3 ms·

Luddites. You can't un-invent technology. Like all technology, facial recognition has tremendous potential for good. We should learn to live with the technology

Luddites. You can't un-invent technology. Like all technology, facial recognition has tremendous potential for good. We should learn to live with the technology, not attempt to forbid its use. Also, Meta is a bunch of cowards nowadays. They should not have kowtowed to angry Twitter activists. It sets a bad precedent. I don't like this system where activists bully big companies into compliance with their idiosyncratic moral systems instead of using the government and the laws to codify restrictions and rules in a transparent way that everyone can understand and in which everyone has a say. If facial recognition is so bad, it should be illegal. If it's not illegal, FB has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profit within the law. If, as an activist, can't get support for making facial recognition illegal, then maybe it's not quite as bad as you claim.

TillE 5y ago
"activists bully big companies" What's up with this plainly ridiculous usage of the term "bully"? It's almost self-parody. It's something I've noticed in British newspapers sometimes where MPs will whine about being "bullied" by citizens who post rude comments online. It's really obviously not the right term for whatever point you want to express! Taking points off your English paper for incorrect word usage.
dspillett 5y ago
> Also, cowards. I don't like this system where activists Are you sure it isn't just that not enough people opted in for it to be worth the cost of maintaining that part of the service? > FB has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profit within the law Which it may be doing here, by removing infrastructure and people from running and maintaining a feature, resources that can then be used on features that have a better effect on the bottom line. Or are you believing that it is entirely about “finding balance” morally (or at least in the court of public opinion), rather than balancing the bottom line financially (even if just in part)?

TillE 5y ago

"activists bully big companies" What's up with this plainly ridiculous usage of the term "bully"? It's almost self-parody. It's something I've noticed in British newspapers sometimes where MPs will whine about being "bullied" by citizens who post rude comments online. It's really obviously not the right term for whatever point you want to express! Taking points off your English paper for incorrect word usage.

dspillett 5y ago

> Also, cowards. I don't like this system where activists Are you sure it isn't just that not enough people opted in for it to be worth the cost of maintaining that part of the service? > FB has a responsibility to its shareholders to maximize profit within the law Which it may be doing here, by removing infrastructure and people from running and maintaining a feature, resources that can then be used on features that have a better effect on the bottom line. Or are you believing that it is entirely about “finding balance” morally (or at least in the court of public opinion), rather than balancing the bottom line financially (even if just in part)?