3 ms·
Your argument is essentially that the company treated its employees well, so who cares what it did to users. Who gave you the right to decide the discussion is
by zaptheimpaler 4y ago
Your argument is essentially that the company treated its employees well, so who cares what it did to users. Who gave you the right to decide the discussion is framed around how Meta treats employees rather than what it does for the entire world?
- jahsome 4y agoI made no such argument. It is counter productive and disengenous state otherwise. I asked a question, no conclusions drawn. If I had a point, it's that the comment was off topic with regard to the comment it replied to, and warrants its own tree of discussion. It was a rant; There wasn't even an attempt at a segue or good faith effort to provide contrast. What "gives me the right to decide how the discussion is framed" are the hn guidelines (which you violated yourself by presenting a strawman).
- aussiesnack 4y agoBut is it compulsory to be so Manichaean? Have you really never seen someone (or group of people, or company) behave well in one context, and badly in another?
- zaptheimpaler 4y agoI understand perfectly well that they are both depending on context. All I'm saying is that the harm they inflict on billions of people outside the company outweighs the good they do for thousands inside. Just because there's both good and bad doesn't mean the degree of each cannot be weighed at all.
- aussiesnack 4y agoYour redoubled insistence on a clearly irrelevant totalising good/bad judgement as a purported response to a quite specific comment about labour practices is more than a tad onanistic.
- zaptheimpaler 4y agoouch okay lol good burn. I like your love of the English language you taught me some interesting words.
- aussiesnack 4y agoNot sure I really intended it as a burn, though you're right I do love words, sometimes to a fault! That was a generous response on your part anyway. Not one of my better days. Thanks.