3 ms·

> "someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools" I can't believe how terribly the media is spinning this. Obviously it's not Facebook's fault or

by tomp 9y ago

> "someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools" I can't believe how terribly the media is spinning this. Obviously it's not Facebook's fault or responsibility if that happens. I mean, should we just shut down the internet and have spies listen to every phone conversation and reading every (paper) letter sent, just so that we can be sure that there won't be any criminals using any communication tools? Live in a totalitarian distopia? Thanks, I'll take my dose of "terrorism" in exchange for freedom from tyranny.

tzahola 9y ago
>freedom from tyranny Funny if you compare this with another quote from the Fb memo: >The work we will likely have to do in China some day.
ec109685 9y ago
No, the point was that there was a “damn the consequences” attitude on the growth team because of some higher calling that more connections equals more revenue equals the ability to build great products. For goodness sake, at one point they partnered with media companies to automatically share every article you read with your friends. Absurd.
- candiodari 9y ago
  Yeah sure, it wasn't just a soundbyte, explicitly picked because completely devoid of context it would offend everyone. There's something to hate for everyone in that line. Privacy advocates hate it, leftists hate it, rightists hate it, all for different reasons that mostly wouldn't apply to the post as a whole. Well, except the privacy argument. The actual message of that post SHOULD be expressed as "we believe the advantages of having people interacting on social fora outweigh the problems" ... a) is obviously true b) is very, very different from the statement that was picked and spread And, I might add, we are switching into a political climate where people can no longer safely express themselves for fear of the consequences of offending the "majority" opinion. (between quotes because ... well because Trump got elected. Even if that view is really majority it isn't majority by much, obviously) What baffles me is that progressives actually seem to think that doing these attacks will further their cause. It is blindingly obvious that all these progressive efforts destroy what we stand for: fake news, and making online fora censor themselves anti-racism and especially the constant doxxing (and worse) instead of protecting and engaging people with these racist opinions (yes, protecting. really) and the repression of economic reality. The news about it, the facts ... I don't understand how any of these are progressive. And yet, the democratic party is at the core of all these efforts, and many progressives I know participate in them. The net effect of them is almost fascist.
jonathanyc 9y ago
You are picking the least controversial part of the memo. Far more controversial is that Facebook executives would admit to their behavior being ethically questionable but insisting that it’s necessary because Facebook is “de facto good.” There’s plenty of ways to defend Facebook in this without constructing strawmen.

by tomp 9y ago

tzahola 9y ago

>freedom from tyranny Funny if you compare this with another quote from the Fb memo: >The work we will likely have to do in China some day.

ec109685 9y ago

No, the point was that there was a “damn the consequences” attitude on the growth team because of some higher calling that more connections equals more revenue equals the ability to build great products. For goodness sake, at one point they partnered with media companies to automatically share every article you read with your friends. Absurd.

candiodari 9y ago
Yeah sure, it wasn't just a soundbyte, explicitly picked because completely devoid of context it would offend everyone. There's something to hate for everyone in that line. Privacy advocates hate it, leftists hate it, rightists hate it, all for different reasons that mostly wouldn't apply to the post as a whole. Well, except the privacy argument. The actual message of that post SHOULD be expressed as "we believe the advantages of having people interacting on social fora outweigh the problems" ... a) is obviously true b) is very, very different from the statement that was picked and spread And, I might add, we are switching into a political climate where people can no longer safely express themselves for fear of the consequences of offending the "majority" opinion. (between quotes because ... well because Trump got elected. Even if that view is really majority it isn't majority by much, obviously) What baffles me is that progressives actually seem to think that doing these attacks will further their cause. It is blindingly obvious that all these progressive efforts destroy what we stand for: fake news, and making online fora censor themselves anti-racism and especially the constant doxxing (and worse) instead of protecting and engaging people with these racist opinions (yes, protecting. really) and the repression of economic reality. The news about it, the facts ... I don't understand how any of these are progressive. And yet, the democratic party is at the core of all these efforts, and many progressives I know participate in them. The net effect of them is almost fascist.

jonathanyc 9y ago

You are picking the least controversial part of the memo. Far more controversial is that Facebook executives would admit to their behavior being ethically questionable but insisting that it’s necessary because Facebook is “de facto good.” There’s plenty of ways to defend Facebook in this without constructing strawmen.