211–220 of 410 posts
Who knew the day would come when I’d agree with and defend Zuckerberg. It’s not Facebook’s job to tell me what I can or can’t think. I can evaluate the claims of Trump or any other politician myself, thank you very much.
Thanks to FB and the like, tech employees all over the world have much better conditions. They cannot solve the world's problems and it's also not their job. The only people who are out of touch are those who think that FAANG companies are the cause of all society issues. I've never worked at FB but would rather work for them than for most tech companies. For most tech companies if I'd dare to write something against…
No matter how bad it is elsewhere, Facebook employees have the right to try and improve their workplace.
I think we all know he is not "facing" anything. People that collect big and stable salaries will not change company employment over this. Virtue signalling is cheap, endangering your family's livelihood is hard. "It's very difficult to make somebody understand something, especially if their salary depends on them not understanding it." Facebook is, in general, an unethical company. And this has been known for a long…
1) Have little concern about the ethics. 2) Care about money. 3) Feel smart and important for working there (I'm smart, I made it).
This won't change their view on those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or have congress roll back Section 230. If online publishers were held to the same libel standards as print publishers this problem would be instantly fixed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...
So who do you hold responsible for the publishing of your comment? YC? @dang? Yourself? If it's one of the first two, your comment will be queued and reviewed by one of the many editors that YC will pay for to review each individual comment to ensure it does not incur liability on their part for publication. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passing judgment on thousands of employees like this is really no better either, you are just imposing your own morals on them.
It’s really quite something to watch how quickly the self righteous vilify and stereotype entire swaths of people. Exactly the type of behavior they apparently abhor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? Except Facebook is a private platform. That people use it does not make it a public platform. That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it. Yes, there are people there, but no, just because they're there and it's a popular place doesn't mean they can'…
> That would be like arguing that Six Flags over Georgia can't remove you from their park because you started protesting in it But in the context of this post, you (and the Facebook employees) are actually arguing exactly the same thing: that Six Flags should be required to ban people who, for example, wear Republican candidate T-shirts to the park.
(I have no idea what or where “Six Flags” is. I’m not American.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the world lost its collective mind? Imagine discriminating based upon the employees work history. Who the fuck are you, mate? This is like throwing away a resume because the developer worked for a Pornhub subsidiary. “Oh this person worked in the adult industry, he probably wanked off all day. Hard pass. No interview or screening by actual technical people.” Take a hard look in the mirror, you might see yourself…
There are plenty of jobs out there. If someone has Palantir on their history they can apply somewhere else. What's so crazy about judging a resume by its contents? Why even submit one if it's not meant to influence the decision?
People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? We really need mainstream decentralized applications more than ever. Thoughts of people should not be censored. Who the hell should be the truth police? You? People that have the same beliefs as you? This is just ridiculous. I don't like Facebook but great decision by Mark. Same as they decided to not re…
> People really want Zuckerberg to decide whether posts of the president should be deleted or not? Is this for real? I can't speak for everyone, but I just want the company not to carve out exceptions for their rules against violent speech depending on who said it. If you believe that Facebook doesn't have the right to remove any violent speech regardless of who says it, obviously that's another story. I think online…
But people want exceptions for when such violence feel good, and do not want it when it feel bad. Its similar to how some research (data however is disputed) that in warrior cultures, warriors who has killed in battle have more offspring than non-killers. There are good books on the subject of the love-hate relation humans have with violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody deleted Trump's posts. Twitter a) attached a "this may be misleading" link to one of them with the link leading to more reputable information on the subject, and b) hid the inflammatory one behind a warning about inciting violence, with a clear and present "View" button available. To my mind this is exactly the right approach: the original content remains fully available for those who would cry censorship, yet…
Seems like plenty of people read/heard about it anyway.