@dang How is this offtopic?
Meta has shown remarkable disregard to users' and employees' privacy.
Why should that not come up when discussing an entirely new dystopian technology that allows them to invade privacy at scale?
Meta has shown remarkable disregard to users' and employees' privacy.
Why should that not come up when discussing an entirely new dystopian technology that allows them to invade privacy at scale?
To take some specific piece of research going on in one corner of $BigCorp, and tar it with the brush of general sentiment about $BigCorp, is a classic example of generic tangent: where the topic goes from something specific-and-more-interesting, to something generic-and-more-indignant. We've learned over the years that this is exactly the wrong direction for HN threads to head in. Note this, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
Funded by the company that in the recent past, got exposed trying to track employees computer interactions and grabbing screens. Not long before that, it was leaked that employees and contractors were watching videos recorded from meta/rayban smartglasses.
I'm a little bit baffled by the defense here. The point of having guidelines is to use your judgement when applying them.
Not only that but less-interesting discussion is usually more-indignant, which makes sense when discussion abandons the actual content of an article (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). So we end up losing along two axes: loss of information and rise of inflammation.