961–970 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This creates a chilling effect which puts my first ammendment rights at risk as an American, and it should be (and probably is if anyone actually bothered to correctly interpret the law anymore) illegal.
This has zero to do with the 1st amendment. That is between you and the government. You have not such 1st amendment rights when dealing with a private company. All you can do with facebook is either do as they tell you, or drop them. There's not much middle ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only truly private data practice is not keeping any. The only winning move is not to play
I want to agree with you, really.. but the realistic person in me says that it is likely that if you don’t keep the data, someone else will find a way, because getting the data seems to be irresistible as a form of control and advantage. So maybe not playing doesn’t really work. I was thinking, in regards to some grandparent way up there, the same statement “don’t play” might have been true for Oculus in general. Wha…
That said, maybe you should google the phrase "The only winning move is not to play". It's a movie quote ;-)
Palmer Luckey, the original creator had this to say over on /r/oculus: I am already getting heat from users and media outlets who say this policy change proves I was lying when I consistently said this wouldn't happen, or at least that it was a guarantee I wasn't in a position to make. I want to make clear that those promises were approved by Facebook in that moment and on an ongoing basis, and I really believed it w…
>In hindsight, the downvotes from people with more real-world experience than me were definitely justified. I don't want to assume bad intent, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be so naive about the project and the organization controlling it.
Step 1: They get an credible offer for a ton of money.
Step 2: Their brain starts to spiral out of control and can't stop imagining all of the things they can do for themselves, their family, their friends, the world, etc
Step 3: They've just created millions of incentives for themselves.
It takes a very strong person to drive out the biases that money creates in our brains. Monetary incentives are the strongest bias creators, beaten (probably) only by sex and blood (i.e. family relations). Breaking them is the work of an iron will. You had better assume you'd do no better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, we need collective action by way of class action lawsuits. Unfortunately, almost all terms of service now require you tp waive that right. The change needed is a law that prevents waiving the right to class action. Such a law would be considered highly unfavorable to business and would not pass under a Republican majority/presidency. Consider who you vote for accordingly.
Everything going on with Patreon's arbitration mess is in opposition to your post. Maybe the world isn't as black and white as you think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So long as the emails dont bounce, you're good. Simply not true. I suggest you try yourself and see how long the account stays unlocked.
> My mum has a shadow facebook account for a number of reasons. She only has one friend, its on a shadow email. It's still active after a good 6 months. I mean I don't know how I can make it any clearer....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Winner’s Take All by Anand Giridharadas has a few chapters dedicated to B-corps. The issue isn’t that the b-corps themselves are bad, but that relying on a few good companies to fix the problems in the world isn’t going to work, because the bad actors will always more than make up for it. Taking climate change as an example: 100 b-corps going carbon-neutral aren't going to offset the damage Exxon causes to the enviro…
Sure but during the decades it will take to make generational change, why not support a B-Corp over one that hasn't made similar promises? You are talking as if this is an either/or proposition. No, B-Corps won't solve our problems but if it moves the needle even a little, that's still a good thing, right?
To your other point about private solutions being good because they move the needle a little:
In my personal life I shop sustainably (but I’m not perfect or obsessive about it). I do think it’s a little better as a consumer to make ethical choices than not to.
But: the rhetoric around climate change as something individual choices will fix is extremely dangerous. If you ask your average person about what we can do to fix climate change, I’d guess most would go straight to market solutions. Why is that? Could it be because that’s what the entire marketing and media establishment wants us to focus on, because a collective solution will cost them a shit-ton of money?
Yes in a different world it’s not either or and we’d have individual and collective solutions working together to save the planet. In this world, however, the powerful have a vested interest in market-based solutions being the only options on the table.
Basically, yes I agree that ethical companies are better than unethical companies. But on a macro level, propaganda around ethical consumption is so dangerous imo that I’m not interested in contributing to it just to move the needle an imperceptible amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the actor seems irrational, you should step back and ask "who is the actor and what are their motivations?" This doesn't feel like an act of Facebook as a whole. They should be thinking long term, big picture. Zuckerberg seems to have an image of Neuromancer's Matrix in his head, and we ain't there yet. He'd definitely take this step but I wouldn't think he'd do it until he more solidly owns VR. What I see here…
> "What I see here is a senior manager type, maybe a VP or a bit below it, who needs numbers that go dramatically up and to the right in the short term and is thinking about their own personal success." I mean, there are plenty of other ways to demonstrate value without forcing people to login with a Facebook account to use their Oculus devices. In-fact, I'm not sure what added value this requirement demonstrates in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand the store aspect (even though in a perfect world you could buy apps and games without DRM and having to log in), but why would you need an account because something is a standalone device? What's the difference if there is a cable attached?
Quest is not a screen. It's a computer with a built-in screen. iMac for your face. Quest with a link cable is still not a screen, but a computer running a kind of "remote desktop" software. The computer part needs an account. Virtually all software for it is paid, and it is genuinely helpful for non-technical users to have a "cloud" account that ensures they won't lose their games even if they sell or break the devic…
Anybody with more than 2 brain cells should demand open standard hardware to be used with software of choice.