4 ms·
> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political. Of course they are. Everything is political, because everything affects people. The idea that some peop
by pdkl95 11y ago
> They are all unbelievable [sic] biased and political.
Of course they are. Everything is political, because everything affects people. The idea that some people have that technology (or anything else) is somehow not political is extremely naive.
The point of my comment was that you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic instead of discussing the subject matter itself. Your new reply does a lot of the same.
> reframing other peoples actions towards your critique on it?
Obviously. Are you suggesting that any critique must be made in the framing Facebook has been setting with their propaganda? Facebook gets to control the stage?
> Facebook isn't lying about people pressing their support button
Quite a few people are claiming otherwise.
Did you miss Facebook's scandalous "emotional contagion" experiment? Or the various other stories about how they manipulate what people see? As usual, Facebook likes to fall back on calling these tactics "an accident" when they are caught.
> size-based exceptionalism
WTF are you talking about?
Why are you inventing a straw-man big-vs-small argument while ignoring that they are a gatekeeper with the power to monitor and manipulate social interaction.
> You probably came up with the market thing by reading my profiles joke about economists.
Nope. That was 100% based on your suggestions that the market would sort this out.
- fwn 11y ago> Everything is political, because everything affects people. You might be unaware of the fact that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. This believe of you is reproducing a Montesquieuian perspective on civil society instead of for example a Tocquevilleian where there is a public/private distinction. The latter (the one you'd probably consider "extremely naive") is also the base of basically all contemporary liberal democracies. > [...] you seem to be addressing the factions themselves as a topic [...] Sure. Without the political codes, this whole subject is rather a non-topic. People in industrialized countries developed a high sensitivity regarding restrictions on internet access. This value set conflicts with many infrastructural ambitions of public and private actors as in this case Facebooks "Free Basics" project. That's it. All those dystopian outlooks, the alleged evil intentions on both sides etc. are only means to enforce the own opinions over the other sides. Ok, so Facebooks wants to bring Facebook (and some fig leafes as Wikipedia) for free to rural India. Net neutrality people want Facebook to not do that. What else? We can make a list; I bet it's rather unspectacular. > Quite a few people are claiming otherwise. Right.. https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png https://i.imgur.com/0vFh092.png > [...] your suggestions that the market would sort this out. You might want to recheck who you think came up with a market argument, because I think you are mistaking our debate with another. > > size-based exceptionalism > WTF are you talking about? If you could elaborate on what you weren't able to grasp I'd have the opportunity to explain it further. :)
- pdkl95 11y ago> Right If you want to deny reality, that's your business. See the other HN thread for a couple examples. > elaborate I'll just point out that this is yet another reply where you have talked about everything except the point about Facebook's power to manipulate people. I have better things to do than be pulled into increasingly off-topic, delusional nonsense.
- dang 11y agoYour comments in this thread ("Ahh, the usual attempt to", "WTF are you talking about", and here) break the HN guidelines. Please don't be uncivil, regardless of how wrong you think someone is. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html