471–480 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Your comment history suggests you should heed your own advice about engaging with others in better faith. Why? Again, I'm not complaining. >Fwiw the other person deliberately ignored the obvious point of my comment so blatantly that my response was about as nice as it deserved. You were already being painfully obtuse
[flagged]
So should information be free to everyone or do we need to protect children from things they are not developmentally able to handle yet? It seems like a lot of the people praising this decision think the same thing is evil when applied in other contexts.
If a 6 year old can scroll TikTok surely they should be allowed to get a couple of shots at the bar?
I can’t wait for the equal coal reckoning. What is it 20k direct deaths a year? 2 million early deaths? The Great Barrier Reef 100% dead after this El Niño. A deliberate cover up of the science? In a top 10 harmful corporation list meta wouldn’t make my cut.
My pet peeves are junk food corporations. Companies like Mac Donald's or Coca Cola have been extremely damaging in terms of public health. And the level of marketing they use to feed people (especially kids) their poison is insane. I know it's pretty unpopular as it can be seen by some as an attack on US culture, but definitely more damaging than Meta in my opinion.
Of course these are all being subverted on social media because of Meta et al. being uncooperative and pretending they can't identify kids (they know the real age of most accounts even without having to do ID checks).
It's been eye-opening to watch people fall for the "social media is hurting the children" scam. The best and largest observational studies don't show a strong correlation. Studies with an intervention are mixed/the effect isn't large. Extreme and compulsive social media use is bad, but it's almost maybe always a symptom rather than a cause. I saw the trailer for the new Facebook movie last weekend. It's comical reall…
I think you are conflating "the best data we have" with "sufficient data to prove something". I agree with you that the best data we have is inconclusive. Which doesn't mean social media is totally safe. Also it doesn't mean it's totally dangerous. It means there just isn't enough data to let science guide the decision. Science is very slow and very expensive. So since I can't wait another century for their to finall…
> So since I can't wait another century for their to finally be good science about social media, I have no choice but to go with my gut.
Doing nothing seems fine!
Technically does this not create a problem for their EPS because of the poor free cash flow? Current market consensus is $81B in Net Income for the year but a -$6.7B cashflow for 2026[1]. But the stock is up 1%. So, is the -$12B is priced in(somehow)? [1]( https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/META-PLATFORMS-IN... )
Share prices are weakly correlated to news events anyway, if you ask the professionals they would say it was already "priced in" that is why a news event is not moving the stock when it doesn't move, and when it does move they will it is news event causing the move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you inhale the smoke, it's quite irrelevant whether smoking an industrial cigarette, pipe or a hand-crafted cigar without additives. You'll probably get lung cancer anyway if you continue it long enough. Smoke is always carcinogenic. I don't really get the point when there are many ways of getting nicotine without the smoke.
You're not wrong about smoke always being bad--there's a reason American Spirits have to have a disclaimer about "additive-free" not meaning healthier. Tobacco takes up alpha emitters from the soil and leaves them in your body--never good. Pipe and cigar smokers are much less likely to smoke a pack's worth of tobacco a day. You also don't inhale them into your lungs, you hold the smoke in your mouth. Smoking cigarett…
So really it is just about getting nicotine, but over time the ritual around the addiction adds to the addiction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, I should be allowed to give children my amazing crystal meth, it's such an untapped market.
There's a law against that. There's currently no law against making a website so fun that kids will waste all their time playing with it if their parents let them.
It's been eye-opening to watch people fall for the "social media is hurting the children" scam. The best and largest observational studies don't show a strong correlation. Studies with an intervention are mixed/the effect isn't large. Extreme and compulsive social media use is bad, but it's almost maybe always a symptom rather than a cause. I saw the trailer for the new Facebook movie last weekend. It's comical reall…
I can’t wait for the equal coal reckoning. What is it 20k direct deaths a year? 2 million early deaths? The Great Barrier Reef 100% dead after this El Niño. A deliberate cover up of the science? In a top 10 harmful corporation list meta wouldn’t make my cut.
My pet peeves are junk food corporations. Companies like Mac Donald's or Coca Cola have been extremely damaging in terms of public health. And the level of marketing they use to feed people (especially kids) their poison is insane. I know it's pretty unpopular as it can be seen by some as an attack on US culture, but definitely more damaging than Meta in my opinion.