71–80 of 493 posts
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
Excerpt From: J. Lee Porter. “Crypto Citizens.”
I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…
I don't understand why doesn't Facebook just: -Allow all posts -Allow users to customize what they want to see (e.g. "dont show me posts that glorify violence" or "only allow covid posts that match WHO guidelines" or "allow exceptions from political figures or of historical significance") and allow users to ban hide posts that are found untruthful by third parties (snopes, etc). To me effectively everyone wins. Faceb…
"Those other people are idiots and will kill us all without some rules" is a basic human conceit. These people calling for censorship on Facebook don't want to see that stuff, sure, but way more importantly they want FB to censor so that other people CAN'T read that stuff.
They think that if they shout loud enough, they will get to decide what other, more gullible/radicalized/violent/whatever people are allowed to read.
It's really condescending nonsense to claim that you know better than another adult what they should be allowed to read.
Lots of really famous/successful people are thinking along these lines lately. It's quite popular amongst the "thought leadership" set to think that Facebook has some moral obligation to play publishing cop and shut down private groups where people say things they don't like, because people other than the ones calling for censorship are so gullible and malleable and childlike that they'll turn into a terrorist if they read enough about 5G or vaccines or antifa or whatever in private FB groups or something.
A handy example is John Gruber's recent post on the matter:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2020/06/02/schnitt-faceboo...
The correct answer to people being wrong is education, never censorship.
I defer, as always, to Heinlein:
> “Thing that got me was not her list of things she hated, since she was obviously crazy as a Cyborg, but fact that always somebody agreed with her prohibitions. Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: "Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop." Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them "for their own good" — not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.”
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
Ultimately developers leaving and people refusing to work for Facebook, drive up Facebook's costs and speaks to their management in the only language Facebook management seems to understand: Profitability.
He’s standing up for what he believes. You can disagree with his convictions, but you should admire anyone who risks personal and financial consequences for sticking to their guns. That’s what actual morality is—not just a “belief” that is talked about but acted upon even when the results will be costly.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
Presidents have all kinds of privileges that others don’t. Why should their privilege on social-media be diminished? To me the problem is not the platform but the fact that they have such exceptional privilege to begin with. What I don't understand is how you can be Facebook employee and also think the platform is the problem - lots of these especially in the React community [1]. If you believe Facebook is the proble…
Sometimes you can effect change from within.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a highly privileged position to be in to make a personal stand and leave your $250,000 job for another $250,000 job. Not judging this way or that, just saying.
It's a highly-privileged position to be in to make vapid comments HN, but here we are.
There is nothing praise-worthy about taking a stand now, you should have been out of there ten years ago or never started to begin with. Zuckerberg has been consistently out of control and unaccountable since the Beacon fiasco, which was in like 2008. This is slightly more annoying than all the government officials who only dare criticize the executive branch after they retire. We have way more data over a longer per…
[edit: Removed link. JWZ: Not cool. Archive.org link in reply below]