141–150 of 164 posts
Facebook should really come down from their high horses and let legal entities decide of stuff like this. They're a utility. (not saying that in a bad way, becoming a utility is the ultimate startup achievement)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The details of the coup aren't understood or cared about that deeply by American discourse. But the idea that it's trivial and salutary to identify and ban "bad" or "dangerous" speech is decisively left-coded right now, in exactly the way similar impulses were right-coded during periods of rightwing political dominance (immediately post-9/11, parts of the Cold War, etc)
All these recent events involving censorship and left aligned tech companies eerily reminds me a passage the Unabomber wrote in his manifesto back in the 1990s. " Some leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists. If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system becomes a tool…
To be clear, there are leftists and rightists that explicitly own the rejection of liberal values (Communists/tankies, racial essentialists like the "woke" and neo-Nazis, neoreactionaries). But the majority of these dynamics are driven by useful idiots who can't even grasp what's happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Duckduckgo is a competitor to Google. Its based on Yandex and Bing, two other competitors to Google. Noone needs Facebook, it serves no valid purpose for the human race. Same with Twitter. We don't need them, and we don't need competition for them. They should go away with no replacement. Source: was Facebook engineer. Listened to Fuckerberg make one too many all-hands speeches about engagement. Resigned several year…
The practical reality is that sharing photos of some group event with the other people at that event is easy in Facebook, and hard to imagine how to do that without some analogous service. I'm aware that many people use Facebook for other odd things but this was Facebook's original use case, and the literal source of its name, and it is still useful for that. Even if you could come up with some alternative or even de…
Additionally, I’ve never grasped what those Facebook features supposedly used for private communication elevate them over simple email use in general. I’ve found them more cumbersome to deal with than email, to be honest.
For all the people oblivious to why Facebook did this: Because Myanmar people lobbied for it, and because the Myanmar military is terrorizing its own people, then lying about it. The military is shooting its own people, kidnapping them in the middle of the night, and torturing them. Over 10 protestors dead and 50+ injured, as they are using live rounds on protestors. Over 500+ disappeared or kidnapped. Protestors kil…
What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the grieving Iraqi's will accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massa...
What about the US military's FB page? Didn't they cause thousands of innocent deaths in Iraq? I'm sure some Americans can somehow justify it, but I doubt the grieving Iraqi's will accept it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukaradeeb_wedding_party_massa...
I think you are misunderstand the point of Facebook's actions. The purpose is not to harm or pressure the Burmese military authorities - Its to virtue signal to left-leaning activists in the USA and other Western Countries. Technology companies have dug themselves into a hole of censorship and deplatforming, and they have no choice but to keep digging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don’t feel like arguing with people who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation. And i don't feel like arguing with someone who defends a genocide denier, and explains it with "who don’t really know anything about Burma or her situation". >either as part of a political strategy of reconciliation with military, or because she just felt like defending them because she secretly likes what happened. Yo…
This is pure hysterics. You have to back up what you say with arguments.
>>she took the podium on Wednesday at the United Nations’ highest court to defend her homeland against accusations of genocide, arguing that there had been no orchestrated campaign of persecution.
>>Instead, she insisted that what foreign observers have called an organized, years-long campaign of atrocities against the Rohingya has been exaggerated and misconstrued.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/11/world/asia/aung-san-suu-k...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/world/asia/myanmar-rohing...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If military never answered to her or took orders, control all the courts like you said, what is the point of the coup?
Because she was gaining more support/momentum, and she is going toward the direction the military doesn't like. The coup proves that she never really had any authority to begin with.
Why then the lies about the genocide?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll be able to find value in nonmonopolized and nonalgorithmic versions of the services that Facebook has gobbled up, just like they did before Facebook existed. I'm not making that call, I'm making a prediction and hoping it comes true, and contributing to a discussion that may possibly, in some small way, contribute to it coming true. If you look around this thread, you'll notice some other people that seem to…
When you use the word valid, you're making a judgement call. You have no right to decide what's valid or not. On the broader point, you're making a strong assertion. Facebook is probably the most popular consumer product in the history of the world (apart from maybe Coke). You brush off what they do as just providing services that others had provided before Facebook "gobbled" them up, or providing some services that…
How much of that growth is through aquisition though? Facebook was losing photo sharing, so they bought instagram, they were losing messaging, so they bought WhatsApp.
Its all well and good to say Facebook has value, and thats because they are using a behemoth (almost, but not quite monopolistic) position to squeeze competitors.
Take Facebook Marketplace, it has a huge number of posts that probably equals Craiglists - and they did that because they already captured peoples attentions. And they'll do it with their next product - hell they are still pushing their Portal picture frame on people.