2 ms·

Sorry, but your posts are making it clearer why your team was disbanded. You have been arguing that: - Social networks can be blamed for basically any evil tha

Sorry, but your posts are making it clearer why your team was disbanded. You have been arguing that: - Social networks can be blamed for basically any evil that happens in the world. You express elsewhere the belief that Facebook can be blamed for the Rohingya Genocide. And thus by definition that your colleagues and past/future work mates could also be held morally responsible for genocide or more or less anything bad, via the transitive property of whatever. This belief requires sloppy and motivated reasoning to sustain. - That perhaps your job was to ban anyone you regarded as "shitheels", "jerks" or "Nazi-ish" (!). In other words anyone whose views you simply didn't like. That's not an anti-abuse policy worth of the name. With these attitudes it is easy to believe that the team you were on was not only highly disruptive towards colleagues and users but ineffective and a legal liability as well.

wpietri 4y ago
Ok, random internet person. Having read a few words, you surely know better than me what happened among hundreds of people half a decade ago. Except that you are not a very good reader, because I explicitly didn't say "Facebook can be blamed". Sorry, but you're not tall enough to ride this ride. Come back when you've grown up some.
- origin_path 4y ago
  You said in this thread [1], quote: "Facebook has a body count" and when someone responded blaming Facebook for an actual genocide you replied with: "Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding" Then when someone else disagreed with you, stating that "the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events [lies with] the perpetrators" you doubled down by saying: "Facebook is morally responsible for that harm" and proceeded to argue that their "barest minimum" standard should be to ask, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?" You very clearly argued that in fact Facebook can be blamed for, well, god knows what. Genocide and "body counts" at minimum but it's pretty clear that you think almost anything can be blamed on a social network or other communication providers, given that basically all organized human activity involves technology-mediated communication at some point. And now you're trying to claim you never said Facebook can be blamed! If you didn't really mean that then you need to learn to better express yourself, because a whole lot of people in that thread interpreted it in that exact way and you proceeded to respond without correcting them, indeed, by telling them why their views would lead to more airline accidents (!). Ye gods, you must have been a serious liability problem waiting to happen with these attitudes. Imagine lawyers bringing up your views in discovery and then saying, Twitter's own staff definitely believe Twitter can and should be blamed for ${litigants harm} by their own arguments. Case closed, your honor. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Responsibility and blame are different things, chickadee. That you can't tell the difference is not my problem, so from here on out you're on your own. Maybe keep your lawyer fantasies in your head next time you try to have a discussion with adults.

wpietri 4y ago

Ok, random internet person. Having read a few words, you surely know better than me what happened among hundreds of people half a decade ago. Except that you are not a very good reader, because I explicitly didn't say "Facebook can be blamed". Sorry, but you're not tall enough to ride this ride. Come back when you've grown up some.

origin_path 4y ago
You said in this thread [1], quote: "Facebook has a body count" and when someone responded blaming Facebook for an actual genocide you replied with: "Yeah, when I say that Facebook has a body count, I'm not kidding" Then when someone else disagreed with you, stating that "the entire (read 100%) responsibility for the Rohingya Genocide or other similar events [lies with] the perpetrators" you doubled down by saying: "Facebook is morally responsible for that harm" and proceeded to argue that their "barest minimum" standard should be to ask, "Hey, is there a way to be sure this next feature is responsible for zero deaths?" You very clearly argued that in fact Facebook can be blamed for, well, god knows what. Genocide and "body counts" at minimum but it's pretty clear that you think almost anything can be blamed on a social network or other communication providers, given that basically all organized human activity involves technology-mediated communication at some point. And now you're trying to claim you never said Facebook can be blamed! If you didn't really mean that then you need to learn to better express yourself, because a whole lot of people in that thread interpreted it in that exact way and you proceeded to respond without correcting them, indeed, by telling them why their views would lead to more airline accidents (!). Ye gods, you must have been a serious liability problem waiting to happen with these attitudes. Imagine lawyers bringing up your views in discovery and then saying, Twitter's own staff definitely believe Twitter can and should be blamed for ${litigants harm} by their own arguments. Case closed, your honor. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32781165
- wpietri 4y ago
  Responsibility and blame are different things, chickadee. That you can't tell the difference is not my problem, so from here on out you're on your own. Maybe keep your lawyer fantasies in your head next time you try to have a discussion with adults.