251–260 of 627 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok but how does that relate to perlocutionary and oppressive speech?
You are posing restrictions on speech as a form of "freedom". > By the same token, “Slavery Is Freedom,” because the man subjected to the collective will is free from danger and want. The feigned ignorance is extremely tiresome.
I am? Can you give specific examples from the sources I provided where that applies?
FB is what it is because 45,000 employees work hard daily to make it that way. if they weren't satisfied with how it works or what it does, they'd fix it or they'd leave. every day they continue to work there without changing direction, they vote with their time that FB is doing what it ought to be doing. all of the responsibility for FB's effects on the world belongs to them.
Whether or not what Facebook did was illegal and she technically qualifies as a "whistleblower", I salute her for what she has done and is doing by telling this story. People need to know about this, because it is harmful. This doesn't mean it should be illegal. But it is something people should consider if they go to work for Facebook (or other companies), and hopefully it will inspire people to do something about t…
The term whistleblower here is just a means to raise awareness for this information, which is good (not that it does much for the FB-reading population, besides those infatuated with following conspiracy theories).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More Ad blocking won't solve this in the long term, it will become an arms race. If ad blocking becomes pervasive then there will be more efforts to evade blocks, starting with technically ( operationally difficult) solutions like hosting ads first party etc. There is simply too much money today in it for the industry to go away quietly. Ad-blocking as a tool can help address the security issues with a trusted servic…
> it will become an arms race It already is. > starting with technically ( operationally difficult) solutions like hosting ads first party Already happening. Those ads are still getting blocked. > There is simply too much money today in it for the industry to go away quietly. Agreed. We need to drive them out. > issue of ad's itself can sadly not be controlled with ad-blocking only Why?
Also Google is removing web APIs and actively making its browser poorer and controlling the web standards that is making it increasingly technically difficult to block ads, it is much harder to block ads on mobile platforms where most users are, only Firefox supports an ad blocker at all and Mozilla generates 95% of its revenue from Google .
We need better regulations not better ad-blocking to protect vulnerable users . More common ad-blocking becomes more aggressive the counter measures will be, given Google's control of Android and Chrome (that also gives them influence of Edge(based on Chrome) and to some extent Safari - Webkit heritage ) they can easily effect changes that makes it impossible or extremely difficult to block ads.
Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the above. They need new leadership. The tactics that got them here will not carry them further. There are tons of examples of the positive impact of new leadership, on companies like Apple, Microsoft, Uber, Disney, Ford, etc. And there are certainly plenty of exa…
Does anyone track the premium Facebook has to pay to get people to close their eyes and work for them? Subjectively, it feels like it’s growing, but that’s from sampling a limited friend group.
To answer your question more directly, http://levels.fyi tracks it.
Facebook is going to become a hollowed out shell of itself if they do not change. They’ll get hollowed out by litigation, legislation, investors, or all of the above. They need new leadership. The tactics that got them here will not carry them further. There are tons of examples of the positive impact of new leadership, on companies like Apple, Microsoft, Uber, Disney, Ford, etc. And there are certainly plenty of exa…
I heard that she may be the first billionaire whistleblower, when given a percentage of the fine assigned to Facebook.
I haven't seen any evidence, for example, that Facebook tried to cover anything up. They just paid some people to do a bunch of research, which they then did nothing about because it would have had a negative impact on their bottom line. Literally every large company does this.
Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is a horrible company and could very well be the downfall of society, but I just don't think that was a secret, and nothing in these reports makes me think any differently.
I think misinformation and conspiracy theories on these platforms are a huge problem. A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The results were far-reaching. The US violated the UN charter and launched a disastrous war in Iraq where millions of Iraqis were killed, injured and displaced. They used a platfor…
> A few years ago, some bad actors were successful in convincing Congress of a crazy conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ... They used a platform called The New York Times to spread their lies. Citation needed that this was a knowing conspiracy as opposed to bad intelligence. Setting that aside, there's a big difference between an institution like the NY Times getting it wrong on occ…
I watched the presentation of "evidence" and thought "Who is going to believe THAT?!". "We did not really see-see anything, but here is some CGI of truck-based weapons labs that we somehow believe might exist". It was rather ridiculous, really.
It was so unconvincing, I can only assume that it was intentional sabotage by some actors with remains of integrity.
I'm glad she shared what she shared. Facebook is a cancer on society IMO. In many cases, although perhaps not this one, whistleblowers have had an extremely active and political Twitter account when hired, or are literally being hired _because_ of their wokeness. Do silicon valley companies not screen for intensity of political views during job interviews in order to prevent issues like this? They certainly don't see…
> Facebook is a cancer on society IMO. It's interesting, I know a bunch of people who work there as I'm sure many on this site do. Nonetheless, none of them have a problem with Facebook or its role in our society. I don't know what to make of it really.
It means either (1) they don't give a shit about the harm their employer's business practices cause to society, or (2) they do care, but the large amount of money they get paid outweighs their moral compass.
Anyone with the skills and expertise to get a job at Facebook has many, many other choices of employers, many of which are at best morally neutral or less damaging than facebook.
There's no amount of money I'd accept to work at FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the polarizing nature of the topic, it seems unlikely there would be a bipartisan agreement on the issue without classified intel to get people on both sides of the aisle behind it. That, of course, is not proof. But we have also had reports of activity traced back to Russia from other organizations. They could all be lying, but then that claim takes us strongly into the conspiracy theory territory at the…
>Considering the polarizing nature of the topic, it seems unlikely there would be a bipartisan agreement on the issue without classified intel to get people on both sides of the aisle behind it. Congressional support for US global military empire has, unfortunately, always enjoyed complete bipartisan support. >But we have also had reports of activity traced back to Russia from other organizations. All sorts of organi…
"We said that we had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government. And our analysts that looked at it and that had looked at these types of attacks before, many different types of attacks similar to this in different environments, certain tools that were used, certain methods by which they were moving in the environment,and looking at the types of data that was being targeted, that it was consistent with a nation-state adversary and associated with Russian intelligence."
Attacks that coincide with patterns seen from Russian intelligence is evidence. Evidence isn't proof. If you're standard of evidence is "A Russia n defector with server logs and video recordings of FSB officials confirming the acts".... Well, then you're using the word "evidence" wrong.