191–200 of 368 posts
Why don't we let the community decide, instead of these bureaucratic, free speech-chilling "fact checkers"? If it's good enough for your employer, it should be good enough for you.
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/07/nx-s1-5251151/meta-fact-check...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Violence” means “to damage or adversely affect” and includes psychological harm. This is recognised by dictionaries.
I agree don’t trivialize violence. Sending an email or txt to asking for some talking points is not violent.
If you’re checking your work email and replying to it during labour, I somehow doubt you feel like you were being “asked” and respected as a human being.
But I don’t know the full story from all parties, and I get the feeling you don’t either. I wasn’t judging this particular case in my previous reply, merely pointing out that violence can take many forms and we shouldn’t narrow our thinking of what it means to do harm.
> A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic? As far as I can tell, they've always been basically Amazon (the borg that will win at all costs) but a little more trivial, cool and Web2.0, they were never the "don't be evil" Google, the idealistic Twitter, I can't think of many less ideal driven companies. Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into usi…
Not Facebook... if there was some idealism it was way way before I found Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic? That’s how Zuckerberg painted it, and no doubt there were people who bought it, at least internally. See the red book. https://www.map.cv/blog/redbook
The number of people who drank the kool-aid is astonishing. To the same tune, I think that if you tell people that politicians lie, majority of them will be deeply shocked, hurt, and offended.
> A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic? As far as I can tell, they've always been basically Amazon (the borg that will win at all costs) but a little more trivial, cool and Web2.0, they were never the "don't be evil" Google, the idealistic Twitter, I can't think of many less ideal driven companies. Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people into usi…
>the idealistic Twitter Never saw Twitter as idealistic. Seems to just want to show you celebrity gossip. Substantially worse product than Facebook from the start, and really pioneered the attempts at trying to continuously grab people's attention as opposed to just being a tool. Not really a defense of Zuck's products as a whole as Instagram seems to be the same. >Facebook beat MySpace IMO because it tricked people…
It was different at the start.
We still haven't found out how to use the internet to socialize, without resorting to giving power to a central entity. If there is something out there that can do this, profitably, then we can kiss these mega social giants good bye. I heard about the Blue Sky protocol, but it still feels primitive.
You realize people (including me) were socializing on the internet before any of these big companies existed, right?
This triggers my cautionary nerve a bit. I think it is important to recognize that she wants to sell a book. I am not saying she isn't doing this because she has a cause. I am also not saying she is lying or anything. But if you sell a book you can't deny that there might be a conflict of interest. Potentially she paints things more extreme than they really were.
I don't see these types of books as business opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize people (including me) were socializing on the internet before any of these big companies existed, right?
There was this open protocol (that still exists!) called IRC. Also: Usenet and email.
Email is the real answer here, but the reason it is better is the same reason Facebook et al took over.