481–490 of 615 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't disagree with you entirely. But we're not powerless. I'd argue that we saw the impact we can have when we act collectively when Trump tried to pressure ABC into cancelling Jimmy Kimmel. It took ABC a few days maybe before they capitulated (again, except this time to their customers).
Who are their customers in this scenario?
Google the story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I basically agree but as a civil instrument, a contract is not a law. The only consequence of violating a contract should be having to pay back whatever damages were caused. Not prohibitions on behavior or other freedoms. Enforced by whom? Corporations will violate contracts all the time as a cost of business if the cost of the violation is less than the benefit gained.
In the US, a contract is considered law. It’s just only between the parties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Messenger does 3 things right: 1. Being able to discover people by name / surname, no phone number necessary. This is the most important privacy feature people care about, it's ironic that Meta had it from the get-go, while other platforms have barely caught up. 2. Used to have frictionless message sync, including in the event of a catastrophic loss of all devices, which put it far ahead of most apps (sadly nerfed by…
> sadly nerfed by E2E Seriously, why? (Not you, I'm asking rhetorically to Facebook) This broke Messenger. People don't have each others' email addresses (FB has seen to that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433 ), it's Messenger. It was completely unforced and don't give me that malarky of "protecting messages"
Having listened to the book on Audible, I'm both shocked at the behavior of the executive team, and not surprised all at the same time. What bothers me about all of this is what it says about us. It says we're willing to give rich and powerful people a pass just because they make overtures towards something we care about. We wouldn't give our children a pass like this, nor would we teach our children to act this way,…
Yes, all of this happens (and worse!) and still no boycott of Facebook. We have been turned into a country of dopamine deficient addicts. And now these same companies are funding a useless war, killing innocent children, and soon, collapsing the world economy. If you still use these platforms knowing what we know now you are just as complicit as every executive. https://www.resistandunsubscribe.com/
That's the big issue of the post truth era. I imagine the number of people "using these platforms despite what we know" is minuscule. Most will never hear of this, and many who do know have probably left long before this for the other dozens of crimes against humanity Meta's performed.
Of the rest of this list. Youtube Premium is the only thing I'm still subscribed too. I actively unsubbed from Prime and am setting up to unsub from Google One.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to boycott something you quit using 10 years ago.
I'm in your boat, but I've been thinking more lately around how we create competitors to the sorts of things that people claim "lock them in" to using Facebook (events and messenger are the ones I hear the most anecdotally). Make these things reasonably self-sustaining monetarily (no ads) and just let it run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
This is effectively happening, not in the way you frame it, but companies has effectively moved to rely solely on the rich: > The top 10% of American households in terms of income earned are driving nearly half of all U.S. consumer spending. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri... Edit: An NPR episode on the concerning trend, https://www.npr.org/2025/11/21/nx-s1-5616629/consumer-sentim...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Age isn't an issue when all parties are adults. I wouldn’t fully agree. All parties being adults doesn’t inherently remove the advantage very large age and experience gaps can give to one party over the other, especially when one is barely adult. 18 or 21 is just an arbitrary number, and one doesn’t suddenly become smart about these things just because the law says they are now legally full citizens, responsible fo…
Can we raise the age of adulthood from 18 to whatever acceptable age ends this discourse once and for all?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying if a company is boycotted by most of its poor customers, the rich customers will subsidize the loss? Do you really think that will happen? Companies need customers, and if they lose customers, they can go out of business. The saying doesn't mean "the bigger the wallet, the bigger the vote" but rather "boycott this company and do not be a customer."
No, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that the literal reading of the term itself implies that poor people have less of a say than rich people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A strange response. Rather than address the comment you change the subject, “whaddabout the author!” Why do the dark work of deflecting on behalf of “Meta”? (lol, that name gets me every time. Might as well have renamed themselves NoIdeaWhatToDoNow)
I believe what Sarah Wynn-Williams wrote in Careless People. I also think she's shown herself to be a person I'd want to stay away from. The reason this matters to me is because the more media attention Ms. Wynn-Williams gets, the more her ideas of what we should do about Meta will spread and be given credence. The more she will be given credence outside of simply reporting what she saw. I can both believe what she s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should not be legal to enforce this kind of thing 9 years after a person leaves your company. I get that it currently is legal, but have some principles. Just because this is legal doesn't mean it isn't morally reprehensible, and its legality should be challenged.
She didn’t have to agree to the contract. I don’t really want some arbitrary govt limit restricting what private parties can do with each other.
Given that this runs tangential with whistleblowing and free speech, this is exactly where I want a government to draw a line.