3 ms·
Yes, I don't understand why the web needs to be "open" per the original post for it to be deemed good. If FB wasn't a nasty platform and simply didn't let Googl
by linkmotif 9y ago
Yes, I don't understand why the web needs to be "open" per the original post for it to be deemed good. If FB wasn't a nasty platform and simply didn't let Google index (mooch and profit from) its content, that would be fair in my opinion. Why should I start a company and then give that content away for free to Google to profit from? It's not like Google is performing some altruistic public service. Neither is DuckDuckGo, or any other company.
FB is horrible because it nurtures psychological pathology, not because it's not open. Everything you need to know about FB can be summarized from Zuck's generous offer to let employees freeze their eggs so that instead of having kids and leading normal lives they can work for him. Dude is gross, and so is his platform.
- dsacco 9y agoPersonally, I would be impressed with a company that provided that benefit and seriously consider it. Am I gross for finding that to be an attractive offer? It's not as though Facebook is coercing people to do this in order to lengthen their careers. People will do it anyway due to a culture that already exists and because they want to; from that perspective, Facebook is providing a nice benefit for people who don't want to compromise their career. It's not for you to say that this decision constitutes "abnormal" behavior - its characteristic of a lot of peoples' rational career optimization. I'm not claiming it's altruistic, but I am claiming it's a poor heuristic for judging a company.
- linkmotif 9y agoI'm sorry. I mean that Facebook could provide more lifestyle benefits and corporate culture in which an employee would not be compromising their career or need to career optimize around family planning opportunities. Maybe this is too utopian to expect.