chillage

If you are genuinely interested you can look through that page yourself to see if you can find evidence matching your stringent criteria :) I am not able to read your mind to guess what you’ll find convincing and am sure you can do your own research provided the starting point.

In any case, have a wonderful day!

I mean no, I don't have a list with more than 500 sources for you, so if this one is insufficiently exhaustive then I guess we are at an impasse

Not to throw the book at you but here is a pretty hugely detailed article with near 500 sources from very diverse media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

Vast social networks, family, friends of friends. Your identity is tied to who you are and very many people who you know in your town either knows your family or knows someone who knows your family. Indians have very extensive social ties

Original video link in the article doesn't seem to be working.

This looks like a reupload of the same video, so far as I can guess https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwpLqTmvqVk

Search for C# comes up with nothing. Guessing it's a parsing error related to the # sign?

Even further, it's the best camera with the lens AND tripod you have with you

Went for a night walk yesterday and saw a cool snail. The new iPhone 13 pro took a decent shot of the snail in the dark with automated long exposure and built in stacking. But I thought you know for a really excellent shot of the snail, if only I had with me my mirrorless camera.. AND macro lens.. AND tripod so I can get properly long low light exposure. Not to mention another 5-10 minutes out of my day to process the photo. Missing any one of these ingredients the iPhone wins.

But you know if I had to lug around all that camera gear I probably wouldn't have gone for the walk and seen the snail in the first place.

> Your argument is the same as “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people”.

Sort of, the argument is more like "Computers don't kill people. People with computers kill people by starting revolutions, committing online crimes, etc. Also, people with computers do lots of non lethal and helpful stuff as well too."

Facebook and mass social media are like that computer. Lots of benefits, lots of detriments as well. Doesn't mean you should cancel the computer.

Honestly, agreed..

Well to start, Facebook is neither good or nor bad - it is not a person and does not have morality. The human mind is not really capable of dealing with an abstract entity such as a corporation so we anthropomorphize the large mess of people, software, and hardware presenting us a little app on our phones as imbued with a personality and morality. Then we debate whether this mess, which has Zuch's vague face over it, is a personification of good or evil. It's neither - it is a morality-free phenomenon.

Facebook's properties have benefits for certain slices of the population in certain instances, and negative effects for other parts of the population. Businesses rely on Facebook's properties for communication, people rely on Messenger and especially WhatApp for communication, artists rely on Instagram for inspiration and social outreach, teens use the properties to connect with each other and to feel sad or happy about themselves in social contexts (as teens tend to anyway). In some cases the teen are happier, in others sadder.

I got to know my gf over Messenger, I have wasted tons of time on Facebook, Instagram has been a medium influence on me. Life happens, people happen, and now social media happens.

Zuckerberg is the public face of the organization now and it is his life's work. He has an entire society's worth of social media interactions he is tasked with controlling, censoring, and maintaining. People tell him they want it free for some speech, closed for other speech, they want Facebook to hire tons of people to censor and curate the content, they want great decisionmaking, they want to be be free to say anything they want to say (so long as it matches their specific moral values), they want their kids to only see good things online, they want their kids to find what they need but see only what they should see on all of Facebook's multifaceted properties. It is a huge task.

Why would Zuckerberg intentionally want to fail at this task and have people hate his company? To make more money? He is not an idiot and knows that the success of the company is dependent on its reputation. How exactly could he NOT do his utmost best to mitigate the negative effects of his properties, enhance the positive effects and thereby positively influence everyone - the users, the company, himself? I don't understand the cynicism which drives all these comments either

It's absolutely fair that this type of data is better off coming from a third party, peer reviewed, and with a larger sample size. However, the slides here were never intended as any sort of definitive review, or especially not for PR consumption, they're kind of like an internal memo looked over by a few internal teams. So their data is not cherry picked - it shows the good and the bad uncovered about Instagram's effects, intended for internal discussion. Where I feel WSJ was dishonest is that it did not show all of the data uncovered in these slides, but only the most negative points, in order to get clicks and provide a nice loud framing for their article.

Any large scale phenomenon like Instagram or Reddit or pizza or video games has both upsides and downsides. So I don't think it's fair that just because we've uncovered links to heart disease for pizza or depression/anxiety/social withdrawal/suicide to excessive video gaming or suicide to Instagram, that we should ban any of these things. They all have extremely positive effects as well. I love pizza. If we only harp on negative aspects of every large scale phenomenon we're going to think everything is terrible, ban everything, then live in a box.

That is the sensationalist vibe which WSJ intentionally curated for their article by intentionally hiding any positive information found in Facebook's memos and selectively exposing only the bits which make people go "WOW NO" and make for nice clickbait. If they had included both positive and negative results contained in Facebook's slides, then I don't believe there would be a problem. I personally did not expect this kind of spin from WSJ and am disappointed.

I'm concerned that WSJ cherry picked only the worst bits of information from the slides and did not give a balanced discussion or quote the more positive results. They intentionally only included the most negative results and intentionally avoided publishing the root slides so as not to show their hand that there were also mitigating stats as well. In my view this kind of cherry picking of information from the source material, then hiding the source material in order to spin the result in a specific way, is a breach of journalistic integrity.

Oh ok thank you for the explanation, that does clear it up. So this decision applies to the US (though maybe not outside the US)

There is a point here which really confuses me. This is an order by a California district judge. So that means it must only be valid in California? So Apple is allowed to keep its practices outside of that state? Or if not, then how can a California decision apply outside of the state? And why do none of the articles on this topic address this point?

How do you deal with merging Lightroom catalog files if they are all indexed remote? Sounds like a tricky workflow

Photographers have their photo collection as their life's work and source of professional value. It's viewed very differently from a personal photo collection and serves a very different purpose. They may need to access these photos in the future for many different reasons, for new clients or projects, etc

For photographers these images are their life's work and professional value. They need to be able to go back and reference a client's photoshoot or pull up a higher resolution file or retouch a photo or come back to an old photo and use new software to re-edit it to perfection, or find related photos from a photoshoot of interest in the future, etc....

It's very different from when a hobbyist takes photos just for their personal fun

Hasn't the consenting adult also been manipulated by a CES advertising booth into buying the sex item..?

And why is it bad to use sex to manipulate a customer into buying an item, but it is good to use free samples or pretty pictures to manipulate a customer into buying the same item?

Deriving cultural moral values from first principles is hairy :/

So simultaneously it is both more for and more against sex. Using sex to sell things is bad but selling things for use during sex is good. If you tried to explain these moral values to visiting aliens their minds would explode.