fortythirteen

15 ms·

91.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Would a post stating the inferiority of people at the middle of the bell curve in these categories be considered a "Tier 2 attack"? Traditionally they have not on Facebook.
92.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
In most cases, I would agree that Conduent is within their rights to build their own data stream for their product, and cut off a competitor. But, when your product is the redistribution of taxpayer dollars, doing so turns into a government
93.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
I'm not so sure, considering how their coverage of the DNC lawsuit read like a press release, with zero journalistic objectivity. It treated the currently unproven claims of a civil suit as if it was already assumed fact.[0] It contain
94.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
> Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and alt-right provocateurs recommend giving it a whirl. Classic guilt-by-association propaganda technique.
95.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Not to mention that this means the lower half of wage earners at Amazon make an average of $14 an hour, which isn't terrible for, what we can assume is, mostly unskilled labor.
96.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Misleading title. Should be called Tech company PAC donations to politicians the site creator doesn't like. Listing is not data based.
97.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
"Whataboutism" is just a buzzword for people who want to avoid looking at issues holistically. "Evil Actor A says look out for Evil Actor B" warrants the response "well, they're both evil actors ".
98.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Rules for thee, but not for me.
99.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Excuse, no. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy.
100.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Citation? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, three generations of Kims, Guevara, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Min. All murdered massive amounts of their own people for not being communist.
101.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Projection. You’re the one who stated that left wing extremists “aren’t posting anything abhorrent” on social media. Forgive me if I consider “death to capitalists” abhorrent.
102.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Because that's what has happened at the extreme left (Stalin, Mao). If someone ignores the evils of fascism, would you not inform them?
103.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Yes, the only thing they have going for them is that the initial factor they use for putting someone against the wall is economic and not race based. They still put innocent people against the wall. How is this not clear to you?
104.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
If I was, I would have worded my initial, base level, comment differently. Note that I'm not the one bringing up right or left and I'm specifically complaining about websites that have a far right user base. So, I think you should
105.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
Gab was billed as a "free speech Twitter alt" by it's founders. The people looking for that platform happened to be the folks that have turned it into alt-right Twitter.
106.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
That's only because the left+ extremists are tolerated, if not condoned, on the SV run platforms.
107.
by fortythirteen 8y ago
All of these "alternatives" suck. Whether you believe in censorship or not (I don't), building a no-censorship alternative to a major media platform mostly attracts the people who were censored because of truly abhorrent cont
108.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> In 2007, we launched the Facebook Platform with the vision that more apps should be social. Your calendar should be able to show your friends’ birthdays, your maps should show where your friends live, and your address book should show
109.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> "It’s not enough to just connect people, we have to make sure those connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice, we have to make sure people aren’t using it to hurt people or spread misinformation."
110.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> "Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring." - Mark Zuckerberg 2018 > "They trust me — dumb fucks." - Mark Zuckerberg
111.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> The paper, obtained by Bloomberg and discussed here for the first time, describes in granular detail the difference between Trump’s campaign, which was focused on finding new donors, and Clinton’s campaign, which concentrated on ensuri
112.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
So nobody turned a profit by correctly shorting TWIT or FIT as soon as possible or by jumping in on FB when it plummeted to <$20 a share in 2012? Seeing that trend on FB specifically, instead of jumping in on the IPO, is the difference b
113.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
~2x is a decent short for sure, but I have to believe that SPOT is going to tank like TWIT when their claims of profitability by 2019 fall flat.
114.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> The company says that in 2018, shares traded on the private markets between $90 and $132.50. > Losses for last year were 1.2 billion Euros ($1.47 billion), which compares to 539 million Euros ($661 million) the year before. Well, th
115.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> They literally ban you if you post on the source post or even downvote it. 1. Reddit is a site where you can create endless alt accounts without any verification. That type of "ban" threat is meaningless. 2. Targets of SRS ha
116.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> on issues like this, the main issue is apathy Is it? Or is it the notion that if you scream about something you don't like enough, someone else will fix it, through legislation, so you can stop worrying about it ? And, of course,
117.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
Would a government that has a CCTV on every street enact legislation to limit its surveillance abilities? I agree that it's a good ideal, it's just incredibly naive to think that it will be achieved. Even if legislation were passe
118.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
Expecting groups of people (tech companies or government) to purposefully do something that is disadvantageous to their bottom line, for nothing more than ideals, is a pipe dream. The real question is personal and harder to answer: "Do
119.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
I would argue that the selling of data is the second most destructive byproduct of social media, the first being dehumanization becoming part and parcel with online communication - and its bleeding into offline. I believe the reason that ex
120.
by fortythirteen 9y ago
> They're only supposed to listen after you invoke them. How can a device that is only activated by listening not always be listening? If I turn off Siri on my phone the microphone is supposed to go off . Edit: I know about the wak

More ›