I feel this author could write an article about purest, most selfless people, actions or concept on the planet and make them sound dirty and evil.
Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
91–95 of 95 posts
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#92Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
With a few exceptions. In particular: > "[P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait. Don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But was it misleading or clickbait? I'm just curious.
The mods have written about this when commenting on title changes:
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:dang%20changed%20title&...
In particular, this one seems appropriate:
Re: Facebook’s disingenuous explanations call for more questions and even less trust
#94Right next door to a company where I was recently working was a successful startup whose entire business model consisted of using Facebook's commercial API for the analysis of the psychological profiles of its base product (the users), to detect potential terrorists. This outfit's only real customer is Australian law enforcement, and everyone who uses Facebook is attributed some non-zero terrorist score. I have told…