we gotten to the point where "bad for Facebook" ~= "good for society"? It's both a good indicator for progress and a sad place to be as a community.
...Wait, so you thought there was ever a point when "good for Facebook" == "good for society"? IMO "bad for Facebook" ~= "good for society" has always been true. It's not a "sad place to be as community", they are a corp and their bait-and-switch was expected ever since they got created, at least from the people who don't idolize corporations that is. It was extremely obvious they'll position themselves as helpful, p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can a corporation be furious? In the same way that an agency can propose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
Proposing is an action. Being furious is a state of emotion. Corporations can act through their agents. Corporations cannot feel their agents’ emotions because they are unable to feel.
How can a corporation be furious? After reading the article, they don't say anything about the company or people inside the company being furious. The closest thing I could find is that a Meta spokesperson said they plan to fight it vigorously and expect to win. Maybe the headline should be "Meta opposed to proposed FTC ban on monetizing youth data".
The headline here is the government of the United States has alleged that Meta has violated an existing privacy order severely enough that they should not be allowed to retain data on children at all, that they've lied to parents about what they are doing with their kids data, and that bugs or mistakenly applied product features had enabled kids to message with strangers despite promises that the product was not able…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot Snap.
And Google, and Microsoft and ...
For sake of not letting a bogus argument go unanswered: Google and Microsoft offer generic tools that have very broad social benefit outside the monetization of user data.
That said, I would prefer it if the FTC would address data monetization practices at all tech companies--it is a fine business model, but it is troublesome as a necessary addition to my spreadsheet or the operating system for my desktop/laptop/phone-sized computer.
It is insane to me that we allow any advertising to young children at all, whether online, on TV, or anywhere else. I think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous and I genuinely don’t understand why this isn’t the consensus opinion.
"Deliberately manipulating" is a biased term that negatively taints your statement. With the bias removed, the statement's ambiguity is revealed. You must unpack what you mean by "deliberately manipulating". For example, teaching and parenting is a form of deliberately manipulating. Picking my kid up when he's about to fall down a slide is deliberately manipulating. Handing him a banana is deliberately manipulating.…
It is insane to me that we allow any advertising to young children at all, whether online, on TV, or anywhere else. I think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous and I genuinely don’t understand why this isn’t the consensus opinion.
I recently deactivated and a few weeks later a friend asked if I was going to an event he invited me to. I had no idea anyone invited to me anything. I had my invite me to an event and it let her invite and didn't tell either of us I was invited to something... If you invite a deactivated account there's apparently no indication the person won't see it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have we gotten to the point where "bad for Facebook" ~= "good for society"? It's both a good indicator for progress and a sad place to be as a community.
...Wait, so you thought there was ever a point when "good for Facebook" == "good for society"? IMO "bad for Facebook" ~= "good for society" has always been true. It's not a "sad place to be as community", they are a corp and their bait-and-switch was expected ever since they got created, at least from the people who don't idolize corporations that is. It was extremely obvious they'll position themselves as helpful, p…
I'd say there is a case for it being neutral for society for a fair chunk of time in its early days. Things don't have to be good/bad binary.