Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 615 posts

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#251

Post by SauntSolaire »

ceejayoz wrote: post #188
SauntSolaire wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The inalienable right to free speech doesn't extend to defamation and fraud You have a strange definition of "inalienable".

Not really; it's a conflict between two groups and sets of rights. I have the inalienable right to not be defamed and defrauded. Now we have to resolve the contradiction as a society. That it's sometimes messy doesn't mean we ditch the concept of rights.

Those are not inalienable rights either, they're legal rights. Here, courtesy of Cornell law:

"An inalienable right is a fundamental entitlement inherent to every person that cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away by the government. These rights, often called natural rights are considered essential, cannot be surrendered by the individual, and are not dependent on laws."

Just Google "is x an inalienable right" next time.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#253

Post by bena »

dmschulman wrote: post #168

It's been interesting to watch some of Wynn-William's claims be vindicated by recent court decisions about the addictive and manipulative qualities of Meta and Google's products. She left the company in 2017, and along with her many other allegations about Facebook and their executive team, had a good amount of information in the book about the reasoning, rationale, and management decisions that led to allowing adver…

She didn’t leave, she was fired. A significant difference.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#254

Post by malfist »

0x3f wrote: post #91
mcbutterbunz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd like to research basic freedoms, I would suggest starting here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_rights

It's very boring for you not to actually commit to anything specific, so that you don't have to defend it.

I'm glad we're all here under the goal of making non-boring statements for 0x3f

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#255

Post by ceejayoz »

SauntSolaire wrote: post #251
ceejayoz wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really; it's a conflict between two groups and sets of rights. I have the inalienable right to not be defamed and defrauded. Now we have to resolve the contradiction as a society. That it's sometimes messy doesn't mean we ditch the concept of rights.

Those are not inalienable rights either, they're legal rights. Here, courtesy of Cornell law: "An inalienable right is a fundamental entitlement inherent to every person that cannot be sold, transferred, or taken away by the government. These rights, often called natural rights are considered essential, cannot be surrendered by the individual, and are not dependent on laws." Just Google "is x an inalienable right" ne…

An inalienable right can also be a legally protected one.

"Inalienable" is an assertion; a should.

The right not to be genocided is inalienable. It gets violated still.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#256

Post by Noaidi »

ryandrake wrote: post #208
giwook wrote: post #4

I'm going to place an order for the book right now. I encourage you all to do the same. We the people hold the power to keep in check the immoral companies, governments, and other unscrupulous entities that would exploit the collective to enrich the few. And ultimately that's through our money and how we spend it. Screw Meta and their anti-human business model.

Unlike an elected government, who the common people at least in theory have a chance to replace via elections, the public pretty much has no say in what these companies and their leadership are allowed to do. Nobody voted for Meta. Nobody voted for Palantir. Nobody voted for Philip Morris. You can say that someone "voted with their wallet," but that doesn't point to a viable solution. "Not voting with your wallet" es…

> "Not voting with your wallet" essentially means becoming a hermit and living isolated in the woods.

This is a total exaggeration and just gives power to these companies. You can start here:

https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/

YOU voted for Facebook when you use it, by not installing a hosts file that blocks it and all advertisements. We do not need to use these platforms, and the less people that use them the less you will need to use it.

All we have to do is start making their profit fall and they will change. But it must be a strong and unified effort.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#257

Post by popalchemist »

Aurornis wrote: post #162
surprisetalk wrote: post #10

This book was SO GOOD. It's bleak. I always imagined that rich/powerful people only created suffering if that suffering was required for certain goals. It's easier for me to bear injustice when it's a zero-sum game. But the story of Facebook is not that. Facebook didn't make ethical sacrifices for profit -- its executives just didn't care to understand the consequences of their actions. I wish those folks could feel…

> This book was SO GOOD. One of the (very valid, IMO) criticisms of the book is that the author tries to set herself apart from the culture she was deeply embedded within. I think it's becoming a trap to hold the author up as a hero when she was clearly part of it all to the very core. It was only after she got separated from the inner circle club that she tried to distance herself from it. So while reading it, be ca…

Waking up from a cult doesn't make you a hero, but stopping the cult might.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#258

Post by bena »

ryandrake wrote: post #191
Aurornis wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This book was SO GOOD. One of the (very valid, IMO) criticisms of the book is that the author tries to set herself apart from the culture she was deeply embedded within. I think it's becoming a trap to hold the author up as a hero when she was clearly part of it all to the very core. It was only after she got separated from the inner circle club that she tried to distance herself from it. So while reading it, be ca…

The fact that she did end up setting herself apart is what's remarkable. For every one of her who was able to self-reflect, become horrified of the ethics of what she was doing, and took the hard steps of stopping and breaking away, how many current and former Meta employees don't do this reflection and remain contributors to the problem? 1:100? 1:1,000? 1:10,000?

She didn’t set herself apart. She was fired. She was forced apart.

That’s the issue here. Is this someone who found their morals or someone who found a stick with which to strike back at those who hurt her?

One of those doesn’t require her to change at all.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#259

Post by chrisrogers »

ryandrake wrote: post #244
jauntywundrkind wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much easier to do when you exist 40ms and a firewall away from the world. The cloud companies ability to not share the experience of those using the service, to be remote, is a much greater retreat than what was possible 101 years ago, it feels like.

The leadership team of Meta (and all other giant mega corps) are much more isolated from the real world than 40ms and a firewall. These people don't interact in any way with normal people. They live in a different world than us, and don't even think about us, let alone wonder if their actions are hurting us. Do you think Zucc does his own shopping and has to interact with store employees? Do you think he talks to any…

The billionaire class can do those things, but they don't have to. Same with non-celebrity Royalty.

Re: Author of "Careless People" banned from saying anything negative about Meta

#260

Post by shevy-java »

There need to be new laws against megacorporations. They undermine too much in society when they can abuse individuals so easily. This is also a problem when the world wide web becomes a global walled garden - corporations decide who can say which (and gets exposure, or by censoring, no exposure). This is also why "age verification" is a censorship law (and, by the way, I recently saw on youtube two young girls create content, in a random video suggested; this was interesting in that age verification kind of censors away under-age people as content creators. The content itself was absolutely harmless, some random shit about what young people seem to be interested in. But I then wondered how the lobbyists can still try to sell "age verification" as "must-protect-kids" when at the same time underage people can create videos. This just confirms all suspiciouns that "age verification" has absolutely nothing to do with protecting children, but with spying and snifing after regular people.)
Post reply on HN