161–170 of 579 posts
The same company intentionally driving minors towards this content (despite claiming to care about them) is also lobbying in secrecy for requiring all of us to scan our ID and face in order to use our phones and computers. Their stated reason? Child safety. Their actual reason? You can figure that out.
The same company intentionally driving minors towards this content (despite claiming to care about them) is also lobbying in secrecy for requiring all of us to scan our ID and face in order to use our phones and computers. Their stated reason? Child safety. Their actual reason? You can figure that out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their actual reason? You can figure that out. This is unfalsifiable. Just say what you think it is explicitly.
Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings? If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
There are many interesting ways that the conversation could have been carried forward but there is no way to continue the conservation as the OP doesn't make it clear what they think.
The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out, please tell me what you're trying to say here.
The same company intentionally driving minors towards this content (despite claiming to care about them) is also lobbying in secrecy for requiring all of us to scan our ID and face in order to use our phones and computers. Their stated reason? Child safety. Their actual reason? You can figure that out.
Meta is like one giant cancer that grew a few small tumors of benign[1] nature, like some of their efforts in open source and open research (React, Llama, etc.). [1]: I could be wrong thinking those are benign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two things can be true, and I am in the same boat. Should the next generation have their brains fried by ad-tech corporations and their algorithms? Absolutely not. Should the overdue off-ramp from this trend be the on-ramp to mass-surveillance and government overreach? Also a firm no.
I really wish this take was more prominent. I really don't buy that mass-surveillance should be required for age verification. There are plenty of very smart people who have created much more complicated things than a digital age verification that doesn't track every time you use it. This also isn't helpful, but I think the sudden push of urgency isn't helping. The internet has existed without any kind of age verific…
There is always a conversation, but it is often not the popular one and gets drown out by whatever everyone is excited about at the moment. You can find it if you seek it out.
Lawrence Lessig’s book “Code” (1999), for example, talks about how a completely unrelated internet is an anomaly, and that regulation will certainly be necessary, and advocates that it be done in a thoughtful manner.
The same company intentionally driving minors towards this content (despite claiming to care about them) is also lobbying in secrecy for requiring all of us to scan our ID and face in order to use our phones and computers. Their stated reason? Child safety. Their actual reason? You can figure that out.
> Their actual reason? You can figure that out. This is unfalsifiable. Just say what you think it is explicitly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings? If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.
By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do th…
On the contrary, looks like you can:
> (…) sell the user's data (…) use this information to train AI models (…) use this information to serve Ads
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta is like one giant cancer that grew a few small tumors of benign[1] nature, like some of their efforts in open source and open research (React, Llama, etc.). [1]: I could be wrong thinking those are benign.
Everything consumer facing from meta is like a toxic waste hazard. It makes me sad seeing people stuck on those platforms.