22 ms·
This situation is a consequence of squandering the company's goodwill. All the big social media companies spent years arrogantly declaring that they --- not the
by quotemstr 7y ago
This situation is a consequence of squandering the company's goodwill. All the big social media companies spent years arrogantly declaring that they --- not the people, not governments, but people in quirky SFBA meeting rooms --- get to decide what you people see, what they don't see, what's true, what's false, what's offensive, what's anodyne, what's legitimate activism and what's dastardly propaganda.
As it turns out, this "we know best" stance ticks off a lot of people, some of whom run states.
- djohnston 7y agoWhat would the alternative of content control be? I'd rather swap euros for libra than allow the Germans to decide what's in my news feed
- kazen44 7y agobut this is exactly what is happening to people not from the US. People in SF board rooms deciding what is in our news feeds, and now the same company is arrogantly declaring it wants to play with currency too.
- djohnston 7y agoFb deciding what's on fb is not as harmful as a govt deciding what's on fb, IMO
- kazen44 7y agothis highly depends on what kind of ethics and culture your goverment has compared to what facebook has.
- djohnston 7y agoNot really. Over the long run almost all govts of any significance will do bad things. You limit the effects of these bad govts with proactively by restricting their powers at all times. This is why you shouldn't give more power to a govt because it's doing well in the 10 year window. Facebook's reach is limited by being on fb.