151–160 of 170 posts
Meta and Google have not
If they lose at trial they will likely be settling thousands of cases in the future
Time will show the wiser
A jury will decide
Win or lose, going to trial means more public disclosure of what these companies do behind the scenes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the worst possible case for them they would pay some fee that amounts to absolutely nothing making a dent in their personal day to day lives as a consequence of their actions. Probably, not definitely It would be possible to put the executives in jail.
> It would be possible to put the executives in jail. In what universe would this be possible?
What a world that must be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the worst possible case for them they would pay some fee that amounts to absolutely nothing making a dent in their personal day to day lives as a consequence of their actions. Probably, not definitely It would be possible to put the executives in jail.
> It would be possible to put the executives in jail. In what universe would this be possible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to any examples of big food companies actually making changes for Michelle Obama's campaign?
First two results from this new-fangled thing they call a "search engine:" https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768807?re... https://www.vox.com/2016/10/3/12866484/michelle-obama-childh...
Once you're a subscriber, there's no incentive to get you to increase your engagement (beyond the threshold that makes it interesting and useful to you so you continue to subscribe) because unlike an ad-based network you're not generating more revenue the more you use it (in fact, you're increasing costs)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m talking about protecting people from evil actors with immense power to do harm.
I don't think so. What you're saying is that kids (and maybe adults) don't have enough agency over their own usage of social media; that these social media are so addicting and harmful that we cannot trust users (in concert with their parents, teachers, etc.) not to harm themselves with them, and that we must construct government apparatus to protect them.
Snap and TikTok have been willing to settle Meta and Google have not If they lose at trial they will likely be settling thousands of cases in the future Time will show the wiser A jury will decide Win or lose, going to trial means more public disclosure of what these companies do behind the scenes
Example of high quality, low viewcount
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the reality for any product that has >7,000 employees working on it is that some people's job is to prioritize growth at all costs, some people's job is to prioritize the effects of on vulnerable people, and the vast majority of them have other jobs to be doing. This sounds appropriate to me; not everybody can be worried about mental health at all times, and somebody needs to focus on growth. There are plenty…
> I think the reality for any product that has >7,000 employees working on it is that some people's job is to prioritize growth at all costs, some people's job is to prioritize the effects of on vulnerable people, and the vast majority of them have other jobs to be doing. Growth at all costs should be no one's priority.
so of course "growth hackers" (or whatever the folks responsible for growth are called nowadays... other than CFOs and CEOs), simply they are the ones whose judgement and "worldview" regarding whose responsibility is to manage the negative consequences of their increased revenue is very skewed, in other words they mostly have elaborate self-serving explanations (excuses)
and many times that overlaps various user freedom arguments, arguments against paternalism, etc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In those days they did this by having physical public spaces for interaction, which we've since priced people out of through artificial scarcity of real estate via zoning laws. And even if people were willing to solve that one, it would take time to actually build new buildings, and doing that would have to be done first . It's also assuming that we're willing to abandon a technological capacity (not having to person…
> In those days they did this by having physical public spaces for interaction, which we've since priced people out of through artificial scarcity of real estate via zoning laws. IDK where to begin with this, because we clearly do have physical public spaces for interaction, whether free like parks or not free like coffee shops. People also hang out at each others' homes. Moreover, supply of public spaces increases w…
How many public discussions have you participated in at a coffee shop? If you have something to say and you go there and start trying to chat up anyone who walks in the door, what response do you expect from the proprietors?
If you go to a park which is within 10 miles of the median home, how many people do you expect to encounter there at any given time, especially in the heat of summer or cold of winter?
You need indoor spaces that don't have some private commercial operator, like community centers or hackerspaces, but those are the things that get priced out by high real estate costs.
> People also hang out at each others' homes.
You move to a new city and want to meet people. Are you expecting many strangers to invite you into their homes without introduction?
> Moreover, supply of public spaces increases when there's demand, much of which is being soaked up by social media.
Social media costs time. Physical spaces cost even more time (since you need to travel there) and they cost money (to cover the rent). What happens when you then make the rent high?
> Even social media can be meaningfully distinguished in terms of design features.
So is e.g. Usenet social media or not? Does it matter if it provides ordering options other than search by date?
> They've all since morphed into toxic cesspools of social comparison, parasociality, polarization, disinformation, and other problems.
Because those things increase engagement and the central middle man gets paid for increasing engagement.
> Interoperability/federation doesn't solve those problems
It removes the perverse incentive to design things that way.
> most of the interoperable and federated solutions actually perpetuate them, because the problematic design features are part of the spec.
Then why is Neocities or "add a Bluesky comments section to your blog" so much less toxic than Facebook?
The primary thing driving toxicity in certain federated networks is when they get a huge influx of users after some incumbent social network gets into the news over political suppression, because then a mass of the target's partisans try to switch to something else in protest and partisans are toxic so if you get inundated with disproportionately partisan exiles you've got a problem. Which doesn't happen if you federate the whole main network containing the majority of the population including moderates and apolitical subjects rather than disproportionately one side's most excitable militants.