4 ms·

I wish Facebook would just stop existing at this point. It truly is a malignant tumor on the face of the humanity.

katbyte 5y ago
Takes the too spot in most evil tech companies for me by a very wide margin
craftinator 5y ago
We need to coin a new law: "Any sufficiently wealthy and monopolistic organization will tend towards evil at a rate inversely similar to it's MRR."
- idrios 5y ago
  Would Wikipedia be an exception to this? To my understanding Wikipedia is extremely well off financially on just the backs of donations, it's inherently a monopoly, but it is not tending towards evil despite having solid MRR.
  - spencerflem 5y ago
    How is wikipedia monopolistic? All the articles are free and published permissively. They haven't bought out "competitors" or done anything like that. Also, I'm glad they're doing well but they're not making Facebook-levels of money
    - idrios 5y ago
      I'd call it a monopoly by the same standards I'd call Facebook one. It's the only general-purpose encyclopedia on the internet that any person has heard of. It found a need and met it so perfectly that nobody would ever bother try to compete with it, because not only does it do its job near perfectly but it's also free and open source. And they're not making Facebook money but they're making far more than small business money. My point was to be that maybe Wikipedia is a case study in how to make a lot of money without sacrificing your virtues, that maybe there are more specific factors that drive other businesses towards being evil besides just having tons of money.
    - procombo 5y ago
      Over time wikipedia trends towards inequality of participation. This includes access by scholars and researchers. [1] It also shows (seemingly regularly) political and religious bias worldwide. [2] Wikipedia also seems to regularly be a platform of misinformation. Mass purging of sources. And delisting of accurate information. [3] [4] [5] (sources taken at random, too many to list.) Wikipedia will always have problems, IMO. It's in it's nature. When I was a kid I would read encyclopedias like the other kids would read comics. It's clear to me that it's best to use Wikipedia as a conduit to sources, not as direct reference to fact. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ [2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war [3] https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examples-drs-deepak-chopra-gary-null/ https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examp... [4] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikiped... [5] https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_007 https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_00...

Takes the too spot in most evil tech companies for me by a very wide margin

We need to coin a new law: "Any sufficiently wealthy and monopolistic organization will tend towards evil at a rate inversely similar to it's MRR."

idrios 5y ago
Would Wikipedia be an exception to this? To my understanding Wikipedia is extremely well off financially on just the backs of donations, it's inherently a monopoly, but it is not tending towards evil despite having solid MRR.
- spencerflem 5y ago
  How is wikipedia monopolistic? All the articles are free and published permissively. They haven't bought out "competitors" or done anything like that. Also, I'm glad they're doing well but they're not making Facebook-levels of money
  - idrios 5y ago
    I'd call it a monopoly by the same standards I'd call Facebook one. It's the only general-purpose encyclopedia on the internet that any person has heard of. It found a need and met it so perfectly that nobody would ever bother try to compete with it, because not only does it do its job near perfectly but it's also free and open source. And they're not making Facebook money but they're making far more than small business money. My point was to be that maybe Wikipedia is a case study in how to make a lot of money without sacrificing your virtues, that maybe there are more specific factors that drive other businesses towards being evil besides just having tons of money.
  - procombo 5y ago
    Over time wikipedia trends towards inequality of participation. This includes access by scholars and researchers. [1] It also shows (seemingly regularly) political and religious bias worldwide. [2] Wikipedia also seems to regularly be a platform of misinformation. Mass purging of sources. And delisting of accurate information. [3] [4] [5] (sources taken at random, too many to list.) Wikipedia will always have problems, IMO. It's in it's nature. When I was a kid I would read encyclopedias like the other kids would read comics. It's clear to me that it's best to use Wikipedia as a conduit to sources, not as direct reference to fact. [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26871092/ [2] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war https://www.wired.co.uk/article/wikipedia-culture-war [3] https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examples-drs-deepak-chopra-gary-null/ https://prn.fm/wikipedia-misinformation-prejudice-case-examp... [4] https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikipedia_purge.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_wikiped... [5] https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_007 https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia_prejudice_and_KAL_00...