5 ms·
The only thing I'm really amazed by is how the European countries still allow them to operate, they should be fined until they exit the market and their operati
by orbifold 9y ago
The only thing I'm really amazed by is how the European countries still allow them to operate, they should be fined until they exit the market and their operation made illegal. Probably they provide sufficiently useful information to the security services that governments don't do anything. In effect they are a privatised Stasi.
- emilsedgh 9y agoI don't think European people are OK with their politicians taking Facebook from them.
- baq 9y agoThat's what zuck is desperate to preserve. Change is in the air. I wouldn't mind.
- collyw 9y agoActually I would be more than happy. I am ready to make the move to a service where users are more in control, but its going to take a massive kick up the arse to get my friends to move. They whined about having to use Telegram rather than Whatsapp when I had an Ubuntu phone.
- orbifold 9y agoNothing that can't be fixed by a bit of Psi Ops. Pretty much none of the traditional media companies like Facebook and in most of Europe at least one TV station per country is state controlled. So all that needs to happen is ~6-12 months of negative press in the tabloids and constant negative coverage in national television. I think that could easily be arranged. To paint a picture here are some headlines by BILD (largest German tabloid): "ZUCKERBERG SCANDAL: So verdient Facebook mit Ihren Daten Geld", (ZUCKERBERG SCANDAL: This is how Facebook earns money with your data), article based on a report by German national television (ZDF) "„SCHADEN FÜR DIE DEMOKRATIE“ 60 Prozent der Deutschen fürchten Facebook" (DAMAGE TO DEMOCRACY, 60 Percent of Germans fear Facebook)
- s3r3nity 9y agoNot that I feel strongly either way, but deliberately advocating for a strong, centralized, negative propaganda campaign against a company you don't like doesn't seem ethical to me.
- black_puppydog 9y agoSeems totally ethical to me IFF you don't make stuff up. In fact, if you can drive a strong, negative campaign solely with actual facts, I find it imperative to do so. Then again, you did say "propaganda" campaign, so I guess there was your assumption of dishonesty.
- s3r3nity 9y agoI think you're well meaning here, but I have two points in reaction: 1) "...[E]thical to me IFF you don't make stuff up." I think you can have propaganda that uses only facts, but in a disingenuous manner. You just don't mention _all_ the facts, and/or put a lens on the wrong perspective. Is that "dishonest?" I'm not sure - maybe a misinterpretation?. As an example, you can see this all the time with the arguments against global warming: "some studies show that temperatures are not increasing." If you look hard enough, you'll find data points and/or papers that argue against global warming, but they're a very very minor # of studies, that it's not a fair perspective or lens on the arguement. 2) "I find it imperative to do so." I am not a Facebook fan-person by any means, but I'm not sure I find it morally _imperative_ that folks rally against what they are doing. I have a hard time believing that the 1000's of employees that work there are all evil people, but rather the majority are probably well-intentioned and may just need a correction of direction. Can I prove this? No, but if they were, say, selling nukes to ISIS or something at that level, then I might agree with you a bit more.
- black_puppydog 9y agoAs I said: "propaganda" brings a whole set of assumptions to the table. My point was that if you can sustain a campaign (not propaganda campaign, i.e. just a real strong case) then you should, because that means there is a genuine problem.
- cies 9y agoWe much rather pay lots of taxes, and not have our gov'ts charge the BigCorps (tax and/or fines). /s Jokes aside. No-one says "shut it off", but make them follow some rules and possibly adding some rules is not a strange thing at this point.
- ionised 9y agoI'd be totally okay with it.