fortythirteen

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.

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 sponsored monopoly.

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 contains this gem of a paragraph:

> The leaks continued steadily from there, as the suit details. Guccifer 2.0 struck again on June 27, June 30, and July 6. On July 22, WikiLeaks took the wheel, releasing nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails. The following day, according to the suit, multiple DNC employees received an email that said: “I hope your children get raped and murdered. I hope your family knows nothing but suffering, torture, and death.”

All evidence suggests, as Wikileaks has maintained, that their emails came from a physical source, and not Guccifer 2.0.

I think there is a larger editorial bias at play at Wired.

[0] https://www.wired.com/story/dnc-lawsuit-reveals-key-details-...

> Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and alt-right provocateurs recommend giving it a whirl.

Classic guilt-by-association propaganda technique.

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.

Misleading title. Should be called Tech company PAC donations to politicians the site creator doesn't like. Listing is not data based.

"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".

Rules for thee, but not for me.

Excuse, no. But there's nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy.

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.

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.

Because that's what has happened at the extreme left (Stalin, Mao). If someone ignores the evils of fascism, would you not inform them?

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?

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 question if you're projecting here.

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.

That's only because the left+ extremists are tolerated, if not condoned, on the SV run platforms.

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 content. Gab and voat suck because 90% of the content is extremist bullshit.

The development community needs to stop building "alternatives", with the hope that they become the next big thing, and go back to building things that we want to use ourselves.

> 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 their pictures. To do this, we enabled people to log into apps and share who their friends were and some information about them.

Anyone who was in a FB sales meeting when OpenGraph was launched knows this is a very calculated understatement. I've heard them explicitly sell the information of an entire user's friends list to anyone willing to pay.

> "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."

And be sure to report your fellow citizens for reeducation when they spread "negativity" and "misinformed opinions".

> "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 2010

Interesting placement of "most"

> 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 ensuring Clinton had broad appeal.

Here is the heart of the matter, sans the latest attempt at naming a scapegoat for Clinton's loss.

A populist candidate focused on leveraging the people who were becoming receptive to his message, while an establishment candidate focused on trying to nudge over people who weren't inherently receptive to her message. That's the whole campaign in a nutshell.

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 between 4x and 8x your investment by today's valuation.

Tech stocks are regularly IPO'd on pure hype, and the market will regularly turn on them when they don't understand the business model.

~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.

> 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, there's the short of the year.

> 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 have been posting doxx and violence threats from its members for years.

> 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, that legislation will work perfectly and never be abused or radically reinterpreted a generation down the line.

I'm for the belief that if you don't like something then don't partake in it - short of it being something being physically forced on you.

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 passed, it would very likely make things worse, in that the government wouldn't stop surveilling - they would just do it even more covertly.

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 I really need this information technology? Is it making my quality of life any better than my ancestors?"

The more I ponder this question, the more I'm convinced I could live an equally happy and fulfilling life outside of the majority of consumer technology that has been introduced in the last 20 years. I benefit from a career creating that technology, but I'm partaking in it less and less once I clock out.

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 extreme ideologies on both sides of the spectrum have gained a foothold in recent years is because their ideas lend themselves to the hyperbolic, binary patterns of online discussion.

We should put "social media" to pasture and try to come up with something better.

> 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 wake word. It was a statement on the quote that a device that only works on voice wouldn't be "listening".