6 ms·
What an extraordinarily dangerous man.
by openfuture 8y ago
What an extraordinarily dangerous man.
- xstartup 8y agoNo more dangerous than Mark Zuckerburg.
- throwaway76557 8y agoHe is on the Anglo-American side though.
- braythwayt 8y agoIs "whataboutism" in the dictionary? Asking for a sarcastic friend.
- xstartup 8y agoDoing my part to keep his billionaire power in check.
- tomrod 8y agoI encourage you to look into (and avoid) tu quoque and whataboutism. They aren't convincing argument strategies. As to your comparison, as far as I know Zuck isn't selling dangerous consumables, but rather selling your information. One has a direct harm, the other has potential harm.
- xstartup 8y agoI am not sure how you came to those conclusions you make. Zuck isn't just selling data. The ads which are deeply targetted haunt you, it feeds on the insecurity of a person and reinforces their beliefs. This has caused many teenagers to suicide. He is as dangerous as Ramdev if not more.
- tomrod 8y agoI don't pay attention to digital advertising, and have seen no ill effects in my own life. As for driving teenagers to suicide: what is this about?
- aq3cn 8y agoThere are food safety institutions to inspect a product of his harm. If Swamy Ramdev is doing anything evil, he cannot get away. There was one incidence when he was selling Gooseberry juice, but a food inspector didnt had its ingredient table, so they matched it with Apple Juice ingredient table. Of course, it would not pass the test. There are various such incidences where misinformation campaign on SM created paranoia.
- tomrod 8y agoOh poo, corruption like paying off inspectors is clearly something that could be done. There is no need to start the discussion of tainted products with an appeal to bureaucracy.
- coldtea 8y agoIs looking at things in perspective always branded with the though-stopping knee-jerk response of "whataboutism"? Asking for an open minded friend.
- LargeWu 8y agoThe very essence of "whataboutism" is to deflect criticism by directing it at an unrelated party. Zuckerberg has literally no connection to this story, and bringing him up in this context is an intellectually dishonest attempt to change the subject. Perspective is about seeing the same thing from different angles. "But what about Zuckerberg" is not a difference in perspective, it's two completely different subjects.
- xstartup 8y agoMore intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. If there is a rabid dog in the street where you resided, it's not a big problem. But if there are 10 rabid dogs there, the severity of the issue is much higher.
- orf 8y ago> More intellectually dishonest thing is to not recognize that both of them belong to an evil class of billionaires. But this article isn't about the evil class of billionaires and who belongs to that class is it? So, it's whataboutism: 'what about mark zuckerberg?'.
- xstartup 8y agoHow is mentioning an evil billionaire in a thread about some other evil billionaire not relevant? Downvoters clearly lack the ability to make connections.
- orf 8y agoWhat about Hitler and the Golden Gate Killer though? Mentioning an evil person in a thread about some other evil person is clearly and always relevant. Downvoters clearly lack the ability to make connections.