> They choose to work for evil
that's quite an extreme view. Have you ever considered you might be mistaken?
that's quite an extreme view. Have you ever considered you might be mistaken?
It's been years since I've even seen a pro-facebook take on HN, let alone anywhere else.
Most people echo something similar to "I don't like it, but everyone else is there, and I don't want to feel left out."
Either way in support of what you’re saying and in reference to the words — what evidence or rational is there that most people psychologically addicted to FB think it is evil? Replace FB overall with IG. IG is hugely popular. Some are prob addicted. IG doesn’t have the same negativity assigned to it so saying most addicted users think it’s evil would seem like a very silly statement.
Edit: this is not to argue that FB is an addiction or that FB is evil or that FB is equivalent to cocaine. It is just to point out the weakness of the parent comment.
FB employees: pretty close to Purdue pharma and the tobacco companies. At least tobacco prevents Parkinsons. I know, people got kids to feed and ex-wives to pay off, but FB is complete and utter garbage, and anyone who ever worked there carries a badge of shame forever.
I highly doubt most addicted users think FB is evil. That’s a strong word.
Regardless, people being pro some company is not a good way at all to see if a company is “evil” or not. Many times people being pro something can be a negatives indicator.
We have seen various tech companies do bad things. Like the anti-poaching collusion so many participated in. But at that time Google was given near unanimous praise and pro-comments.
'let alone' anywhere else? HN is surely skewed toward privacy-conscious types that are inherently not 'pro-Facebook.'
It's pretty bad when even a significant portion of your user base only uses your product begrudgingly and with resentment.
That describes a _lot_ of companies and organizations (probably the majority of all organizations, I would guess?) most of which I would not consider evil. The DMV, for example. I would agree with calling them 'pretty bad', but pretty bad isn't the same as evil.
Do you want to try to make a case for Facebook being good or even benign, or did you just want to check in if we're conducting regular introspection?
(And, off the top of my head, the things Facebook does that nudge it into "evil": persuading media to move to video by lying about viewership statistics, gaming the algorithms to maximize engagement in the style of a Skinner box, in at least one case intentionally trying to depress people through feed manipulation, turning a blind eye to electoral interference, all the dark patterns surrounding getting people's personal information, the shady ways they share that information, and if I sat here and literally thought about it instead of producing a list as I typed it out, I'd come up with more. This is not what a good or benign corporation does. Doing these things is not compatible with being good or benign.)