4 ms·
I've always had trouble with this publicity stunt. Like banning people for baseless political or personal reasons is bad, but this is directly insulting Instagr
by guywithahat 4y ago
I've always had trouble with this publicity stunt. Like banning people for baseless political or personal reasons is bad, but this is directly insulting Instagram. In effect it's saying "here's the information Instagram has collected on you, now use our platform which doesn't collect this information". Like why would Meta take that reputational hit for a few thousand dollars in the short term. It's a bad deal for them and it makes sense to not do it
- awesomeMilou 4y agoI don't get it, how is revealing the truth about somethning insulting all of a sudden? The displayed ads don't judge, they're shock value is generated solely by what they reveal about instagrams business practices. It's obviously not in Metas best interest to be open about their data collection practices, but that's the entire point of this campaign, that Meta/Facebook/Instagram can only exist with intransparency.
- fumeux_fume 4y agoHow unethical does an action have to be before this rationalization no longer stands?
- guywithahat 4y agoDepends; is someone promoting it to make money? Because signal isn't trying to make facebook better, they're trying to convince people to use signal instead of messenger using some ethically dubious tactics
- twelvedogs 4y agothe fact that anyone who is that terrible would logically not want you to know that they're terrible doesn't really change the terribleness just points out that they're aware of how terrible they are.