The Facebook outrage mob reminds me of my slashdot days when everyone referred to Microsoft as Micro$oft.
Doesn't it feel weird that there used to be positive facebook stories, but now its all negative 24/7?
Doesn't it feel weird that there used to be positive facebook stories, but now its all negative 24/7?
The fight against old Microsoft is a win-win success story (for now, I'm keeping an eye on all big players and so should everyone else.)
Microsoft is nicer and I think more profitable than ever. They don't call our code or favourite OS cancer anymore but actively support us. My understanding is even a lot of MS employees prefer the new Microsoft.
If we can manage to do the same with Facebook then feel free to come up with a similar stupid name for them. Because right now I think they deserve it as much as old M$ did.
Farcebook? Been guilty of that one for 8 years. Never had an account, so the label is all hearsay ... but what i kept hearing made me afraid to become a Farce of myself ... so i said to myself "stay away". Hard enough to be self-effacing.
i do still hope we will find a way to communicate easily with relevant others without doing violence to our communication methods for the sake of (what is essentially) a random nudnick's business plan and profit model.
Farcebook likes to go around and break as many things as fast as possible. Before them we had serious people and thought oriented to finding compatible methods. They still exist, but all the oxygen in the room is depleted by Farcebook.
Forced updates rebooting critical systems, bricking devices, rampant spying that is difficult to impossible to disable.
How do you fit that with "win-win success story" and "Microsoft is nicer [...] than ever"?
I can remember such a time for Google. I can even remember such a time for Microsoft, back when people stayed in line for Windows 95. I was 13 back then and got my first computer.
Sure, investors were pleased with Facebook's rapid growth and people liked it because its UI didn't suck like MySpace. But Facebook has always been morally bankrupt due to its leadership and this has been visible for quite some time.
In our country we have a saying that applies perfectly: a fish rots from the head down ;-)
Richard Stalman has a page documenting Facebook's wrongdoings and it's pretty good: https://stallman.org/facebook.html
Frankly newspapers really changed idea only after Trump won the elections.
I find somewhat fun that some of the recent news about facebook being evil actually talk a lot about that period (ex: the recent news about the "friendly fraud" class action) and some are the consequences of the (naive, as we a lot of us were at the time - me included!) choices facebook made back them (wanting to be a platform, without really understanding what it meant) before pivoting to the current model (which is AFAIK far more similar to google's).
Facebook has lost the trust of the public in ways that other major tech firms haven’t.
I agree that Facebook is certainly a convenient scapegoat to hide all the other issues that plagued the Clinton campaign (from the DNC scandal, to the unlikeable candidate, through some controversial phrases she said during the campaign itself, and so on). Also it helps newspapers since they have to take no blame for what happened (and do no real analysis on why democrats lost).
I'm pretty convinced that if Clinton had won - even if Clinton had used CA data to do so - there would be far (far) less media coverage about the "evil of Facebook", regardless of the impact of their incompetence in the election. That was the case with Obama already after all.
Not what I see here on HN:
I see complaints from merchants (mostly with legitimate issues it seems) and praise from end users.
What exactly was the outrage toward Microsoft back then? A company trying to make money? Preposterous!