I suppose it could be red flag and indicate larger character flaws that have leaked into how FB operates now, but I'm personally glad I'm not being judged today for everything I did when I was 19.
"Mark was a different person back then" would be much more believable if it wasn't for the fact he deceived users in 2011, has recently used his privileges as CEO to delete messages he had sent, and repeatedly tried to cover up the abuse of their api in 2014 (even going to far as to threaten lawsuits against the Guardian journalists a few weeks ago).
I don't mean to pick on you personally; there are many such perceptions and they all disagree, just like people's underlying views disagree. Since they don't add information, such comments are off topic.
I agree, my bad. But I have noticed a formulaic rebuttal regarding the actions of Zuck. If you look at previous FB related posts the popular comments consistently suggest Zuck was "young and naive" - to the point of sounding like a PR piece.
I don't have evidence but maybe you have IP logs. I'd be willing to bet there's something very interesting in there.
But I'm all for judging people based on their attitude toward their past misdeeds. If someone fucks up and then years later they go, "Yeah, I fucked up, I'm sorry, I learned X, Y, and Z from the experience and now I'm a better person," then by all means, let's move on. But if their attitude is to smear the victims and essentially claim that the fact that they're now filthy rich excuses them from any past misbehavior (as is the case here), then let's criticize the crap out of them.
When I saw this I thought to myself if some poor black teenagers had done exactly the same thing they would be in jail for the next 10 years or be dead by now.
If instead of MacGregor and his goonsquad, Floyd Mayweather and his goonsquad had done this, it'd have resulted in more or less the same outcome.
Cyni-casm aside, yours is a crucial point I think gets forgotten too often. Just yesterday I was scrolling through the comments on a Fox News post about an 18 year old who'd been sentenced to 25 yrs for being present during robbery when his friend killed someone.
Obviously substantially different crimes, but the comments were mostly people salivating at this "animal" getting "what he deserved."
Anyway, thanks for mentioning this point.
You misread this, likely because that would have made more sense than what actually occurred. The friend/accomplice did not kill anybody, but was killed by police in a shootout; the defendant was charged with murder for this death.
The involved law and its application are interesting interpretations of the idea of justice. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/07/ala-teen-turns-down-25-...)
What the actual fuck? Then again, I can't say I'm suprised that it's in Alabama.
In any case, calling the (lawful) killing of a kid by the police a murder by an accomplice, is making a mockery of the term murder and of justice in general.
I am not taking a cheap shot, unless you can prove to me that these "histories" are firmly in the past for Alabama, and that the attitudes have not lingered and that lady Justice is now color-blind in Alabama courts.
Edit: I've just realized your post is what-aboutism, I regret taking the bait.
1. https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2018/04/08/7bd07dde-...
2. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-the-memorial-to-victims-...
That's something I never said, or even implied.
If I said that America has a "history of military power projection", would you object that military power projection is the present reality as well? It certainly is, but you probably would not object to that phrasing. You're reading much more into the use of the word 'history' than you should be. I'm well aware of the civil rights problems in southern states. Save your outrage for a situation more deserving than this conversation, in no conceivable way did I defend honor or reputation of Alabama. I used the word disreputable specifically because the social problems of Alabama are widely known, you needn't teach me something every schoolchild is taught.
The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the felony murder doctrine, that boy could have just as well been in San Francisco. Rather than allow you to write felony murder off as a consequence of Alabama being a typical southern state, I decided to give you a brief education on the true scope of the issue. Since you were obviously distressed by felony murder doctrine, I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight. That's disappointing.
>"histories"
English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe when you're referring to Alabaman history specifically (not the history of several separate states at once, as I was in my previous comment) you would use the singular "history" rather than the plural "histories".
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/history
For instance:
>Alabama has a history of civil rights violations.
>Alabama and California have histories of suppressing labor organizations.
Ahh, I see where we're crossing lines. I was writing off my lack of surprise at this occurring in Alabama. I would have been more surprised if this had happened in San Francisco, which as you said, has the same law. I'd love to see how frequently it's enforced by location as uneven enforcement is a thing, especially as societal attitudes shift but the laws are yet to be revised (see possession of small amounts of drugs in certain jurisdictions).
> ...I expected you to thank me. Instead I get the feeling you're looking for a fight.
I was merely rebutting your accusation that I took a "cheap shot". The first half-sentence in your initial reply has no substances, and serves no other purpose except to antagonize. I would have been grateful had you replied with just the second half instead.
> English isn't my native language, so please correct me if I'm wrong...
I wasn't attacking your grammar, I was suggesting that the reasons leading to my lack of surprise are very much in the present.
Furthermore if a cop lawfully kills a criminal who was acting alone, felony murder doctrine is not involved in the scenario but the cop is still subjected to the same level of scrutiny as he would be if it were.
And if a cop unlawfully kills a criminal who was working together with other criminals, felony murder doctrine doesn't make it easier for the cop to get away with it (nor harder, for that matter...)
I have seen no evidence that he changed when it comes to unethical behaviour.