4 ms·

>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. >It out to be nationalized entirely. You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? W

>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. >It out to be nationalized entirely. You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? Why do you think the federal government will be any more trustyworthy than Mark Zuckerberg? Not to mention that then it will have no incentive to improve or make a profit.

whatupmd 10y ago
Watch an NPR or PBS newscast once in awhile. Seems pretty balanced to me.
jondubois 10y ago
The government has no financial incentive to turn a profit - All the proceeds would go to back to government projects or be wasted on bureaucracy. Nobody who works for government at any point in the chain could benefit financially from this; that is why the government is far more trustworthy than Mark Zuckerberg and his executive friends. The idea that a few wealthy FB shareholders can profit from using other people's data to manipulate those people's behaviour illustrates the problem very clearly. What's worse is that even if you are not susceptible to FB's targeted advertising directly, FB will trick your friends and family into a particular behaviour pattern and then force you to follow suite. It's just like when FB was in its early growth stages; even people who resisted joining FB initially gave in once all their friends had joined up... People would get offended if you didn't add them as friends on Facebook. It's the same principle at play here except it's around lifestyle and consumerism. I actually think that this "don't trust the government" propaganda was masterminded by tech companies (on the back of the Edward Snowden drama) to help their own corporate agendas. 50 years ago, it would never have even occurred to anyone that a profit-making entity could be more trustworthy than the government because it makes absolutely no sense.

4 ms·

>The side effects it has had on society are catastrophic. >It out to be nationalized entirely. You don't think those two things are at odds with each other? W

by Oxitendwe 10y ago

whatupmd 10y ago
Watch an NPR or PBS newscast once in awhile. Seems pretty balanced to me.
jondubois 10y ago
The government has no financial incentive to turn a profit - All the proceeds would go to back to government projects or be wasted on bureaucracy. Nobody who works for government at any point in the chain could benefit financially from this; that is why the government is far more trustworthy than Mark Zuckerberg and his executive friends. The idea that a few wealthy FB shareholders can profit from using other people's data to manipulate those people's behaviour illustrates the problem very clearly. What's worse is that even if you are not susceptible to FB's targeted advertising directly, FB will trick your friends and family into a particular behaviour pattern and then force you to follow suite. It's just like when FB was in its early growth stages; even people who resisted joining FB initially gave in once all their friends had joined up... People would get offended if you didn't add them as friends on Facebook. It's the same principle at play here except it's around lifestyle and consumerism. I actually think that this "don't trust the government" propaganda was masterminded by tech companies (on the back of the Edward Snowden drama) to help their own corporate agendas. 50 years ago, it would never have even occurred to anyone that a profit-making entity could be more trustworthy than the government because it makes absolutely no sense.