3 ms·

Honestly, this really doesn't matter. If there was problematic content, a. Do you really think they would raise suspicion by deleting all old posts or just si

Honestly, this really doesn't matter. If there was problematic content, a. Do you really think they would raise suspicion by deleting all old posts or just silently delete specific posts? If I we're a big CEO the internet had a fairly negative opinion of, I would assume that somebody has the old content archived. b. Do we really need to raise a twitter storm for every public figure that did something controversial 10 years ago? Edit: I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/ https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/

dforrestwilson 8y ago
For every public figure no of course we should not care. For a big CEO running a major global communications platform and who is insisting that it is transparent, safe, and generally fine as an unregulated entity yes, this is a big hypocritical deal. Not about whether we have kept the records stored somewhere, but whether we can trust Facebook to do the same.
throwaway_9168 8y ago
>> a. Do you really think they would raise suspicion by deleting all old posts or just silently delete specific posts? How? By asking Mark Z to spend the time doing it? Or to have a third person involved, who will then need to be trusted for 1000% loyalty that he won't eventually turn? Or do you think this can somehow be automated? >> b. Do we really need to raise a twitter storm for every public figure that did something controversial 10 years ago? Yes, until the public figure gets a punishment which will actually be a deterrent for others in the future. >> Edit: I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/ https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/ That's not even comparable. If there is a public post that can actually be linked to as proof of some kind of opinion or statement, its completely different isn't it? Isn't it amazing how much the turds who work at Facebook want to snoop into our life and are simultaneously happy to give a free pass to their own CEO?

dforrestwilson 8y ago

For every public figure no of course we should not care. For a big CEO running a major global communications platform and who is insisting that it is transparent, safe, and generally fine as an unregulated entity yes, this is a big hypocritical deal. Not about whether we have kept the records stored somewhere, but whether we can trust Facebook to do the same.

throwaway_9168 8y ago

>> a. Do you really think they would raise suspicion by deleting all old posts or just silently delete specific posts? How? By asking Mark Z to spend the time doing it? Or to have a third person involved, who will then need to be trusted for 1000% loyalty that he won't eventually turn? Or do you think this can somehow be automated? >> b. Do we really need to raise a twitter storm for every public figure that did something controversial 10 years ago? Yes, until the public figure gets a punishment which will actually be a deterrent for others in the future. >> Edit: I'm just gonna leave this here: https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/ https://www.zuckerbergfiles.org/access/ That's not even comparable. If there is a public post that can actually be linked to as proof of some kind of opinion or statement, its completely different isn't it? Isn't it amazing how much the turds who work at Facebook want to snoop into our life and are simultaneously happy to give a free pass to their own CEO?