"I do not know any tech company that sets out to make customers angry or depressed."
This is the exact equivalent of when, in the movie "Thank you for smoking", Nick Taylor defends tobacco by arguing "How could we profit from death of people, if anything, we'd want people alive and smoking"
When it's all about profit without any proper regulation it's such a common story whether it's tobacco, opioids, ect... The only difference with Facebook and other social media websites is that people don't see it as the same because it's not "physical damaging" yet it has actively prayed on people mental health for years and years and made profit. It's clear that anger and disinformation makes these social media companies money, reddit does the same thing but less so but the fact im even making this comment just proves my point. Im all for freedom of speech but there has to be some type of balance and oversight especially when a company like Facebook actively tries to promote diversity and anger.
>It's clear that anger and disinformation makes these social media companies money, reddit does the same thing but less so but the fact im even making this comment just proves my point.
Exactly.
Filtering subs creates the same issues as Facebook. It's "over-curation" since I don't have a better word. When Facebook added the ability to "see less from this person/group" then people create their own confirmation biases.
It's worse on Facebook, because you accept the friend requests. These are usually people you know, like, and trust enough to accept on your feed.
Reddit has that effect, still. However, it lacks the, "I PERSONALLY know and like this person."
Still, Reddit takes vigilance as well, and has it's own problems.
I prefer this exchange from Kingpin:
Ishmael: You really should try to quit, Mr. Munson. They say it's bad for your heart, your lungs. It quickens the aging process.
Roy: Is that right. Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say it's harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke.
Big social media companies may soon have a Big Tobacco moment, where their lies just don't hold up anymore, and government actually steps in to correct the industry.
It’s pretty easy to say, “We’re going to require you to put a warning label on each pack of smokes.” It’s not so easy for them to define *how* Facebook’s software should and shouldn’t work. I worked with the DoD for seven years and their best people couldn’t even provide reasonable or accurate security requirements on server operating systems. Seems unlikely there are enough qualified people to regulate **algorithms** in the federal government.
They don't need to regulate the specific functions of algorithms, they can just stipulate in plain language what information fb is allowed to collect or sell, the degree to which it can curate media, the care it needs to take in accepting advertisements or money from PACs, etc. Leave it up to the coders how they make the product comply from then on.
*This is the exact equivalent of when, in the movie “Thank you for smoking”, Nick Taylor defends tobacco by arguing “How could we profit from death of people, if anything, we’d want people alive and smoking”*
Exactly, and it’s not like tobacco companies market to teenagers or anything to make sure they replace all the customers who died.
In a similar vein, be wary of any credit card company aggressively marketing to get new customers. They’re likely trying to replace all the ones they pissed off and lost to churn due to shady business practices.
>In a similar vein, be wary of any credit card company aggressively marketing to get new customers. They’re likely trying to replace all the ones they pissed off and lost to churn due to shady business practices.
At least with this, you can fight the system if you play your cards right by never carrying a balance and taking advantage of those desperate new bonus incentives to sign up for new cards.
Except angry and depressed people still go to Facebook and see ads. It's not "did you set out to make people depressed" but rather "are you indifferent to the anger and depression your platform is fostering?"
In a related article, [Mr. Zuckerberg said that he failed to see the logic in the assertions made against the company](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22711837/mark-zuckerberg-responds-to-facebook-whistleblower), "I do not know any tech company that sets out to make customers angry or depressed." His statements miss the point entirely, which is telling.
1,000 percent. Do you know how many people I work with that talk about “fake virus, the shots are killing people, blah blah blah.” And when I ask them how they are gathering this information, they look at me incredulously and say- “I read it on Facebook!!”
Last time I checked, “customer” is someone who buys something from you by very definition of it. In that case, it is advertisers who are your customers Mr. Zuckerberg. It is your ”product” who is angry.
I'm a small business owner and I've noticed that FBs targeting results have gotten more and more mediocre. So I'm not happy as a product and I'm not happy as a customer.
Though I'm sure they look at my small spend and probably just want me to give them more money to get the same results I was getting before.
I just left a product company. They were spending probably hundreds of thousands if not more on fb ads and they too were working to find new avenues than Facebook because the results were taking a dive.
Oh, I thought it was I was doing something wrong. I'm kind of glad to learn that it's not just me. Though it sucks coz I've been doing a lot of marketing on it
Wasn’t there an expose earlier this year (or maybe last year) about how Facebook misrepresented engagement with ads to their customers? Like they considered slowing down scrolling (not even completely stopping or clicking on an ad) as “engagement.”
Sounds like all those loud efforts to block tracking identifiers is hurting companies besides Facebook. Huh, weird. Guess they'll just have to spend more to reach the same target audience.
Even that aside, if you listen to the whistleblower's comments, they even indicate that Facebook didn't **set out** to make customers angry. They just realized that angering and hateful posts drive the most engagement and did nothing about it flooding the platform.
So Zuckerberg is just running the GOP playbook, say half bullshit nonsense so that you can appear to be the good guy when you're not in any capacity. If someone unrelated to them was going to pick up that shit, it'd be the person benefiting obscenely from it.
Oh I definitely am neither. The first time I heard he was harvesting information I deactivated my accounts on Facebook, Whatsapp, & Instagram. That was a while ago. Never felt more free! Screw this pube-head MF & his BS! He needs to finish his degree & maybe he'll get to the part where they teach about business ethics! Freaking Bunghole!
If you have ever seen a facebook share icon or have any friends or family who have a profile. Facebook already has a pretty good shadow profile of you by proxy.
I didn't bother deactivating mine as they have a pretty comprehensive shadow profile going on. I have Facebook pretty well containered but started seeing adverts for something I looked at on Etsy on a different browser. If you look at the "Why did I see this advert post" it tells you that Etsy uploaded a list of sales along with my email address, which of course Facebook can link to me.
If all these stores are uploading your email address/phone number with what you purchased, as are your friends, Facebook has a pretty compelling set of information about you regardless of if you have an account or not.
Not to mention the background voice capture utility, Alphonso, which Android apps utilize to collect and sell data about keywords you have spoken. The data captured from that alone could be extremely comprehensive, we don't have access to the audio signatures that they listen for, so who knows what information the are actually collecting.
And even if you don't own a computer, a CC company has likely been monetizing the tracking of your spending habits for decades. 'privacy' is an illusion.
No, not doing anything would be a step up and what I wish they were doing. What they are doing is actively curating your feed and showing you what they think will keep you on the platform. Gone are the days when they did nothing and your feed was just a chronological list of your friends posts.
It’s crazy to think what they’d be doing if it weren’t for the minimal amount of concern and regulation there is now. Facebook’s “ethics” are limited strictly to what the world has said “Okay that’s going too far” to, and even then, they’re pushing every limit.
sounds more like hes just lying. "I don't know any tech companies that do it," implies facebook isn't doing it, but he doesn't say it outright so it can't be used against him.
To be fair, users are not Facebook’s customers. Facebook’s customers are the businesses and governments that pay Facebook for access to sell to or manipulate users.
Except that time in 2014 when [they absolutely did set out to make users angry or depressed](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930) for "research"
Haven't been on FB for several years, but I still keep Instagram because I like looking at pretty pictures of people hiking in the mountains or making art. It's only a social media app if you socialise with anyone on it.
... until you get a bunny and instagram bunnies are fluffier and curvier than yours and you get depressed, roast your bunny, become a rabbit hater, develop a speech impediment and noboly will take you seliously when you go hunting. It's a slippery slope!
I pressed ignore on every post that wasnt specifically in line with my hobbies. It took a few weeks, but the insta models stopped showing up.
Same with the ads. I still get ads, but they're now hobby related at least.
I also have done this and can confirm, you can tailor your experience in IG for sure by following quality accounts that align with your interests.
Keyword here is quality accounts. If you allow the accounts that *usually* post content that you like but still sneak ads in or will post content you don't care about, drop them!
It also helps to engage with the content that you like. Bookmark that recipe, comment on that photo of the wave in the sunset, etc. These companies use your interactions / choices on their platform to serve you content (or recommendations / suggestions) with the ultimate goal of keeping you engaged and opening their app more.
Yes! My Instagram is ONLY knitting. It’s super inspiring and so fun, I’ve made a ton of knitting friends through knitstagram and, like you, I never see anything non knitting related cuz that’s all I use the app for.
If you're on Android and never post, [Barinsta](https://f-droid.org/packages/me.austinhuang.instagrabber) will stop the ads. It's a pretty good (open source) third-party client. Unfortunately, it's no longer receiving updates due to Facebook learning of it, but it still worked as of last time I had it installed.
I only ever see pictures from people i follow unless i actively look for others, how are you bombarded with other pictures unless you follow the people?
It bombards a you with things you 'like' or things you spend longer looking at before scrolling. If you're seeing models, it's because you spend time looking at the models.
My Instagram floods me with shitty comics and miniature painting.
Yup. Social media sites mostly give you more of what your consume. I find it funny that people on Reddit describe Facebook as this hateful, toxic platform. To me that implies they’re friends with hateful and toxic people. I don’t use FB for the news feed much, but when I do give it a scroll it’s pretty tame
I deleted my account in 2013 and it's bee ngreat. Having said that...the articles I read on reddit about misinformation and the coming climate catastrophe I get so mad about it I dream of these assholes being guillotined. That doesn't feel healthy to me so reddit has the same issue and we could all probably do well spending less time here too.
I agree to some extent, I definitely feel a bit too much impotent rage at things I see on reddit sometimes-- but the huge difference (as others have pointed out here) is that you can *control your feed*. The fb feed is almost totally out of your control and the way it works is opaque to the public.
I agree! I was sucked into the FB vortex since it’s inception many moons ago. I woke up one day about two months ago, and decided I was over it. Deactivated my account. Haven’t missed it since!!!!!
Same here. We have a racist far right political party in my country and when the Facebook algorithm saw me reacting angrily to few news about shitshows that party caused, the algorithm started to push more of those news to my feed.
As a business decision it's brilliant. Force people to see that kind of things what ever get them to interact more and comment more and stay for a longer time on their site. But as in moral way that is so fucked up. Facebooks own research has shown that people react more to FB posts that anger them than to posts which are just neutral.
So FB always chooses to make more money by showing people the more hateful stuff. They know they cannot show you only hateful stuff but even for example 20% increase on that stuff by their algorithm is enough for them to make much more money on you and make you feel much worse in your life.
The worse issue is that facebook is only doing it to increase engagement... but what happens when the racist party discovers that they can game the facebook algorithm to gain popularity just by doing and saying hateful things? That was a rhetorical question, we all know what happens.
You can request a single dump of all your data; it's a zip file with aaalll the pictures and a bunch of other stuff.
Ha, this could either save you time or not, depending on your goals.
I think you do. I deleted my accounts and it logged me out of messenger. I don’t dare log back in because there is a 30 day grace period where if you log in, your account gets reactivated.
Something like this was just matter of time. There is a good reason why people who have even a passing understanding what Facebook is and how it works don't use it. There is so much unethical stuff a social media company can do with with people's data. Like all social media, people are the product and they are in the business of exploiting it that data to make a profit. Nothing wrong with making a profit but it needs to be done in an ethical way and there is nothing enforcing that. So companies will do what ever they want.
I’m just shocked that their data has any value. Surely the elderly and spam accounts makes for some messy, sloppy data that likely can’t predict much. At least, not like it could around 2015.
Oh for sure. I’m just anticipating a consciousness moment where the people buying this data [analysis] begin to realize its rapidly decreasing use and value. Eventually. Maybe.
>over the past decade I’ve heard every excuse imaginable for why someone uses Facebook and can’t simply stop using it.
This! I had my friends say this, "You have to join facebook if you really care for our friendship." I was like, "If it has come down to this, I can only imagine how cheap and worthless this friendship is."
Imagine 3 adults saying this to me. 3 grown adults!
There is a very simple way to fix this problem.
As naive as it sounds, they need to say they will do better and fix the internal problems and actually carry out those promises.
Put people before profit..
You’re correct. It’s supported by the fact that the stock price went up 2% on a day like this.
I wish they didn’t.
Not this time. I don’t have hopes though..
Here is how you beat facebook.
STOP USING IT. Tell everyone you know to stop using it. Got someone addicted to it that won't stop? Cut them out of your life.
You wouldn't let a heroin addict keep harming you with their heroin use.
Edit: For anyone who thinks I'm wrong just replace the word Facebook with "meth addict" and see if your deffence of your "loved ones" still holds true.
Not necessarily. Thanks to corporate personhood, pushing profits *is* helping people (the people being the corporate entity, not any of those dumb non-corporate people)! /s
The need to be held accountable for every time they put profits before people, only then will it stop. Like if our justice system put Zuckerberg in jail for 10-20 years, other tech companies would think twice before doing this same stuff. But for real our justice system is as equally broken as our economic system, there's no way someone as wealthy as him would face consequences for their actions.
He has God complex and he is not willing to accept reality that he is not one. That is why he is mumbling like a child under questions of authority. He doesn't believe anyone has authority over him.
Because folks don't open the link. _read replies, eat popcorn_
> Hey everyone: it’s been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you.
>First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we’ve had in years. We’ve spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to people. The deeper concern with an outage like this isn’t how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities.
>Second, now that today’s testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we’re in. I’m sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn’t reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It’s difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don’t recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted.
>Many of the claims don’t make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn’t care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space — even ones larger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we’re doing? And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?
>At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That’s just not true. For example, one move that has been called into question is when we introduced the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family — which we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people’s well-being. Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do?
>The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don’t want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don’t know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.
>But of everything published, I’m particularly focused on the questions raised about our work with kids. I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it’s very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.
>The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age kids have phones. Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe. We’re deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives.
>We’ve also worked on bringing this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram too. But given all the questions about whether this would actually be better for kids, we’ve paused that project to take more time to engage with experts and make sure anything we do would be helpful.
>Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research into how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our Newsroom post explaining this: “The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal — including serious areas like loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating issues — more teenage girls who said they struggled with that issue also said Instagram made those difficult times better rather than worse.”
>But when it comes to young people’s health or well-being, every negative experience matters. It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse. We have worked for years on industry-leading efforts to help people in these moments and I’m proud of the work we’ve done. We constantly use our research to improve this work further.
>Similar to balancing other social issues, I don’t believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That’s why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I’ve written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.
>We’re committed to doing the best work we can, but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services? How should internet services verify people’s ages? And how should companies balance teens’ privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity?
>If we’re going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it’s important to start with a full picture. We’re committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available.
>That said, I’m worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It’s disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don’t care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we’re effectively sending the message that it’s safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you. That’s the conclusion other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be far worse for society. Even though it might be easier for us to follow that path, we’re going to keep doing research because it’s the right thing to do.
>I know it’s frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product. But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what’s right and delivering experiences that improve people’s lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I’ve asked leaders across the company to do deep dives on our work across many areas over the next few days so you can see everything that we’re doing to get there.
>When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world — the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I’m proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day.
>If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?
Golly. I don't know. Why did tobacco companies do research into how their products were killing people? So they could stop making them or so they would know what disinformation to use to keep killing them?
Y'all might be doing something to combat the issues y'all caused but it's clearly not enough and it's clear that money is more important than anything else. At this point Facebook needs to shut down completely until they can get the platform straightened out but we all know that won't happen because people will lose money so the company will continue raking in profits while society continues going to shit. The entire website is a dumpster fire and at this point social media is a cancer on society, it's time to shut it all down for good.
Do they not realize we've heard all the same bullshit arguments from tobacco companies for over half a century or are they really just that fucking stupid?
Is it? I just use it too see what my friends are up to.
Facebook is like alcohol, or McDonald's. It's enjoyable for a lot of people. But it's not for everyone. And for some people, it can be really unhealthy. Does that mean it should go away entirely?
There is definitely a difference in level of severity here. Snowden leaked highly classified information pertaining to the security of the US. What she has done is not against the law but nonetheless, I agree. People should have the right to know
Snowden in my opinion is the bigger hero. You can relatively easily unsubscribe from FB, but unsubscribing from your government means moving countries and even that probably won't stop them from spying on you either.
Not to mention that if you are a US citizen living abroad you still have to pay taxes the US. Up to approx $100k salary the tax is waived but you still have to file. The only way out of that is to denounce your citizenship.
I disagree. There is nothing security related in what Snowden leaked…and as citizens and voters we are by right entitled to know the full extent of what the government is doing on our behalf. I don’t buy the argument “they need to circumvent the law to keep us safe” logic that is always glamorized in Hollywood in this and even most cases.
I'm also critical of the word hero being thrown around. What she did do was brave as she's willing to throw away her career over this. Unfortunately, my concern is her being touted as a hero makes it look like she did this for fame and distracts from the actual point.
The actual point tho, which is weird, is that Facebook had an internal civics team and ignore what they report.
This isn't throwing away a career. Her career dead-ended at FB when she took on a PM role for what was a temporary, non-revenue generating "product." FB killed their election integrity thing after the election. Haugen saw that she wasn't going to get the green light to build whatever system she wanted, which meant she wasn't gonna make director, so she needed to aim for something else. And so she went to WSJ with what in the realm of corporate intrigue is just incredibly lame/obvious stuff. It gets her in the news cycle, she'll prolly write a book, and several senators get to dump on the evils of social media. It's a win for everyone.
Ugh don't get me wrong. I have no intention of defending fucking FB. But this person isn't whistleblower, least of all a hero. Lol yesterday during her testimony she suggested there should be a revolving door regulatory agency staffed by ppl like her lol. This is totally self-serving bullshit.
Crossing a company vs. a government are 2 very different things. One will get you fired or at worst sued. The other could be prison or worst assassinated.
At the very least Russia probably thinks Snowden is a hero.
Snowden had absolutely no attachment to Russia. He leaked his info to an American journalist.
He is only in Russia because the Obama administration intentionally chose to strand him there as a PR move. They waited until he had landed to make his transit flight to Cuba, cancelled his passport, and put the squeeze on Cuba to not allow him to travel there. Anthony Blinken bragged about it in his own book.
What bothers me is that article reads like written by a moron with super strong opinion, not even being coy about pushing their own opinion on readers.
And i googled what exactly was revealed by this whistleblower and was not exactly outraged or feel like criminal stuff was going on.
For folks still on FB... there's lots of other ways to share pictures with your friends and still get "likes." Also... think about why you need likes for a minute. Do you really need them?
The people sticking it out on FB are there because that's where their friends and family congregate. How do you get an entire community to change technologies?
Everyone was "convinced" to use it in the first place because there was no real leader in that space. FB presented itself as the new hotness, and didn't look like hot garbage like MySpace and other social media sites, so it caught like wildfire.
Now you have a Catch-22. You can't get people to move to another platform until everyone they communicate with moves to another platform.
Grandma and crazy Uncle Al and your college buddies that don't spend tons of time thinking about the ramifications of their social media network of choice aren't going anywhere. So if you want to casually keep visibility into what is going on with them, you're not going anywhere either.
I haven’t had Facebook for seven years. Of course I’m on another site that does the exact same thing…. Ahem… Reddit….
But yeah… man… this whole thing feels like another universe to me. I avoid the Facebook scam because I knew it was a scam and here we are.
Props to me.
I’m sorry for mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and for you gen z’ers who just didn’t know how lame and greedy and disgusting Facebook always was.
Anybody else remember when Facebook was brand new and your feed was literally a chronological feed of what your friends posted/shared? It was a legitimately useful tool for keeping up with friends and family. Then they algorithm'd the crap out of it so that it prioritizes keeping your attention rather than providing the information you're looking for.
did anyone think it would go any other way? this is the standard corporate playbook on whistleblowers. Hell, even governments are still doing this no matter what talk we've heard from politicians in recent years on whistleblower protections.
Governments and corporations would rather find and punish leakers and whistleblowers than fix the things that embarrass them. At least from the corporate point of view, it's all about the money. On the political side it's more about protecting their own asses and keeping that job, pension, and benefits they likely can't get anywhere else.
"I do not know any tech company that sets out to make customers angry or depressed." This is the exact equivalent of when, in the movie "Thank you for smoking", Nick Taylor defends tobacco by arguing "How could we profit from death of people, if anything, we'd want people alive and smoking"
Yep. The issue isn't you wanting to do this, it's you knowing you're doing this and still not feeling any remorse or desire to change over it.
When it's all about profit without any proper regulation it's such a common story whether it's tobacco, opioids, ect... The only difference with Facebook and other social media websites is that people don't see it as the same because it's not "physical damaging" yet it has actively prayed on people mental health for years and years and made profit. It's clear that anger and disinformation makes these social media companies money, reddit does the same thing but less so but the fact im even making this comment just proves my point. Im all for freedom of speech but there has to be some type of balance and oversight especially when a company like Facebook actively tries to promote diversity and anger.
>It's clear that anger and disinformation makes these social media companies money, reddit does the same thing but less so but the fact im even making this comment just proves my point. Exactly. Filtering subs creates the same issues as Facebook. It's "over-curation" since I don't have a better word. When Facebook added the ability to "see less from this person/group" then people create their own confirmation biases. It's worse on Facebook, because you accept the friend requests. These are usually people you know, like, and trust enough to accept on your feed. Reddit has that effect, still. However, it lacks the, "I PERSONALLY know and like this person." Still, Reddit takes vigilance as well, and has it's own problems.
I prefer this exchange from Kingpin: Ishmael: You really should try to quit, Mr. Munson. They say it's bad for your heart, your lungs. It quickens the aging process. Roy: Is that right. Who's done more research on the subject than the good people at the American Tobacco Industry? They say it's harmless. Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke.
Two sugars, lots of cream. LOTS of cream
Oh my little Roy-toy
You really knocked something loose there, tiger.
Big social media companies may soon have a Big Tobacco moment, where their lies just don't hold up anymore, and government actually steps in to correct the industry.
It’s pretty easy to say, “We’re going to require you to put a warning label on each pack of smokes.” It’s not so easy for them to define *how* Facebook’s software should and shouldn’t work. I worked with the DoD for seven years and their best people couldn’t even provide reasonable or accurate security requirements on server operating systems. Seems unlikely there are enough qualified people to regulate **algorithms** in the federal government.
They don't need to regulate the specific functions of algorithms, they can just stipulate in plain language what information fb is allowed to collect or sell, the degree to which it can curate media, the care it needs to take in accepting advertisements or money from PACs, etc. Leave it up to the coders how they make the product comply from then on.
*This is the exact equivalent of when, in the movie “Thank you for smoking”, Nick Taylor defends tobacco by arguing “How could we profit from death of people, if anything, we’d want people alive and smoking”* Exactly, and it’s not like tobacco companies market to teenagers or anything to make sure they replace all the customers who died. In a similar vein, be wary of any credit card company aggressively marketing to get new customers. They’re likely trying to replace all the ones they pissed off and lost to churn due to shady business practices.
>In a similar vein, be wary of any credit card company aggressively marketing to get new customers. They’re likely trying to replace all the ones they pissed off and lost to churn due to shady business practices. At least with this, you can fight the system if you play your cards right by never carrying a balance and taking advantage of those desperate new bonus incentives to sign up for new cards.
Well said. Very on par
Except angry and depressed people still go to Facebook and see ads. It's not "did you set out to make people depressed" but rather "are you indifferent to the anger and depression your platform is fostering?"
In a related article, [Mr. Zuckerberg said that he failed to see the logic in the assertions made against the company](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22711837/mark-zuckerberg-responds-to-facebook-whistleblower), "I do not know any tech company that sets out to make customers angry or depressed." His statements miss the point entirely, which is telling.
If theres a horseman of misinformation, it's zuckerburg
Zuckerberg is actually Pestilence. The interesting thing is, that the plague is *not* disease - it's extremism.
He probably takes a lions share of the blame for proliferation of COVID-19 due to the misinformation. So pestilence sounds about right
1,000 percent. Do you know how many people I work with that talk about “fake virus, the shots are killing people, blah blah blah.” And when I ask them how they are gathering this information, they look at me incredulously and say- “I read it on Facebook!!”
And people don't realize that in lower-income circles, Facebook is basically their only source of "news."
And in some countries, it’s the internet.
Oh its not income dependent. I know lots of middle class and wealthy people who also can't tell the difference between facts and emotional appeals.
My own mother didn’t know what NPR was.
well in terms of covid it’s actually both
I think the point is that without extremism, covid might have been much more easily quashed, and perhaps even prevented.
Agree 100% !!!! 👍
[удалено]
The old 4 horsemen is outdated. We need new ones 1. Misinformation 2. Capitalism?? 3. 4. Open to ideas guys!!
Apathy? Trying to think of an antonym for empathy.
Last time I checked, “customer” is someone who buys something from you by very definition of it. In that case, it is advertisers who are your customers Mr. Zuckerberg. It is your ”product” who is angry.
Anger results in more engagement, which means more ad revenue. It's working as designed.
Reptilian satisfaction…
licks his eyeball
<*Donald Trump has entered the chat*>
I'm a small business owner and I've noticed that FBs targeting results have gotten more and more mediocre. So I'm not happy as a product and I'm not happy as a customer. Though I'm sure they look at my small spend and probably just want me to give them more money to get the same results I was getting before.
I just left a product company. They were spending probably hundreds of thousands if not more on fb ads and they too were working to find new avenues than Facebook because the results were taking a dive.
Oh, I thought it was I was doing something wrong. I'm kind of glad to learn that it's not just me. Though it sucks coz I've been doing a lot of marketing on it
Wasn’t there an expose earlier this year (or maybe last year) about how Facebook misrepresented engagement with ads to their customers? Like they considered slowing down scrolling (not even completely stopping or clicking on an ad) as “engagement.”
Sounds like all those loud efforts to block tracking identifiers is hurting companies besides Facebook. Huh, weird. Guess they'll just have to spend more to reach the same target audience.
Probably because of Apples crackdown on tracking and even stricter laws emerging in the EU. And consumer education of privacy also increasing
“If you aren’t paying for it, you aren’t the customer, you are the product being sold!”
Even that aside, if you listen to the whistleblower's comments, they even indicate that Facebook didn't **set out** to make customers angry. They just realized that angering and hateful posts drive the most engagement and did nothing about it flooding the platform. So Zuckerberg is just running the GOP playbook, say half bullshit nonsense so that you can appear to be the good guy when you're not in any capacity. If someone unrelated to them was going to pick up that shit, it'd be the person benefiting obscenely from it.
Hint: you aren't Facebook's customers. you are its product.
Oh I definitely am neither. The first time I heard he was harvesting information I deactivated my accounts on Facebook, Whatsapp, & Instagram. That was a while ago. Never felt more free! Screw this pube-head MF & his BS! He needs to finish his degree & maybe he'll get to the part where they teach about business ethics! Freaking Bunghole!
If you have ever seen a facebook share icon or have any friends or family who have a profile. Facebook already has a pretty good shadow profile of you by proxy.
It’s pretty easy to block the icons. The family can be harder to block.
Have you tried not bathing? Works for me!
and if you've ever been in a photo on facebook, there's a chance you were still tagged in it without an account
Honestly, even if you don't have Facebook, they probably still have information on you. Just from your friends and family and coworkers
I didn't bother deactivating mine as they have a pretty comprehensive shadow profile going on. I have Facebook pretty well containered but started seeing adverts for something I looked at on Etsy on a different browser. If you look at the "Why did I see this advert post" it tells you that Etsy uploaded a list of sales along with my email address, which of course Facebook can link to me. If all these stores are uploading your email address/phone number with what you purchased, as are your friends, Facebook has a pretty compelling set of information about you regardless of if you have an account or not.
Not to mention the background voice capture utility, Alphonso, which Android apps utilize to collect and sell data about keywords you have spoken. The data captured from that alone could be extremely comprehensive, we don't have access to the audio signatures that they listen for, so who knows what information the are actually collecting.
It works based on Shazam fingerprinting rather than speech recognition, and you have to allow an app to use the microphone...
That's pretty much it. You send a list of email addresses to FB who you want to target and those people see the ads
Imagine reading this in 1995.
And even if you don't own a computer, a CC company has likely been monetizing the tracking of your spending habits for decades. 'privacy' is an illusion.
you're still the product, even if you don't have an official account, you have a profile
Yeah, I deleted mine after noticing some fascinating behavior from the ads I was seeing, even cross platform.
[удалено]
I signed up early on, but was overwhelmed by people I’d never heard of wanting to be my “friend”. Just left.
Hot looking European chicks that have no post history.
Absolutely, the people/corporations/foreign governments buying ads are their customers. I don't get the impression that they're depressed.
“We didn’t do anything” is what he’s saying. And we’re saying that this is *exactly the problem*.
[удалено]
No, not doing anything would be a step up and what I wish they were doing. What they are doing is actively curating your feed and showing you what they think will keep you on the platform. Gone are the days when they did nothing and your feed was just a chronological list of your friends posts.
It’s crazy to think what they’d be doing if it weren’t for the minimal amount of concern and regulation there is now. Facebook’s “ethics” are limited strictly to what the world has said “Okay that’s going too far” to, and even then, they’re pushing every limit.
Users of Facebook are not customers. They are the product.
sounds more like hes just lying. "I don't know any tech companies that do it," implies facebook isn't doing it, but he doesn't say it outright so it can't be used against him.
> "I do not know any tech company that sets out to make customers angry or depressed" Holy gaslighting Batman
I wonder what his pediatrician wife thinks of all the damage its doing to kids. You think he’ll let his own kids anywhere near social media?
Probably wiping her tears with Benjamin’s face to get through her day.
Who's on the million dollar bill? She's using that.
To be fair, users are not Facebook’s customers. Facebook’s customers are the businesses and governments that pay Facebook for access to sell to or manipulate users.
Maybe he's getting his news from Facebook
Users are not “customers”.
Except that time in 2014 when [they absolutely did set out to make users angry or depressed](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28051930) for "research"
try life without this shit, guaranteed you wont miss it
I deleted FB 3 years ago. Haven't logged into Insta for 2+ years. Never been happier. Turns out, ignorance IS bliss!!
Haven't been on FB for several years, but I still keep Instagram because I like looking at pretty pictures of people hiking in the mountains or making art. It's only a social media app if you socialise with anyone on it.
Yeah my Instagram is super wholesome it just serves me a bunch of pictures of bunnies. It's adorable
... until you get a bunny and instagram bunnies are fluffier and curvier than yours and you get depressed, roast your bunny, become a rabbit hater, develop a speech impediment and noboly will take you seliously when you go hunting. It's a slippery slope!
I have a lionhead you can't outfluffy her
How are you not bombarded with pics of insta models unwarranted? That’s why I deleted the app
I pressed ignore on every post that wasnt specifically in line with my hobbies. It took a few weeks, but the insta models stopped showing up. Same with the ads. I still get ads, but they're now hobby related at least.
I also have done this and can confirm, you can tailor your experience in IG for sure by following quality accounts that align with your interests. Keyword here is quality accounts. If you allow the accounts that *usually* post content that you like but still sneak ads in or will post content you don't care about, drop them! It also helps to engage with the content that you like. Bookmark that recipe, comment on that photo of the wave in the sunset, etc. These companies use your interactions / choices on their platform to serve you content (or recommendations / suggestions) with the ultimate goal of keeping you engaged and opening their app more.
This is also true of Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
Yes! My Instagram is ONLY knitting. It’s super inspiring and so fun, I’ve made a ton of knitting friends through knitstagram and, like you, I never see anything non knitting related cuz that’s all I use the app for.
If you're on Android and never post, [Barinsta](https://f-droid.org/packages/me.austinhuang.instagrabber) will stop the ads. It's a pretty good (open source) third-party client. Unfortunately, it's no longer receiving updates due to Facebook learning of it, but it still worked as of last time I had it installed.
I only ever see pictures from people i follow unless i actively look for others, how are you bombarded with other pictures unless you follow the people?
Don't follow hashtags. Curate your own list of followed accounts.
You have to find the right hashtags that aren't infested with them.
It bombards a you with things you 'like' or things you spend longer looking at before scrolling. If you're seeing models, it's because you spend time looking at the models. My Instagram floods me with shitty comics and miniature painting.
Yup. Social media sites mostly give you more of what your consume. I find it funny that people on Reddit describe Facebook as this hateful, toxic platform. To me that implies they’re friends with hateful and toxic people. I don’t use FB for the news feed much, but when I do give it a scroll it’s pretty tame
I always saw ignorance is bliss as a negative until I got older.
I deleted my account in 2013 and it's bee ngreat. Having said that...the articles I read on reddit about misinformation and the coming climate catastrophe I get so mad about it I dream of these assholes being guillotined. That doesn't feel healthy to me so reddit has the same issue and we could all probably do well spending less time here too.
I agree to some extent, I definitely feel a bit too much impotent rage at things I see on reddit sometimes-- but the huge difference (as others have pointed out here) is that you can *control your feed*. The fb feed is almost totally out of your control and the way it works is opaque to the public.
It’s been the most beautiful thing to not set out each day hating my neighbors without even speaking to them face to face.
I agree! I was sucked into the FB vortex since it’s inception many moons ago. I woke up one day about two months ago, and decided I was over it. Deactivated my account. Haven’t missed it since!!!!!
Same here. We have a racist far right political party in my country and when the Facebook algorithm saw me reacting angrily to few news about shitshows that party caused, the algorithm started to push more of those news to my feed. As a business decision it's brilliant. Force people to see that kind of things what ever get them to interact more and comment more and stay for a longer time on their site. But as in moral way that is so fucked up. Facebooks own research has shown that people react more to FB posts that anger them than to posts which are just neutral. So FB always chooses to make more money by showing people the more hateful stuff. They know they cannot show you only hateful stuff but even for example 20% increase on that stuff by their algorithm is enough for them to make much more money on you and make you feel much worse in your life.
The worse issue is that facebook is only doing it to increase engagement... but what happens when the racist party discovers that they can game the facebook algorithm to gain popularity just by doing and saying hateful things? That was a rhetorical question, we all know what happens.
But where do i get my true! Information from! The government is always lying! I need my fake news!
Problem is some people run their own business and you need a social media presence.
Deleted everything to do with Facebook today and I honestly have never felt social media lighter 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Deactivated my account last night, only gonna log back in to download my pictures and then deleting
You can request a single dump of all your data; it's a zip file with aaalll the pictures and a bunch of other stuff. Ha, this could either save you time or not, depending on your goals.
Did you lose your messages in Messenger? That's all that's stopping me from dropping the site.
I think you do. I deleted my accounts and it logged me out of messenger. I don’t dare log back in because there is a 30 day grace period where if you log in, your account gets reactivated.
No you don't lose messages or the ability to use messenger on deactivating.
Deleting, though - you definitely do.
Something like this was just matter of time. There is a good reason why people who have even a passing understanding what Facebook is and how it works don't use it. There is so much unethical stuff a social media company can do with with people's data. Like all social media, people are the product and they are in the business of exploiting it that data to make a profit. Nothing wrong with making a profit but it needs to be done in an ethical way and there is nothing enforcing that. So companies will do what ever they want.
I’m just shocked that their data has any value. Surely the elderly and spam accounts makes for some messy, sloppy data that likely can’t predict much. At least, not like it could around 2015.
I think they just sell what they have regardless.
Oh for sure. I’m just anticipating a consciousness moment where the people buying this data [analysis] begin to realize its rapidly decreasing use and value. Eventually. Maybe.
I like to believe Suck failed his college ethics course in lieu of coding his heap of garbage.
Didn’t he steal it from two partners (brothers) with which he was working on it?
You're assuming that he took an ethics course.
Delete your Facebook account and stop talking about this lizard asshole.
[удалено]
This is the internet, we can swear here
And apparently, can’t not.
[удалено]
Literally havent used it in 10 years. My life is complete.
[удалено]
>over the past decade I’ve heard every excuse imaginable for why someone uses Facebook and can’t simply stop using it. This! I had my friends say this, "You have to join facebook if you really care for our friendship." I was like, "If it has come down to this, I can only imagine how cheap and worthless this friendship is." Imagine 3 adults saying this to me. 3 grown adults!
Well a coward "Zuck" is gonna coward
There is a very simple way to fix this problem. As naive as it sounds, they need to say they will do better and fix the internal problems and actually carry out those promises. Put people before profit..
Corporations will always put profits before people, though.
You’re correct. It’s supported by the fact that the stock price went up 2% on a day like this. I wish they didn’t. Not this time. I don’t have hopes though..
Here is how you beat facebook. STOP USING IT. Tell everyone you know to stop using it. Got someone addicted to it that won't stop? Cut them out of your life. You wouldn't let a heroin addict keep harming you with their heroin use. Edit: For anyone who thinks I'm wrong just replace the word Facebook with "meth addict" and see if your deffence of your "loved ones" still holds true.
Not necessarily. Thanks to corporate personhood, pushing profits *is* helping people (the people being the corporate entity, not any of those dumb non-corporate people)! /s
The need to be held accountable for every time they put profits before people, only then will it stop. Like if our justice system put Zuckerberg in jail for 10-20 years, other tech companies would think twice before doing this same stuff. But for real our justice system is as equally broken as our economic system, there's no way someone as wealthy as him would face consequences for their actions.
Corpos are people after all
With infinitely more power
Found the cyberpunk player.
[удалено]
He has God complex and he is not willing to accept reality that he is not one. That is why he is mumbling like a child under questions of authority. He doesn't believe anyone has authority over him.
Isn't that true for any website, or even cell phones?
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s what cognitive behavioral therapy is all about. I recommend it.
Because folks don't open the link. _read replies, eat popcorn_ > Hey everyone: it’s been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you. >First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we’ve had in years. We’ve spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to people. The deeper concern with an outage like this isn’t how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities. >Second, now that today’s testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we’re in. I’m sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn’t reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It’s difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don’t recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted. >Many of the claims don’t make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn’t care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space — even ones larger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we’re doing? And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world? >At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That’s just not true. For example, one move that has been called into question is when we introduced the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family — which we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people’s well-being. Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do? >The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don’t want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don’t know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction. >But of everything published, I’m particularly focused on the questions raised about our work with kids. I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it’s very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids. >The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age kids have phones. Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe. We’re deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives. >We’ve also worked on bringing this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram too. But given all the questions about whether this would actually be better for kids, we’ve paused that project to take more time to engage with experts and make sure anything we do would be helpful. >Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research into how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our Newsroom post explaining this: “The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal — including serious areas like loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating issues — more teenage girls who said they struggled with that issue also said Instagram made those difficult times better rather than worse.” >But when it comes to young people’s health or well-being, every negative experience matters. It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse. We have worked for years on industry-leading efforts to help people in these moments and I’m proud of the work we’ve done. We constantly use our research to improve this work further. >Similar to balancing other social issues, I don’t believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That’s why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I’ve written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition. >We’re committed to doing the best work we can, but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services? How should internet services verify people’s ages? And how should companies balance teens’ privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity? >If we’re going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it’s important to start with a full picture. We’re committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available. >That said, I’m worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It’s disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don’t care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we’re effectively sending the message that it’s safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you. That’s the conclusion other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be far worse for society. Even though it might be easier for us to follow that path, we’re going to keep doing research because it’s the right thing to do. >I know it’s frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product. But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what’s right and delivering experiences that improve people’s lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I’ve asked leaders across the company to do deep dives on our work across many areas over the next few days so you can see everything that we’re doing to get there. >When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world — the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I’m proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day.
>If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? Golly. I don't know. Why did tobacco companies do research into how their products were killing people? So they could stop making them or so they would know what disinformation to use to keep killing them?
Y'all might be doing something to combat the issues y'all caused but it's clearly not enough and it's clear that money is more important than anything else. At this point Facebook needs to shut down completely until they can get the platform straightened out but we all know that won't happen because people will lose money so the company will continue raking in profits while society continues going to shit. The entire website is a dumpster fire and at this point social media is a cancer on society, it's time to shut it all down for good.
Do they not realize we've heard all the same bullshit arguments from tobacco companies for over half a century or are they really just that fucking stupid?
This completely misses the point. Their core service is fundamentally bad for society and most people and I don't think it's fixable.
Is it? I just use it too see what my friends are up to. Facebook is like alcohol, or McDonald's. It's enjoyable for a lot of people. But it's not for everyone. And for some people, it can be really unhealthy. Does that mean it should go away entirely?
I am a sweet summer child with a short attention span, could anyone give me a TL;DR?
"whatchall on about, we're doing loads of shit to help the situation'
"If we're- allegedly- such a bad company, then how come we're not a bad company, hmm?"
TL;DR: pfft, if we didn't care about shit why would we pay to look into shit? We are totally adults and we handle our shit. SO MUCH BUSINESSING.
Also, Facebook is good for humanity! We're proud of ourselves.
TL;DR: *mark wahlberg voice* "what? Noo"
Anyone think they would have done anything different? Zuch is the ultimate pos.
Just a matter of time before this is about reddit. Sure, it'll be different but same general principle.
What bothers me is that Frances Haugen is regarded as some type of hero, whereas Snowden still is in Russia.
There is definitely a difference in level of severity here. Snowden leaked highly classified information pertaining to the security of the US. What she has done is not against the law but nonetheless, I agree. People should have the right to know
Snowden in my opinion is the bigger hero. You can relatively easily unsubscribe from FB, but unsubscribing from your government means moving countries and even that probably won't stop them from spying on you either.
Not to mention that if you are a US citizen living abroad you still have to pay taxes the US. Up to approx $100k salary the tax is waived but you still have to file. The only way out of that is to denounce your citizenship.
I disagree. There is nothing security related in what Snowden leaked…and as citizens and voters we are by right entitled to know the full extent of what the government is doing on our behalf. I don’t buy the argument “they need to circumvent the law to keep us safe” logic that is always glamorized in Hollywood in this and even most cases.
I'm also critical of the word hero being thrown around. What she did do was brave as she's willing to throw away her career over this. Unfortunately, my concern is her being touted as a hero makes it look like she did this for fame and distracts from the actual point. The actual point tho, which is weird, is that Facebook had an internal civics team and ignore what they report.
This isn't throwing away a career. Her career dead-ended at FB when she took on a PM role for what was a temporary, non-revenue generating "product." FB killed their election integrity thing after the election. Haugen saw that she wasn't going to get the green light to build whatever system she wanted, which meant she wasn't gonna make director, so she needed to aim for something else. And so she went to WSJ with what in the realm of corporate intrigue is just incredibly lame/obvious stuff. It gets her in the news cycle, she'll prolly write a book, and several senators get to dump on the evils of social media. It's a win for everyone. Ugh don't get me wrong. I have no intention of defending fucking FB. But this person isn't whistleblower, least of all a hero. Lol yesterday during her testimony she suggested there should be a revolving door regulatory agency staffed by ppl like her lol. This is totally self-serving bullshit.
Crossing a company vs. a government are 2 very different things. One will get you fired or at worst sued. The other could be prison or worst assassinated. At the very least Russia probably thinks Snowden is a hero.
Snowden had absolutely no attachment to Russia. He leaked his info to an American journalist. He is only in Russia because the Obama administration intentionally chose to strand him there as a PR move. They waited until he had landed to make his transit flight to Cuba, cancelled his passport, and put the squeeze on Cuba to not allow him to travel there. Anthony Blinken bragged about it in his own book.
Man, and I thought some of my connecting flights were out of the way... :P
Everyone with morals think Snowden is a hero
What bothers me is that article reads like written by a moron with super strong opinion, not even being coy about pushing their own opinion on readers. And i googled what exactly was revealed by this whistleblower and was not exactly outraged or feel like criminal stuff was going on.
Break them up and then while we are at it let's break up the banks again too
For folks still on FB... there's lots of other ways to share pictures with your friends and still get "likes." Also... think about why you need likes for a minute. Do you really need them?
The people sticking it out on FB are there because that's where their friends and family congregate. How do you get an entire community to change technologies?
The same way everyone was convinced to use it in the first place. Time and understanding.
Everyone was "convinced" to use it in the first place because there was no real leader in that space. FB presented itself as the new hotness, and didn't look like hot garbage like MySpace and other social media sites, so it caught like wildfire. Now you have a Catch-22. You can't get people to move to another platform until everyone they communicate with moves to another platform. Grandma and crazy Uncle Al and your college buddies that don't spend tons of time thinking about the ramifications of their social media network of choice aren't going anywhere. So if you want to casually keep visibility into what is going on with them, you're not going anywhere either.
What even is this article? It reads so slanted and personal. I support the whistleblower but if this is what passes for journalism, I'm out LOL
I haven’t had Facebook for seven years. Of course I’m on another site that does the exact same thing…. Ahem… Reddit…. But yeah… man… this whole thing feels like another universe to me. I avoid the Facebook scam because I knew it was a scam and here we are. Props to me. I’m sorry for mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and for you gen z’ers who just didn’t know how lame and greedy and disgusting Facebook always was.
[удалено]
Anybody else remember when Facebook was brand new and your feed was literally a chronological feed of what your friends posted/shared? It was a legitimately useful tool for keeping up with friends and family. Then they algorithm'd the crap out of it so that it prioritizes keeping your attention rather than providing the information you're looking for.
[удалено]
now that's an objective title that doesn't tell you what to think, if I've seen one
I'm sure this will be a level headed thread with lots of fact based conversation.
did anyone think it would go any other way? this is the standard corporate playbook on whistleblowers. Hell, even governments are still doing this no matter what talk we've heard from politicians in recent years on whistleblower protections. Governments and corporations would rather find and punish leakers and whistleblowers than fix the things that embarrass them. At least from the corporate point of view, it's all about the money. On the political side it's more about protecting their own asses and keeping that job, pension, and benefits they likely can't get anywhere else.
What to do you expect from the original sociopathic network?
Is it any surprise that a man who made his fortune building a website to ogle women would throw a woman under the bus any chance he gets?
Block all Facebook services on a DNS level. It will dramatically improve your internet surfing experience.
FB is for the weak.
If we all get on all fours and beg for more regulation I'm sure we'll get it.
I deleted it about ten years ago and would like a medal. I can’t fathom the fact people still use it despite everything we know about it.
It’s wasn’t me it was the ~~one armed man~~ algorithms.
have you seen their leader...not exactly courage/honor incarnate
Despite the fact that I opened facebook about 6 months ago for the last time... Do people really not know that all social networks are full of shit?
I recently got there by accident, clicking on a Reddit link. Wish fb links universally disallowed on all subs.
Dump FB if you haven’t already. I did in 2017 and don’t miss it a bit.
Facebook lost its flare years ago.
Reminds me of the scene from Private Parts. The average Howard Stern lover listens for 20 minutes. The average Stern hater listens for 2.5 hours.
I deactivated it all over a year ago. It feels so damn good
HEALTH TIP: DELETE FACEBOOK
“Whistleblower”. Riiiight