This shark story the book opens with seems... implausibly Hollywood. But alright I guess.
Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
401–410 of 615 posts
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#402Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…
Yes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/
Facebook is an addiction for many people. Mark Zuckerberg thinks Facebook users are "dumb fucks":
https://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-im...
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#403Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…
By allowing powerful adults to act this way, we are in a sense teaching our children to act this way too.
Getting rich has been the American dream for a very long time. Unfortunately, many Americans only pretend to care that it matters how you get rich.
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#404Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cheryl Sandberg inviting the author of the book to sleep in her bed next to her on the company jet, and the petulent and vindictive behavior when the author said 'no'. Considering the timing... does that mean MeToo doesn't apply if the predator is also a woman? Sexual advances from a position of power are simply not okay. (Weirdly as a society we appear to have accepted that an older woman predating younger men is…
Age gaps in relationships is not inherently negative. Being a cougar is not a bad thing. The issue here was that Sandberg was the author's manager. Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.
> Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults.
I wouldn’t fully agree. All parties being adults doesn’t inherently remove the advantage very large age and experience gaps can give to one party over the other, especially when one is barely adult. 18 or 21 is just an arbitrary number, and one doesn’t suddenly become smart about these things just because the law says they are now legally full citizens, responsible for their acts and for themselves.
But I also agree it doesn’t make age gaps between adults inherently negative. It’s just… complicated.
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#405Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if she was fired it was an act of courage and a step in the right direction to write a book about it. The company is cancer, no wonder they named it Meta.
Courage guided by righteousness or vengeance? I feel like the motivation is very important here.
[deleted]
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich:
> The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri...
Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/
Hard to boycott something you quit using 10 years ago.
I'm in your boat, but I've been thinking more lately around how we create competitors to the sorts of things that people claim "lock them in" to using Facebook (events and messenger are the ones I hear the most anecdotally).
Make these things reasonably self-sustaining monetarily (no ads) and just let it run.
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
The phrase "voting with your wallet" is hilarious to begin with, because it admits that rich people have more voting power and implies that's how it should be.
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that the literal reading of the term itself implies that poor people have less of a say than rich people.
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods. This is a total exaggeration and just gives power to these companies. You can start here: https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/ YOU voted for Facebook when you use it, by not installing a hosts file that blocks it and all advertisements. We do not need to use these platforms, and the less people that use them the les…
Unfortunately, no hosts file on iOS, and it isn't reliably listened to on macOS. But with all the other stuff Apple's doing, I suspect my next machines won't be Apple…
It's a shame because their hardware and battery life are so good but then they ruin it with the software.
Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich: > The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri... Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
Ouch. That's a pattern in the developing world.