Meta Pauses Employee-Tracking Program Following Internal Data Leak

Post by pishpash » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 12:07 AM UTC

jazzpush2 wrote: post #256

pishpash wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of index fund investors take a short position on Meta to cancel out that share? That's pretty easy to do. If it's nobody then everyone is "such people" and it is meaningless to single out any one person. Just acknowledge that there is no moral high ground for anyone. You either provide labor or capital to the enterprise, which is worse?

what a mindset. I'll make sure to shame my Illumina scientist neighbor for working on tech that deliberately targets underage children (purposely violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.). After all, he owns the world's most popular index fund, which includes Meta. He certainly should feel just as culpable as the Meta employees!

Post by zer0zzz » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 12:22 AM UTC

marysol5 wrote: post #244

zer0zzz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Most of the hardcore encryption stuff was built at Facebook under the founder's supervision afaik for the purposes of making it harder for Zuck to inevitably ruin the privacy aspects. I personally don't use it, because it _is_ loaded with engagement bait but its not all worse and is better in some ways.

WhatsApp encryption is Signal

Post by pishpash » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 5:08 AM UTC

jazzpush2 wrote: post #264

pishpash wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Meta employee does as they are told. Your neighbor gives money to Zuck and asks him to tell the Meta employee what to do, sharing in profit with Zuck. Yes, he is worse. Way worse. Drug mule vs. drug financier type worse. He can also stop any time with a few clicks. What's stopping him?

> The Meta employee does as they are told. Your argument erases the employee's biggest moral choice: did the Meta employee just spawn a Meta employee? No, they chose to work there. You assign maximal agency to someone buying an index fund and minimal agency to someone who voluntarily spends 40 hours a week advancing Meta's objectives. That's backwards. (Or, more likely, a purposeful troll comment).

Post by archerx » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 10:41 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #178

archerx wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can pin on react is that it is very inefficient with resources using much more cpu power than needed to render some text and images on a webpage. Imagine all the electricity that was wasted because of react and the negative impact on the environment it has had because of that.

React doesn't do anything unless the DOM needs to to be updated. Arguably React does have a 'disadvantage' in the sense that it doesn't do two-way data binding, and chooses to update as little of the DOM as necessary to render a change (which it's good at, and gets right), but that's sometimes more than just changing a text node or a value. I suspect that if React hadn't come along there'd be lots of homegrown framew…

Post by jazzpush2 » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 5:01 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #265

jazzpush2 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Meta employee does as they are told. Your argument erases the employee's biggest moral choice: did the Meta employee just spawn a Meta employee? No, they chose to work there. You assign maximal agency to someone buying an index fund and minimal agency to someone who voluntarily spends 40 hours a week advancing Meta's objectives. That's backwards. (Or, more likely, a purposeful troll comment).

Did the index fund just drop in someone's lap? No. They chose to place orders to turn cash into stocks that control Meta's objectives. Every argument you make about an employee you can make about an investor. The difference is, as I said, the chain of command goes one way, and history has something to say about the relative culpability of each end. You may want to reflect on that. At the end of the day, how someone s…