alex1138

The company has been known to lie before

And the thing is, network effects are killer. I'm on it because you're on it because Alice is on it because Bob is on it

But, Facebook has apparently been known to censor links to competition (I'm less clear on this). With Myspace they had a tool where you could import contacts into Facebook from Myspace, but not the other way around

People generally reply to this with "He was making a point. He wasn't saying he couldn't be trusted, he was saying 'I could be anyone'"

I don't get it. I think he meant exactly how it looks on paper

Akshually-

Edit: I love HN. I'm obviously joking, but instant 4 downvotes

We're allowed to have fun, guys.

People attack Stallman for some things but I guess I'm happy GNU exists and Emacs might be the most visible example

With Facebook, people reported not being able to see their spouses' posts. They were "Married" on Facebook, but the feed just shoved things into their faces they didn't want. It would even edit posts when you went to their pages (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14147719)

What you mean you don't like Zuckerberg's endless log in to see any page ever hyper aggressive popups

There's also the allegation that a) Facebook greatly overcounted (on purpose) the impressions from autoplaying videos and b) their ads target more people in an area than physically exist

"Value" is a tough thing to translate. Market cap, and whatever. Considering the fact so many people express difficulty in deleting their accounts - it won't let you, or it gets reactivated later - I'm just going to state the quiet part out loud here; Facebook's valuation is mostly or entirely fraud

I had to 'vouch' this comment. It was [dead]. Why? Who sits here lurking this site flagging every single thing they disagree with?

It's funny because I think the original Streisand 'effect' was done in good faith. She just didn't want people taking photos of her private home. It's since been used to justify all manner of silencing actions on the part of others

But the view apparently is Zuckerberg bought it when they were 'barely a company'

Yes - and he's utterly ruined it. And we know from his emails it was anti-competitive

Well, I can say about that that Facebook seems to be the worst about it. They've locked stuff behind logins forever, while also messing with their users privacy settings, while also effectively DDOSing sites with their AI

Google does not, AFAIK, engage in behavior like that (the latter), as much as I don't like a lot of what Google does

What do we want the web to look like? Lock everything down behind logins, in the name of 'security' when the real goal is nyeh nyeh nyeh you can't see anything, sign up so we get more user metrics

I've been told repeatedly Zuckerberg was 'making a point' with 'dumb fucks'. That he's not exactly the type of person it's suspected he is

Google is a top-notch researcher among all the problems people have with it. It has a mix of great products, terrible automated systems (though, I suspect, not as bad as Meta's?) and some historical disappointments

Sorry for the wrongthink. Obviously I deserve my downvote, so I can never reach the 500 karma necessary to downvote others. I don't have the right opinions. (Site guidelines: don't comment on downvotes. Yeah, I know. But I'm so sick of this culture)

I'm upvoting you purely because I'm sick of comments being made in good faith getting an automatic downvote

I have less sympathy for Facebook/Meta. Zuckerberg is on record as saying IG can hurt us. The Whatsapp co-founder Acton saying "it's time. delete Facebook". The fact Zuckerberg's engineers were apparently specifically asked to merge the backends to make them harder to break up. I have very little sympathy for that specifically. I'm not thrilled with a lot of the things Google has done with (say) Youtube - people LOST THEIR ACCOUNTS because of forcing the link to Google+ - but I don't think it's in the same league

Chrome is one of those nebulous areas. If they're dictating web standards they deserve at least an antitrust glance

That's hilarious. They don't think about "hey, maybe not show this, we might have nervous passengers"?

It's a shame Google crams it ham-fistedly into search results and that Google has some of the reputation it has because I actually really enjoy Gemini and I don't even use it for the reason people often list which is that you can cross-reference it to stuff in your Google account

A fish doesn't always rot from the head but it does when the guy in charge has a long history of bullshit and majority voting rights

Didn't he also want people's friends to also be AI? He's a sociopath that lucked into the market. And I use that word, specifically

No need for mouse heuristics. Sandwich Lady will wreck your shit

This is not a solution. Do better, on a site like this

2010 for me. I mean they're continually fucking around with privacy settings. It shows. Things show up all the time that people didn't approve of/vet

Zuckerberg is a sociopath with a dim view of humanity. He doesn't think people should have privacy. That's why the photo tagging and post visibility issues and the rest of it

He is one, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you follow

And yet the vast majority of it is fraud

I see some public intellectuals who do support Brexit so that's fair enough but I do get mad when I see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ

These were not only ads, but shadow ads; they were different per person and effectively couldn't be vetted (if I have the technical underpinnings wrong do let me know)

It's bad regardless of which political side or issue you support. You go on FB to talk to your friends and you get... that? Come on now, Zuck. Remember the human

It's easy to brush off 'less screen time for kids' but I honestly think that's right (not the brushing off; what they do say about it) and people like Haidt have a point

I'm in favor of legislation to stop the '67' craze

I cannot believe I had to bring you out of grey

VC people are here, and it shows. They can't just be neutral, they have to downvote anything they disagree with or goes against their businesses

There's something to your point of overzealous litigation and making too many rules but on the other hand Facebook's ad delivery network is allowing CSAM onto it meaning they don't vet it at all

That would be one thing except for Facebook's tendency to ban you, for any reason, while the horrific thing (like that, for example) you report is never taken down ever

I have no idea. The point is they took competition out back, and shot it

Whether that's 'too much' depends on your view of it

I'm tired of people calling them 'savvy acquisitions'. Not when Zuck's on record as saying 'Instagram can hurt us'