8 ms·

After all the shitty things facebook did in the whole world, inducing depression, suicidal behaviors for the most fragile etc... this person resigns because the

After all the shitty things facebook did in the whole world, inducing depression, suicidal behaviors for the most fragile etc... this person resigns because the CEO refused to censor the elected POTUS. I have a hard time to figure what's going on in his head, and how he thinks it's helping democraty.

throwanem 6y ago
Better late than never.
CharlesW 6y ago
> I have a hard time to figure what's going on in his head, and how he thinks it's helping democraty. Interesting. I have a hard time understanding out how it could be any clearer.
- naasking 6y ago
  > Interesting. I have a hard time understanding out how it could be any clearer. Sure, censor POTUS so when the tanks roll in, people have no idea what's going on. I think it's pretty clear that your national leader should never be censored because the people he's governing have an absolute right to know every single thing he says.
  - dd36 6y ago
    Right. He has no other avenues of communication available... Even TV stations have to cut away from his nonsense, should that be illegal?
    - naasking 6y ago
      So your argument is that this isn't a big deal because POTUS has other communication media available, but then proceed to immediately contradict yourself by saying that those media also censor POTUS. Whether this should be a legal requirement, I can't say. But it does seem pretty clear that if POTUS is speaking to the public, the public should be able to hear the message if they choose, regardless of whether you personally dislike the message or POTUS.
      - CharlesW 6y ago
        > …the public should be able to hear the message if they choose, regardless of whether you personally dislike the message or POTUS. Ours is a capitalist democracy. It's meaningless whether people "dislike" the message or the messenger, at least until it affects audience or advertisers.
        naasking 6y ago
        Maybe it should be, but the very fact that we're discussing whether social media companies should be censoring their elected president demonstrates that it's not meaningless.
Voloskaya 6y ago
It's not a function of what facebook did or did not do, but a function of how we judge people working for facebook. It's pretty easy to close your eyes about a shitty thing your company might be doing, because for your personnally staying is a good deal. It's much harder to do when everyone else is judging you about it. This is not a stab at the person than resigned, I think this is a normal human behavior, we are pretty egoistic creatures.
kiplkipl 6y ago
Perhaps they didn't work for the department of depression induction.
newbie578 6y ago
Now that you say it that way, that is actually a pretty good point. He was fine with Facebook breaking users privacy, aggregating data, spying on users over smartphone mics, but a Tweet cuts the line? Admirable of him, but I have a pretty big feeling that although he is working(ed) at Facebook, he is quite green for the real world.
- pas 6y ago
  Not using Facebook is a choice. Not that easy if many relatives and friends use it, but it's a lot easier than opting out of politics - because politics has a greater effect on people's lives than FB having more or even more data.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  It's one single employee at Facebook. He probably left for other reasons, but just wanted his 5 minutes of internet fame. The only reason this made it up on HN is because people have an emotional hatred for FB.

throwanem 6y ago

Better late than never.

CharlesW 6y ago

> I have a hard time to figure what's going on in his head, and how he thinks it's helping democraty. Interesting. I have a hard time understanding out how it could be any clearer.

naasking 6y ago
> Interesting. I have a hard time understanding out how it could be any clearer. Sure, censor POTUS so when the tanks roll in, people have no idea what's going on. I think it's pretty clear that your national leader should never be censored because the people he's governing have an absolute right to know every single thing he says.
- dd36 6y ago
  Right. He has no other avenues of communication available... Even TV stations have to cut away from his nonsense, should that be illegal?
  - naasking 6y ago
    So your argument is that this isn't a big deal because POTUS has other communication media available, but then proceed to immediately contradict yourself by saying that those media also censor POTUS. Whether this should be a legal requirement, I can't say. But it does seem pretty clear that if POTUS is speaking to the public, the public should be able to hear the message if they choose, regardless of whether you personally dislike the message or POTUS.
    - CharlesW 6y ago
      > …the public should be able to hear the message if they choose, regardless of whether you personally dislike the message or POTUS. Ours is a capitalist democracy. It's meaningless whether people "dislike" the message or the messenger, at least until it affects audience or advertisers.
      - naasking 6y ago
        Maybe it should be, but the very fact that we're discussing whether social media companies should be censoring their elected president demonstrates that it's not meaningless.

Voloskaya 6y ago

It's not a function of what facebook did or did not do, but a function of how we judge people working for facebook. It's pretty easy to close your eyes about a shitty thing your company might be doing, because for your personnally staying is a good deal. It's much harder to do when everyone else is judging you about it. This is not a stab at the person than resigned, I think this is a normal human behavior, we are pretty egoistic creatures.

kiplkipl 6y ago

Perhaps they didn't work for the department of depression induction.

newbie578 6y ago

Now that you say it that way, that is actually a pretty good point. He was fine with Facebook breaking users privacy, aggregating data, spying on users over smartphone mics, but a Tweet cuts the line? Admirable of him, but I have a pretty big feeling that although he is working(ed) at Facebook, he is quite green for the real world.

pas 6y ago
Not using Facebook is a choice. Not that easy if many relatives and friends use it, but it's a lot easier than opting out of politics - because politics has a greater effect on people's lives than FB having more or even more data.
koheripbal 6y ago
It's one single employee at Facebook. He probably left for other reasons, but just wanted his 5 minutes of internet fame. The only reason this made it up on HN is because people have an emotional hatred for FB.