3 ms·

You're asking me to take a position on your completely hypothetical and theoretical social network. This is no more useful than asking me whether I'm in favour

You're asking me to take a position on your completely hypothetical and theoretical social network. This is no more useful than asking me whether I'm in favour of the universe being a simulation. I'm in favour of you building it. Then let's see what happens. Does that answer your question? > I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing. What of it? I've already said Facebook has too much influence. You can be against having a king, and in favour of the king doing something about, idk, taxes. > Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? This is such a weird question. Are you asking if I'm in favour of Facebook existing? I already said I'm not. Or is your question "if you were King of the World & Master of the Universe, would you make Facebook disappear?", which, again, this isn't the Matrix. These aren't useful questions, you're just trying to figure out what my stances are. My positions don't matter. I'm just trying to try to help you understand a concept which is incredibly easy to grok to a lot of people.

morlockabove 6y ago
I get wanting to crush untouchables; I just think it's a hysterical stance to take vis-a-vis something like FB. You're not having the King "do something about taxes"; you're having him go on witch hunts. I'm suspicious about how much witch-hunters actually want the king gone, or whether they wouldn't want to replace him with a cheka later. They have a vested interest in power staying centralized. This all makes it a lot funnier when it's their sister being burnt at the stake. Someone might even break out a saying. With how evasive you're being, I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light, similar to the guy who's "Just asking questions about race".
- scrollaway 6y ago
  > I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light I've been on HN for six years, if you truly want to know them, you can look at any of my older posts. Since you can "only assume", maybe seeing that you're wrong will finally get you to stop "assuming"? & personal attacks are not tolerated here, FYI. Going to stop replying now.
  - morlockabove 6y ago
    >personal attacks That's rich, given the condescension you've shown in this thread. Where I come from, trawling through people's post histories is creepy.

morlockabove 6y ago

I get wanting to crush untouchables; I just think it's a hysterical stance to take vis-a-vis something like FB. You're not having the King "do something about taxes"; you're having him go on witch hunts. I'm suspicious about how much witch-hunters actually want the king gone, or whether they wouldn't want to replace him with a cheka later. They have a vested interest in power staying centralized. This all makes it a lot funnier when it's their sister being burnt at the stake. Someone might even break out a saying. With how evasive you're being, I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light, similar to the guy who's "Just asking questions about race".

scrollaway 6y ago
> I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light I've been on HN for six years, if you truly want to know them, you can look at any of my older posts. Since you can "only assume", maybe seeing that you're wrong will finally get you to stop "assuming"? & personal attacks are not tolerated here, FYI. Going to stop replying now.
- morlockabove 6y ago
  >personal attacks That's rich, given the condescension you've shown in this thread. Where I come from, trawling through people's post histories is creepy.