251–260 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And of course publish it. Logically we might expect Meta to get into selling narcotics next. "It is not Meta's role to police drug use"
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pravda is the most famous example UK “D-notices” are another great example And the Sedition Act, as well as the Comstock Act
Aren't the UK's D-notices advisory. I thought they could be (and often are) ignored by media outlets. I don't think they warrant a mention alongside Pravda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…
> because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech I'm not sure that I buy that when people's health are at stake. When things are objectively false, and spreading that information will actively harm people, you have a responsibility and duty of care to point out falsities. But that's just me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
COVID-era “fact checking” went way beyond its remit and started to become a political tool. This had negative consequences for the average person’s trust in institutions of all kinds, because people really don’t like it when you attempt to police their individual political speech, even if it’s clearly inaccurate (as it so often is). It’s a good thing that it was removed. The problem with Meta is the monetization and…
[flagged]
This attitude you have is why we’re in a race to the bottom politically. I hope you live to see the fruits of your efforts, fully.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If you work for a company, you are enabling that company's practices. If those practices are bad and you are aware of them, then continuing to work there means your hands are dirty too. People have, of course, every right to make such a decision based on their own ethical sensibilities. I have every right to judge them based on mine.
I would understand if you said, "Nope, still equally responsible" or if you said, "Relatively less worried about these folks".
Genuinely interested in hearing thoughts about these orgs at big companies.
Why anyone still engages with these platforms is totally beyond me. They are bad for your soul, bad for the nation, bad for the world.
I don't use FB or insta , but here are some reasons why people use it: - Keep in touch with family - Comfort from having their ideas reinforced - Organize small events - Share pictures easily - not feel lonely - stay current on world events All of those have other routes to accomplish the same thing, but I guess they have the "Dropbox effect" of simplifying it so even techno challenged can use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I may offer: Because they have become fiendishly adept at exploiting an addictive behaviour/weakness in our brains WHILE masquerading as some sort of social utility (AND perhaps vestigially retaining some semblance of that) - which, incidentally, is what (some) originally might have been, before encrappification.-
I suspect the OP understands this. Since few of those on HN (I am assuming) no longer have a FB presence, the question is why hasn't everyone arrived at this same conclusion and walked away from that addiction? Meta should really have gone the way of MySpace a long, long time ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you work for a company, you are enabling that company's practices. If those practices are bad and you are aware of them, then continuing to work there means your hands are dirty too. People have, of course, every right to make such a decision based on their own ethical sensibilities. I have every right to judge them based on mine.
These big companies have orgs within them that do, e.g., charitable work. Or work on standards or open source. Or accessibility or inclusion or other work to genuinely improve lives. How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company? I would understand if you said, "Nope, still equally responsible" or if you said, "Relatively less worried about these…
> How does your judgement apply to folks who attach their altruistic efforts to the funding and reach of a big company?
If it's getting the company to fund your altruistic efforts and isn't benefiting that company, then it's not contributing to the bad deeds. Otherwise, it is.
Either way, if you're working for the company, then you're still enabling them. Whether or not you participate in internal do-gooding efforts doesn't change that.