Those in my immediate circle have mothballed or closed their accounts, although Instagram seems to have more holding power.
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2019/04/30/how-the-...
Clinton and Obama got very wealth after their presidency. Pelosi wealth goes up many fold for becoming speaker of the house. Not only their wealth go up, everyone around them got a lot wealthier too.
That’s a good point. It’s not like Trump’s holdings weren’t fed a line of patrons while he was in office. Seems odd to leave out the most prominent and recent example.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
His re-election campaign ran out of money! How could that even be possible without massive embezzlement!?
His fake stop the steal con pulled in over 200 mil! Most of that is going to end up in his pocket.
Additionally, as of tomorrow the Republicans are irrelevant when it comes to the selecting a party to lobby. Democrats control the house, the senate, and the presidency. Keep their coffers lined and you keep the regulation at bay.
IE the mistaken thought that Democrats won't remove 230 - despite Obama, Biden, etc all saying they want to remove it (if for different reasons than Trump, etc)
https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/17/21070403/joe-biden-presid...
And with promises of Paris Accord, Green New Steal and removal of stuff like the Keystone Pipeline...
It's funny to think "democrat control" and "keep regulations at bay" could be included in the same paragraph.
Well that’s been how Democrat control has worked out at the federal level for the last 50 years or so. Regulation does indeed get passed, but it’s against narrow industries (e.g. natural resource extraction).
Given the revolving door between the biggest tech companies and the Biden/Obama administration, I suspect that will magically escape anything beyond superficial changes.
there I explicitly stated what you are insinuating with your simple question.
his/her point still stands; famous politicians gain wealth from said fame. can we stay on track here?
I'm sure it's all completely legal but it's completely corrupt. The best we can hope for is she doesn't let these intended bribes influence her - and she may not.
Fame you say? Do you really believe that? If you do does it matter that the optics are foul and most won't agree? Square that when people are going broke and wondering about food and children's future when considering her millions in fees.
trump will make more money from speaking appearances than he did from any of his businesses over the last several decades
People like Trump and Bush can barely deliver a speech or speak coherently, who is paying to hear them attempt it??
He hasn't had much air time over here since leaving office, my opinion of him is all drawn from 2000-2008.
My bet is when legislation appears it will pass and subtly entrench the incumbents. Win-win!
What is it exactly that qualifies Facebook to be a tech company? A database? A website? They display advertising.
FTFY: in the US
> repeated scandal and failure
At this point what large company hasn't had breaches or cancelled projects? Hell, is your company doing OK in terms of security? Are they hashing passwords correctly? How large is the security team? My company doesn't even hash passwords...
At some point you need to stop living in a bubble and recognize that plenty of people, businesses, communities, etc. rely on the app in a positive way.
I can understand that you're not using it, or think it's evil, but not everyone shares your opinion.
More importantly, how big is their whiskey budget?
It's not the greatest proxy, but how regularly your security team drinks is a not-terrible way to gauge how much trouble your org is going to be in should something happen.
'Breaches' and 'cancelled projects' aren't the only scandals and failures to come out of Facebook ... just the other day on HN front page was an article (from 2018) where Facebook openly admitted that their platform enabled the Myanmar crisis.
I understand this is somewhat my privilege speaking here, but I don't think I could continue working at a company that didn't do something as basic as hashing passwords (and refused to prioritize fixing that as soon as I pointed it out). It's a massive ethical, if not legal (IANAL), liability -- and a huge breach of users' trust. It's 2021, hashing user passwords is astonishingly easy; I can't imagine any remotely justifiable excuse for something like that.
> User passwords must be stored in a “hashed” form.
These guidelines aren't legal requirements for every service, but if a data breach occurred, and passwords were leaked, regulators would presumably point to this recommendation, and the ease of complying with it, and take that into consideration when issuing a fine.
No, in lots of places. In Scandinavia Facebook is "for old people".
>not everyone shares your opinion
I do and everyone I have asked (and maybe informed as part of asking) agrees. The thing is that people are lazy - it is not that they don't think Facebook is evil - they are just too lazy to do anything about it. Very few informed people sees facebook as Not Evil.
Also, please don't do FTFY reddit post crap.
I can't imagine anything even resembling a reasonable excuse for not doing something as basic as hashing passwords, and I don't even want to imagine what else isn't being done by a company which operates in that manner.
My point is not to be skeptical of Pelosi from some partisan perspective; I have never voted Republican. I merely aim to cast doubt on whether anything will fundamentally change.
* which also means most likely he never actually held the stocks
Parler wasn't “killed” because planning took place there, but because they were openly at least unable if not actually unwilling to take action against a huge backlog of specific problem identified to them; the problem was current and forward, not retrospective.
He said she said, but obviously both sides are incentivized to make themselves look clean
In an email obtained by BuzzFeed News, an AWS Trust and Safety team told Parler Chief Policy Officer Amy Peikoff that the calls for violence propagating across the social network violated its terms of service. Amazon said it was unconvinced that the service’s plan to use volunteers to moderate calls for violence and hate speech would be effective.
“Recently, we’ve seen a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms," the email reads. "It’s clear that Parler does not have an effective process to comply with the AWS terms of service.”
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-p...
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
”...we cannot provide services to a customer that is unable to effectively identify and remove content that encourages or incites violence against others.”
The article we are discussing clearly found that Facebook meets precisely the same criteria. Therefore, services should not be provided to them, correct? Whoever provides their bandwidth undoubtedly has the very similar TOS...they all have similar provisions about network abuse.
Also, here’s a quote from the article you’re referring to:
”People on Parler used the social network to stoke fear, spread hate, and allegedly coordinate the insurrection at the Capitol building on Wednesday.”
I don’t know why you and others on here continue to argue that a double standard, combined with either inaccurate reporting or outright lies, is not at play here - despite overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. But it’s disingenuous and makes me sad not just for HN, but for the country at large.
I argued that threats of violence were viable on the platform. She didn’t seem to believe me. I later sent screenshots of violent rhetoric that I found with a quick web search. No response.
There are people who refuse the validity of reality right up until they can’t anymore. Then silence.
If you listen to mainstream media, you’ll see them telling their audience that Parler was “deplatformed” because the planning for the Capital attack occurred there - in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there. Yet it turns out that Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter users also engaged in this behavior, and most of it occurred on Facebook.
There are two possible explanations for this. The first is that these “news” sources are knowingly lying to their audience about the reason big tech colluded to kill Parler. The second is that they believe what they are saying, which means that there is a new standard by which we decide whether or not social networks are allowed to operate - if attacks are planned on a given platform, big tech colludes to instantly shut it down.
We know that as of this morning, Facebook is still fully operational. So we either have “news” sources openly lying to their almost exclusively Democratic audience, or there is extreme hypocrisy in the way that big tech applies the new “Parler Standard”. It is one or the other, and neither of these say good things about our society.
I do listen to, and read, mainstream media (and others), and I haven't seen that explanation. I've seen lots of people on the right attributing it vaguely to the MSM to lead into arguments against it, but that's the only place I've seen that explanation of the deplatforming, rather than the failure to moderate when unacceptable content was identified.
> in fact you would get the impression that the planning only occurred there.
Again, no, I've seen plenty of references to planning elsewhere, social media and otherwise, in the MSM. Again, this is a frequent thing I've seen people with a right-wing media preference attribute without detail to the MSM, but not actually seen in the MSM.
The larger point, though, is the hypocrisy surrounding the continued operation of Facebook while Parler was shutdown. The first paragraph of this [3] pretty much says it all:
"Parler all but vanished from the internet this week. Major tech platforms, including Apple and Amazon, booted the social network popular with the far-right for what the companies said was a failure to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots."
Does the report we are discussing in this thread not clearly underscore the fact that Facebook also failed to "to moderate incitement and violent rhetoric on its service that contributed to last week's deadly Capitol riots"? If that is the standard by which all social networks are judged, then should Facebook not meet the same fate? It's hypocritical that they are still online today.
Are you arguing that Facebook is not guilty of the exact same crime for which Parler was executed?
[1] https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/far-right-extremists-...
[2] https://prospect.org/justice/how-kamala-harris-fought-to-kee...
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/tech/parler-online-violence/i...
(1) that Parler was deplatformed because planning for the Capitol attack took place on the platform, (taking your best swing, you've managed to find an article presenting the incitement—not planning—cause for deplatforming as being specifically about incitement for the Capitol attack.)
(2) Planning for the Capitol attack took place exclusively on Parler, (the closest you got to this was the claim that Parler was a “preferred” app for planning for extremist groups, not that it was the exclusive venue for planning the attack)
Again, I don’t really understand your argument here. This is something that you often see on HN. People going deep into the woods, disputing minutiae while avoiding the entire point of the thread because there is no argument to be had. Combined with the upvote/downvote system, it’s an effective tactic. It silences opinions you disagree with by pushing them deep into threads where few will read them. But it is destructive to our community and makes debate on here absolutely pointless.
There is hypocrisy in the Parler situation, and it is disingenuous to say otherwise. Planning of attacks and general violence advocacy, from both the left and the right, occur daily on Facebook, just as it may have in the darker corners of Parler. The only difference is that Facebook is still operating, and Parler is not.