[flagged]
Are you referring to the Facebook pixel?
People are perfectly fine with him making products, what they aren't fine with is he (and his peers) starting to think they're kings and trying to overrule the citizens of a state he doesn't live in. If it comes down to a chatbot and the latter they'll chose the latter. The datacenter opposition, of which there are by the way hundreds at this point across the country generally attract 70/30 if not higher majorities.
I'm also not sure what I'm not supposed to support in those paragraphs because, as to your point about inflation, that is currently the consequence of America's ongoing military action in the world, as unpopular as the datacenters, and as the founders were fond to point out the reason for ever more higher levels of taxation, increased state size and lower prosperity. As true today as it was back then.
If you want to go back to some Garden of Eden fiction regarding Plymouth Rock based on the propagandizing of America's first nepo president you will not find much competition in your pursuit of a life of poverty and subsistence farming. Go log off and enjoy the woods.
Or get serious and propose a plan for continued American economic dominance and standard of life in a world where data centers are demonized, when the economic engine of the future is compute.
The United States is virtually the least trade dependent country in the world[1] which is why you frequently see American governments wield trade policy as a weapon. Economically the US is practically self sufficient.
And insofar as the broad prosperity and provision of good jobs is concerned, those haven't improved in the computer age, they've been decimated, outsourced, and now threaten to be replaced by the very same data centers ordinary people are protesting. The explicit and stated goal by the people we have been talking about is not to increase the autonomy of the average person, it's to automate them away and put them on basic income.
[1]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.TRD.GNFS.ZS?most_rec...
Hello maynmar genocide. Hello selling weight loss products to teenagers algorithms determined as having low self esteem.
Yes, in winner takes all economy, one person can be prettt evil and have all tge economic power.
Speaking of such creatures: If someone trolls you on his platform, is that his fault too? What conduct should he control on such a wide platform? What should he not? Is an oversight in said control, in either direction, tantamount to the guilt of conducting the act in question itself?
Is your version of the dead internet theory that Mark Zuckerberg authors all posts on Facebook? Do you have any answers? Or do you offer only scapegoats?
Facebook knew what is going on.
I guess you did answer one question - you have no answers, only scapegoats.
I don't do it for "Zuckenberg". I don't really care about him at all. I assume if he didn't exist, someone else would have invented the same thing. After all, he basically ripped off the idea to start with. I do it because imo worse than dealing with obvious capitalist self interest that one can at least model and bound is dealing with people like you who treat themselves as some constituent of a crowd of pitchfork bearers rather than a serious civic participant. Irrational, virtue signaling outrage that I doubt you really even believe in or actually care about. Because what else are you doing about it? On your notion of "complicit" you might as well direct the same invective at your local gas station. I'm sure you will be able to find a relevant laundry list of perceived crimes.
Why don't you go through all those questions in order and actually attempt an answer? Or if the answers are so obvious and I'm such a troll, why has no one built a social network of comparable scale that avoids all these problems? Does the existence of Zuckerberg somehow preclude such a thing from ever existing? Is this another one of his malevolent powers?
Good thing our founders had the foresight to know the greatest check of all is on the people, so as to never let a mob establish guilt or innocence.
By all means, propose sensible social media regulation. If you can even conceive of such a thing. You sound like someone who has no idea what it is like to find yourself before some tribunal, some body with the power to judge human conduct as being "complicit" in some crime. The entire history of the West might be most optimistically summarized as endeavoring to hold such tribunals to the highest standards of objectivity and veracity. Have a nice day buddy.
At least make them coherent.
Yes. The "no one is putting a gun to users' heads" argument is irrelevant when it comes a trillion-dollar company invested in behavioral modeling deliberately driving engagement.
"Social media apps are 'deliberately' addictive to users" (2018)
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44640959
"Addicted by Design: The Hidden Psychology Behind Social Media’s Hold on Us" (2025)
https://information-warfare.com/addicted-by-design-the-hidde...
You get to strip hundreds of millions of people of individual agency on the basis of your stumbling through a handful of headlines, all adhering to the recent trend of reducing human conduct into some neat pathology.
What does this portend for your politics? How to manage this vast polity of addicts? What regime of involuntary commitment will you come up with to force virtue into those that have slipped into this addictive vice?
Maybe while you're at it you can repeal the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. After all, surely this is what John Quincy Adams was after as he expounded upon the nature of American freedom in such flowery terms. The power to moralize over your fellow man, too feeble to resist the likes of fermentation, Facebook or the fruit.