jparse

Non Paywall Version: https://outline.com/xxTDbh

I am not sure SFJ is guilty. Basically, he was overly critical of ideas and pitches he received. The opposing party had their feelings hurt which they attribute to them being female.

The threat model is an accusation. You are toast if you even get one accusation because it is cheaper to just get rid of you even if you are innocent.

Frankly, I think he is not being cautious enough because the term "sexual harassment" has also moved into the realm of disagreement. Maybe you don't like her work and criticize it or maybe you are her boss and not agreeing with her performance. Most women quickly figure the criticism is being levied because he is overtly professional with them and also because they are women. I have had many women come to me and tell me these stories with this line of reasoning.

Most women aren't like this but the threat model the OP is using is legitimate. In 2017, if you get accused, you are done. Your family is done. Just move to Bermuda and retire. It is not something you can recover from.

> we do walking meetings around the block in public areas.

Please don't do this.

No lengthy comment needed here. This is disgusting. You are now essentially humiliating the victim, especially women, all over again.

If you are a Facebook employee, shame on you. I can't believe you work there.

I don't see how this is better. It sounds like we have to waste power running hard drives now. Isn't Ethereum's Proof of Stake better?

U.S. education is absurdly expensive already. That's another topic but by the time you get to graduate school, you are already in debt...a lot of debt.

Considering graduate school is also unduly expensive to begin with, many people are not going to want to take on a big loan they won't be able to pay back.

The result will be a lack of higher skilled graduates from U.S. universities. It's already a problem for the U.S. and it will get far worse. That's not good for the U.S.

Most exchanges will ask US residents for multiple forms of identification to prove you are who you say you are. The best thing you can do is fix your ID issue and re-apply to GDAX or Kraken.

Also, secondarily, it is better to use a reputable exchange. I don't think you want to wake up one morning and find the exchange gone.

Referencing one research article isn't proof. There are several others that argue otherwise.[1] On Reddit, a dislike button isn't meaningless. If your post and comment karma go down endlessly, you start to lose privileges. So it really does encourage behavior that is acceptable in the context of the subreddit. The research paper, for example, talks more about rating scales in context.

As I have mentioned, Facebook's problem is that a) There is endless spread for bad content, like fake news. b) There is no way to have the crowd give definitive negative feedback to the user where not only is a dislike recorded, but the impact of the dislike is weighted based on the standing of the user giving it. c) and even if there was, there is no way to degrade privileges.

[1] http://www.rangevoting.org/sen-recsys2011.pdf

Reddit is a different beast. It is confined to a sub-reddit and the people who judge it are the people who are part of that sub-reddit. Mods included.

Also, reddit doesn't spread the content if there is any uptick. It is all pretty confined. Facebook does the exact reverse. It goes out of its way to spread the content that is driving engagement.

See below. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15590910

Most posts spread to at least a 3rd degree. I can share an article, my friends see it and comment on it. Then their friends see that they commented on an article by showing it to their friends.

Also, don't forget the share button. That causes the degrees to reset and it goes from there.

That is not a dislike button. For example, you can select angry and it leaves it up to interpretation what you are angry about. Either way, most people think it is about the article you are sharing.

Here is an example: Share a post about Black Lives causing a riot.

Clear this is fake. Now if a reader of that post puts angry. Are they indicating the post is fake and they are angry with the original poster? Or are they now angry with Black Lives Matter because they think they caused a riot?

Facebook designed it this way so that the original author of the post still gets positive feedback. There is no need to change his/her behavior. They keep posting and the engagement for Facebook keeps rolling.

All in all, this is why there is no dislike button. The entire Facebook system incentivizes division because division creates revenue. It's a perpetual loop.

Let's walk through how it works:

Step 1) A person posts, or shares, something incredibly divisive. Note: There is no feedback button to let the poster know the content is hateful and that broader society disapproves of it. There is also no consequence to posting it most of the time.

Step 2) The content attracts likes. Since there is no dislike button, or negative feedback, any likes received makes the poster feel good.

Step 3) The poster is emboldened and increases his/her frequency of posting divisive or hateful content. This attracts a following and more engagement for the original poster. The poster has no need to create inclusive content. They are incentivized to find and highlight divisive thoughts from their life because it rewards them with engagement and the Facebook system re-enforces those thoughts.

Step 4) Repeat

Each subsequent post creates more comments, more engagement, more passion. This is great for Facebook because it means more time on site and increased usage frequency. The handout Facebook is giving advertisers is proof of that. They are monetizing the system. Make no mistake, it is designed to work this way and they are profiting from it.

For anyone interested, the iOS app is composed of about 18,000 classes. Here is the dump:

https://gist.githubusercontent.com/quellish/473f513fbd131023...

I am not sure if this is real. However, there are people on YouTube talking about topics they have never typed, never cared about, or never shared on Facebook and sure enough, the ad appears.

It would be great to really inspect the traffic and see if this is really the case. Independent of what Facebook claims.

Either way, I am happy I have deleted it off my phone. I have never been happier each day not reading garbage and actually focusing my time on apps that improve my life and move my life forward.

Google cards are an example of anti-competitive behavior. They lift content from sites, often without their permission, and display that data on the site. With their 90 percent marketshare, this behavior kills websites. There have been numerous lawsuits on this. The end result, is you have a web with less choice and innovation.[1] The most outrageous thing is they take this content and display ads right next to it and profit off it. All without giving a dime to the website owners.

Cards are one example, the best example is Google's plan to kill comparison shopping sites because it was eating into their marketshare. Washington Post put it best:

> Quoting internal Google documents and emails, the report shows that the company created a list of rival comparison shopping sites that it would artificially lower in the general search results, even though tests showed that Google users “liked the quality of the [rival] sites” and gave negative feedback on the proposed changes.

Google reworked its search algorithm at least four times, the documents show, and altered its established rating criteria before the proposed changes received “slightly positive” user feedback. Internal Google documents predicted that the proposed changes would reduce rivals’ user traffic up to 20 percent and subsequently reported producing the desired results once the changes were implemented.[2]

[1] https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-should-be-outrag...

The list goes on and on...

Err, you are proving my point. You protect the availability of consumer choice by protecting business from actors who are leveraging their marketshare and engaging in uncompetitive practices. In this case, other businesses (i.e. Google, Facebook, et all)

I am with you. You should have choice. That is exactly what antitrust law is written for.

How so? Google has a 90+ percent market share. Facebook also is in a similar boat. Amazon is every increasing its market share as well. They are doing this not by competing but by leveraging user data to create good enough products. Then use their market share to integrate these products into their existing product line thus resulting in death of startups they are targeting.

Here are some examples:

- Facebook uses its data on social activity to identify trending startups. They even go further and have purchased a VPN provider to spy on traffic so they can identify startups they want to acquire or crush.

- Google uses search data to figure out what types of websites are trending and then simply creates cards that appear on top of their search results so that users never have to leave Google. A lot of websites have lost revenue or simply folded due to the loss of traffic.

- Amazon is no different. The use internal search data to figure out what products are trending and then simply creates Amazon Basic products to kill them.

The issue is they leverage user supplied data and their existing market share to create noncompetitive environments for new incumbents. It's a massive intelligence gathering operation that gives them unfair advantage by allowing them to surveil the vast marketplace and target trending startups in near realtime. Heh, the startups don't even know they are being targeted until it is too late.

They've basically become malicious actors.

Paywall free version: http://archive.is/r7GhC