> Has anyone ever seen Facebbok as idealistic?
That’s how Zuckerberg painted it, and no doubt there were people who bought it, at least internally. See the red book.
That’s how Zuckerberg painted it, and no doubt there were people who bought it, at least internally. See the red book.
Anecdotally, this is almost certainly false. I (and most people I know) are posting ("sharing") less and less. Faced with a surveillance panopticon, I think many normal people are opting out. Peer-to-peer networks are withering.
The internet is reverting to the format of traditional media, with two distinct classes of broadcasters ('influencers') and audience members.
That law exists at least since 2008, over a decade and a half ago. It’s plausible it was true and born from observation at the time. The first Snowden documents were published half a decade later, in 2013.
So not only is Facebook historically engaging in creepy contact scraping, but when they finally do get the world connected (for various definitions) they don't even do a good job with that
The strong possibility Zuckerberg just doesn't care about people
If you do it as a blanket statement — i.e. all politicians lie all the time — then yes, I will be pretty irritated.
Some politicians spout dangerous nonsense most of the time.
Other politicians can be trusted most of the time, and when they lie it tends towards 'spin' or 'being economical with the truth' (such as: "we are spending more on education than ever before" — when this is true in nominal/absolute terms but false in real/per-pupil terms).
There is a world of difference between these positions, and treating them alike (as many do) undermines democracies.
Could be a generational or cultural thing, though.
In the US a huge portion of the population doesn't vote, I would expect those that think every politician is a crook.
The other side that does vote thinks the other politician lies and their politician is the good one.