131–140 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.
I wish the FTC would also look at Roblox more carefully. So many parents blindly let their children play Roblox allowing them to get sucked into pay 2 win schemes, NFC trading and advergames.
I don't know why my opinion is so out of the mainstream but I really think it's good that people's information is used vs not used... I think it's a great boon for ads to become more relevant instead of less relevant. Wasting time looking at ads that aren't for me sucks, it's much better if they could actually improve my life. Literally think making children have less relevant ads is doing them harm.
Sales is an asymmetric information game. The more the seller knows about you, compared with what you know about them, the worse a deal you get. The goal of companies like Facebook and Google is to know everything about you while you only know what they want you know.
Mark Zuckerberg himself seems to understand the importance of privacy very well, taping over the microphone and camera on his MacBook Pro, keeping his trash can from being scavenged by others, and FB spending heavily to protect his security, so why does he have the exact opposite attitude towards others?
He isn’t forcing you to use Facebook. If you go into a store and they have a security camera that records you is that also violating your privacy? Not saying everything FB does is ok but I think we are going too crazy with the government intervention. I don’t exactly see that FB was committing deliberate fraud based on this latest report (but a lot is redacted). It seems more like there were just some bugs? As a dev…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The spokesperson is the voice of the company, what they say is supposed to represent the opinion of the company as a whole.
I bet the rank and file are not enraged by this and I would guess that the majority probably agree that Meta should not exploit children.
I would caution against believing “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” when that would make the government your friend. Yes, Facebook has been awful and done great harm in some ways, but crucially it is not the case that Facebook was only able to do such harm because the FTC lacked the ability to unilaterally and without oversight deploy extreme powers like “you may not monetize this data” or “you may not release fea…
If the criteria for FTC thumbscrews is "Become a 2023.USD$630 B market cap company" then I'm comfortable with that. Fuck combinations (to use the original 1900s phrasing); restore competition.
* Not necessarily actions I would call “thumbscrews” like their current proposed penalties for Facebook, and mostly actions I think are appropriate, but it is still an indicator of who they’re willing to take action against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The spokesperson is the voice of the company, what they say is supposed to represent the opinion of the company as a whole.
I bet the rank and file are not enraged by this and I would guess that the majority probably agree that Meta should not exploit children.
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 think deliberately manipulating kids is heinous Agreed. It's also extremely lucrative, and far predates the Internet. Manipulating kids is one of the most lucrative things a business can do, because getting the kids to ask the parents to buy something is far far more effective than even a close friend suggesting they buy something.
I think they are exposed to far less ads than I was actually because TV ads are mostly gone. I never hear them asking for some random toy like the kind I remember from my youth.
> “Facebook has repeatedly violated its privacy promises,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a press release. If you're pissing off Facebook, you're probably doing something right.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how about, Facebook spokesperson furious...
Facebook itself is has no vocal cords or thought membrane. It's often easy to forget because we like to personify companies, but a company is just a piece of paper for tax and legal purposes. You can safely think "Facebook wants me to think it thinks this" when a Spokesperson speaks. You can safely think "Part of Facebook thinks this" when an individual employee speaks. You can safely think "Facebook Corporate wants…
Treat Corporate as the brain, the PR department as the voice, and that's "what the corporation thinks"
The rest of the collective doesn't matter basically at all for this.