3 ms·
Meta: It’s only 3% of posts, it’s not a draw for our users, and it’s a trivial portion of our revenue. We may just shut it down. Also Meta: Please please plea
by parkingrift 4y ago
Meta: It’s only 3% of posts, it’s not a draw for our users, and it’s a trivial portion of our revenue. We may just shut it down.
Also Meta: Please please please please don’t pass this law.
I don’t know how anyone can take this company seriously.
- Spivak 4y agoI mean it’s not that crazy to not want to have to suddenly implement link filters to every news site in existence.
- CharlesW 4y agoFacebook already has this info, and every news source is already filtered on a per-user basis. This is how Facebook is able to shake down news providers (and other companies, fan pages, etc.) for additional revenue by effectively forcing them "boost" placement.
- gruez 4y agoI don't see how the points you stated are contradictory. Suppose you have a side gig that makes up 3% of your yearly income (eg. if you make $200k/yr, that works out to $6k/yr), and the HOA wants to shut you down. Sure, it's not your main job and is a trivial portion of your overall revenue and shutting it down is certainly an option, but you'd be pretty pissed that you're getting shut down and you'll probably show up to the next HOA meeting to stop that ban from getting passed.
- parkingrift 4y agoHa. This would be like going to that HOA and telling them all about how little you care. Just stop lying and admit you care.
- iinnPP 4y agoThere seems to be a provision in the bill which would not only impact the 3% but also the other 97%. IANAL Under that logic, Facebook's position would make the most sense. Plus, the words undue and unjust are all over the place and Canada is all over the map on that one.