3 ms·

Little bit, yes. It is a cute thing. That can be all it is. They did not need to do this at all. It is unlikely that they are trying to insert subliminal negati

Little bit, yes. It is a cute thing. That can be all it is. They did not need to do this at all. It is unlikely that they are trying to insert subliminal negative messages at cross purposes to the dialog box.

911_Inside_Job 13y ago
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Institutions put out messages and public relations at odds with their own interests all the time. It's never very strongly at odds with the institutional interest of course. Just a sop put forward which gets back as much in extra public credulity as much as it costs in development, in opportunity cost to the raw, core profit machine, and in the seemingly cross-purposed promotion. In this case, one is better off presuming that Marky Mark "My Users Are Dumb Fucks" Zucker-Borg's company does indeed consider privacy a thing extinct and is happier if the public thinks of it that way too, until we start to see an overwhelming trend in the other direction. Until then, the trend is clearly that Facebook wants to cultivate the "privacy + dinosaur = go together" association in the public's mind, and they even callowly do it right alongside a pseudo "we CARE that you should be able to protect your privacy". The "caring" is simply out of a wish to create a legally plausible image of taking reasonable steps to give dumbfucks the opportunity to not have their privacy butchered wholesale, so that they can butcher privacy wholesale. Bonus 1: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM&t=78s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM&t=78s > Subliminal Messages Caught Red-Handed Bonus 2: > http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/20698/privacy-postmortem-broadcast-live-hope http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/20698/privacy-postmor... > "Privacy: A Post-Mortem" by Steven Rambam. (Search for it on YouTube as well if desired.)

3 ms·

Little bit, yes. It is a cute thing. That can be all it is. They did not need to do this at all. It is unlikely that they are trying to insert subliminal negati

by jamesaguilar 13y ago

911_Inside_Job 13y ago
Gonna have to disagree with you there. Institutions put out messages and public relations at odds with their own interests all the time. It's never very strongly at odds with the institutional interest of course. Just a sop put forward which gets back as much in extra public credulity as much as it costs in development, in opportunity cost to the raw, core profit machine, and in the seemingly cross-purposed promotion. In this case, one is better off presuming that Marky Mark "My Users Are Dumb Fucks" Zucker-Borg's company does indeed consider privacy a thing extinct and is happier if the public thinks of it that way too, until we start to see an overwhelming trend in the other direction. Until then, the trend is clearly that Facebook wants to cultivate the "privacy + dinosaur = go together" association in the public's mind, and they even callowly do it right alongside a pseudo "we CARE that you should be able to protect your privacy". The "caring" is simply out of a wish to create a legally plausible image of taking reasonable steps to give dumbfucks the opportunity to not have their privacy butchered wholesale, so that they can butcher privacy wholesale. Bonus 1: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM&t=78s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wofs8ZpcXlM&t=78s > Subliminal Messages Caught Red-Handed Bonus 2: > http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/20698/privacy-postmortem-broadcast-live-hope http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/20698/privacy-postmor... > "Privacy: A Post-Mortem" by Steven Rambam. (Search for it on YouTube as well if desired.)