10 ms·

As I mention many time: I know from direct knowledge that the assumptions that you are making are false or misleading. I’m happy to explain why but I see no val

by bertil 6y ago

As I mention many time: I know from direct knowledge that the assumptions that you are making are false or misleading. I’m happy to explain why but I see no value in being told that I’m wrong by someone who has less context than me. I respect you desire to not listen to me. I don’t respect your insistence to tell me that I’m wrong without knowing what I have to say. I’m just going to correct things that you seem to attribute to me that I have not said: > against an organization that doesn't seem to be listening to them Nope, the organisation listens; they listened to me closely. They just learned that very few people outside the organisation do and they try to protect from the frustration of engaging with dishonest people. You certainly do not care to listen, for instance. > you are never going to convince me while actively using a pseudonym online I’m using my first name. I’ve used it as my handle in any service that allowed short handles. I’ve never met someone else with it, so I always assumed that it identifies me directly. Facebook the company is not against using pseudonyms: Instagram uses them; WhatsApp has no names.

danShumway 6y ago
I shouldn't reply to this after so much time has passed; it's petty and no one cares. But just for the record: > the assumptions that you are making are false or misleading Nothing that I listed in the second section of my comment was false, it was all factual information. Facebook did take out full-page adds with misleading and inaccurate FUD about Apple's privacy stances. Facebook did merge Occulus and Facebook accounts. Facebook does, still, to this day, ban pseudonyms. Facebook has never claimed that the leaked emails describing its internal policies towards competitors were faked. Those are factual statements. If you want to claim that I'm lying about them, then that's a really bold claim that you should own in specific terms, not just allude to in vague statements about whether or not I'm willing to listen to you. > You certainly do not care to listen, for instance. You have never provided a single example throughout this entire thread of any of my examples being factually inaccurate, but you're characterizing me as being close-minded for not taking you at your word with zero evidence that every critique about Facebook is wrong. You're upset that I don't know what you have to say, but you haven't said anything. You set up an example of a hypothetical critic who doesn't understand how shared contacts work, and told me to extrapolate from there. So yes, I do think you're wrong, because absent any evidence of the contrary, the fact that you've worked at Facebook doesn't mean you magically have context that makes Facebook's real-name policy not a problem. Again, unless you want to claim that the entire media landscape is outright committing libel and that Facebook doesn't have a real name policy[0]. [0]: https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576 https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576

by bertil 6y ago

danShumway 6y ago

I shouldn't reply to this after so much time has passed; it's petty and no one cares. But just for the record: > the assumptions that you are making are false or misleading Nothing that I listed in the second section of my comment was false, it was all factual information. Facebook did take out full-page adds with misleading and inaccurate FUD about Apple's privacy stances. Facebook did merge Occulus and Facebook accounts. Facebook does, still, to this day, ban pseudonyms. Facebook has never claimed that the leaked emails describing its internal policies towards competitors were faked. Those are factual statements. If you want to claim that I'm lying about them, then that's a really bold claim that you should own in specific terms, not just allude to in vague statements about whether or not I'm willing to listen to you. > You certainly do not care to listen, for instance. You have never provided a single example throughout this entire thread of any of my examples being factually inaccurate, but you're characterizing me as being close-minded for not taking you at your word with zero evidence that every critique about Facebook is wrong. You're upset that I don't know what you have to say, but you haven't said anything. You set up an example of a hypothetical critic who doesn't understand how shared contacts work, and told me to extrapolate from there. So yes, I do think you're wrong, because absent any evidence of the contrary, the fact that you've worked at Facebook doesn't mean you magically have context that makes Facebook's real-name policy not a problem. Again, unless you want to claim that the entire media landscape is outright committing libel and that Facebook doesn't have a real name policy[0]. [0]: https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576 https://www.facebook.com/help/112146705538576