3 ms·

> There's practically zero chance that will happen - either that the existing companies will "clear out" or that the same role would be filled by anything with

by ben509 8y ago

> There's practically zero chance that will happen - either that the existing companies will "clear out" or that the same role would be filled by anything with a different business model. Are you going to justify that claim? It's been made repeatedly about prior companies that were too big to fail, especially tech giants, and they all fall or become obsolete. > In the real world where Facebook will continue to exist, is there anything that the company or its employees could do that would meet with your approval? I gave an example: "we've ended our policy of treating users as the product." You're repeating this rhetorical question without addressing any of the points I made or adding anything new.

notacoward 8y ago
> they all fall or become obsolete. I was in this industry through all of that. It takes a long time for a company to fall that far. Yes, given enough time anything can happen, but I'm not interested in tautologies. In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If you want to claim otherwise, that's your burden not mine. > "we've ended our policy of treating users as the product." OK, so I guess there is that one unrealistic possibility. Even if Facebook moved to a subscription model, "treating users as the product" is not a phrase they'd use for what came before. So you still haven't indicated that you'd be satisfied by anything that could actually happen. > You're repeating this rhetorical question It's not a rhetorical question if there are multiple valid answers, and repeating a question is still better than repeating statements based on counterfactual assumptions. If you want to play "high school debate champion" you'll have to try harder.
- ben509 8y ago
  > In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If they made that promise to investors, they could go to prison. > OK, so I guess there is that one unrealistic possibility. You're demanding that everyone else has to show that they're ready to abandon their principles, lest you judge them instransigent and unreasonable. What changes have you made to your worldview, without seeing something significant change? Probably never: your views are shaped by observations of concrete realities and reflections on the consequences of those. And unless those realities change or you get new information, you couldn't come up with a coherent set of new views if you wanted to. > It's not a rhetorical question if there are multiple valid answers It's still a question intended for rhetorical effect. I wasn't saying that makes it invalid, it's just annoying if you're repeating it while dismissing the answer given.

by ben509 8y ago

notacoward 8y ago

> they all fall or become obsolete. I was in this industry through all of that. It takes a long time for a company to fall that far. Yes, given enough time anything can happen, but I'm not interested in tautologies. In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If you want to claim otherwise, that's your burden not mine. > "we've ended our policy of treating users as the product." OK, so I guess there is that one unrealistic possibility. Even if Facebook moved to a subscription model, "treating users as the product" is not a phrase they'd use for what came before. So you still haven't indicated that you'd be satisfied by anything that could actually happen. > You're repeating this rhetorical question It's not a rhetorical question if there are multiple valid answers, and repeating a question is still better than repeating statements based on counterfactual assumptions. If you want to play "high school debate champion" you'll have to try harder.

ben509 8y ago
> In any time span relevant to this conversation, it's not going to happen. If they made that promise to investors, they could go to prison. > OK, so I guess there is that one unrealistic possibility. You're demanding that everyone else has to show that they're ready to abandon their principles, lest you judge them instransigent and unreasonable. What changes have you made to your worldview, without seeing something significant change? Probably never: your views are shaped by observations of concrete realities and reflections on the consequences of those. And unless those realities change or you get new information, you couldn't come up with a coherent set of new views if you wanted to. > It's not a rhetorical question if there are multiple valid answers It's still a question intended for rhetorical effect. I wasn't saying that makes it invalid, it's just annoying if you're repeating it while dismissing the answer given.