81–90 of 156 posts
It wont get better with a replacement. Look at all the other big tech companies, it only gets worse. Split it up as with AT&T Bell or Standard Oil, or stop complaining.
Some of the baby bells got back together again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musk probably made more dollar millionaires than anyone in history. Facebook advertisers use it because it works and reaches a hell of a lot of people.
I don't think Facebook advertisers are being particularly irrational, it's just very interesting to point out how this ad business, despite leaving most of its users ultimately unsatisfied, can be so profitable.
Rather than investigate all the things where investigative journalism could potentially make a difference to real human beings' lives, the Guardian has chosen to pursue a plea for the majority owner of Meta's voting shares (61%) to step down from his position of power. Let us politely ask Sisyphus to stop pushing the boulder instead.
This article is very shortsighted. If you think Meta is bad now, just wait until Zuck is replaced by a soulless, profit-obsessed corporate CEO whose primary job is maximizing shareholder profit. Meta as a company can get far worse. People should really be careful what they wish for.
The CEO is the throughline in a history of billion-dollar blunders Since the IPO, he created an annual ROI of 21% for his investors. Taking risks means blunders are part of the way I would say. For comparison: He outperformed the Nasdaq 100 which made 18% (plus dividends) in the same time. And he way outperformed Warren Buffet who made 14% in the same time.
At what price, tho? He harms children, he hijacked the attention of billions and helped the rise of facism and hate, which if not addressed will lead into very dark times again, all for a measly 3% out perform?
hilarious and ironic
So says The Guardian, while showing me an illegal “Reject and Subscribe” tracking banner. Mixed messages.
Doubtful that it's illegal, they have lawyers. Hard to say it's unethical either given that there is a clear option to pay instead of be tracked (which is in any case trivially defeated by an ad-blocker). For centuries until yesterday people paid for journalism like they paid for any other service.
> Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...
There is also FB specific:
> In November 2023, Meta introduced a binary ‘Consent or Pay' advertising model. (…)
> The Commission found that this model is not compliant with the DMA, as it did not give users the required specific choice to opt for a service that uses less of their personal data but is otherwise equivalent to the ‘personalised ads' service.
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Facebook advertisers are being particularly irrational, it's just very interesting to point out how this ad business, despite leaving most of its users ultimately unsatisfied, can be so profitable.
I think you are projecting your biases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love to hate Duolingo, but I actually learned things on it getting real results. And it showed me that language learning does not have to be massive suck. All in all, it is actually one app that is beneficial or at least harmless.
When did you use it? It was a more authentic language-learning tool in the beginning, but was then gradually enshittified in order to maximize engagement on the platform, not actual language mastery. A lot of the most competent language-consultant staff were let go, too. Today on the shadow libraries, you have your pick of a number of self-teaching textbooks for free, allowing you to find an approach that fits your l…
> Today on the shadow libraries, you have your pick of a number of self-teaching textbooks for free
No, self teaching textbooks are not better for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubtful that it's illegal, they have lawyers. Hard to say it's unethical either given that there is a clear option to pay instead of be tracked (which is in any case trivially defeated by an ad-blocker). For centuries until yesterday people paid for journalism like they paid for any other service.
Under GDPR it is illegal. > Data subjects must be allowed to withdraw this consent at any time, and the process of doing so must not be harder than it was to opt in. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula... There is also FB specific: > In November 2023, Meta introduced a binary ‘Consent or Pay' advertising model. (…) > The Commission found that this model is not compliant with the DMA,…
The solution to this whole thing has been obvious since the start: Put the power where it belongs, with the user agent (browser), by making the Do Not Track signal legally enforceable.
I'm very pro-Brussels but they've made an absolute hash of this whole thing. Cookie banners are ruining the web, which is the only open app ecosystem we have.