soraminazuki

Maybe I lost too much faith in society. But in a world where everyone is recording each other, I think people who are able to act with impunity wins, not necessarily those with higher moral standards.

> He was merely commenting on the ridiculousness of their availability.

Even by your own words, Zuckerberg knew the situation he actively created was bad. "He's merely admitting his guilt" just confirms what I said.

> you’re reading your bias and postconcieved notions into the situation

The world must look very biased against you when you're trying to put a positive spin on Mark Zuckerberg being a jerk.

There's plenty of evidence to the contrary, considering that's the same old argument that NRA has been making for our entire lives.

If you don't see that as exploitation, then we have much bigger issues to discuss. Like baseline ethics.

> Tech used to be about becoming more accessible to people

Since when? Because funny story, I only ever hear that narrative from tech people trying to put a self-serving spin on whatever egregious thing they want to impose on others. For the past few decades, the tech industry has consistently acted to wrestle control of people's own lives and place it in the hands of the few. The justification is always the same. It's about "keeping people safe" or "making tech more accessible." People are sick and tired of this, which is demonstrated by public backlash against tech.

> your desire is gate keeping that so only programmers can use it to write software for themselves

In what universe is learning "gate keeping"? A sane society doesn't criticize people for asking drivers to learn how to drive. What GP is asking for in the case of software development is much less than a driver's license, and yet you question their ethics.

If anything, you're the one trying to rob people of their opportunity to learn, which is a prerequisite to making informed decisions. You're the one advocating that we surrender control over computing to a handful of trillion dollar companies. That is an awful position to take.

No. That was him mocking his users in private, knowing he was exploiting kids who had no clue what they were getting into.

> the following exchange is between a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and a friend shortly after Mark launched The Facebook in his dorm room:

> Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

> Zuck: Just ask.

> Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

> [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?

> Zuck: People just submitted it.

> Zuck: I don't know why.

> Zuck: They "trust me"

> Zuck: Dumb fucks.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/20/the-face-of-fa...

Do you really see this as him sharing insight? I call bullshit.

What do you mean, "as opposed to"? Yes, there are other scumbag billionaires weaponizing their social media platforms to ruin society. No, that doesn't make Mark Zuckerberg a better person.

In a sane society that respects its people, such a company shouldn't exist.

Understatement of the year. Making publicly funded research accessible to taxpayers is public service, while using the plagiarizing machine to attack open source efforts for the sake of PR is actual criminal behavior by any meaningful sense of the word.

> People do expect their hardware to just work. That means installing drivers and the like.

A display, of all things, shouldn't require installing anything to make it "just work." It just needs speak standardized protocols over standardized cables. That should require no more than generic drivers shipped with the operating system.

People absolutely do care about security cameras, as demonstrated by ongoing opposition to Flock cameras. Security cameras have been widely deployed at a time when they weren't interconnected and people had to physically obtain tapes to look at the footage. The cost of engaging in stalking or mass-surveillance has lowered dramatically since, and people are strongly opposed to these technologies once they realize what the current capabilities are. The public never consented to any of this, but those responsible are maliciously framing the past lack of awareness as consent.

You're in luck because there are so many alternatives. Fastmail, Tuta Mail, Migadu, Proton, and I'm sure there are more.

They or the government is going to make deepfakes using this.

uBlock Origin with the EasyList Annoyances filter is better than anything that Google can ever provide. I haven't seen Google popups in my desktop browser for a long time.

> without initially seeking my consent

That's just how SSH works. If you want to be pseudonymous, you should also generate a new key pair.

The industry has proved again and again and again over the past two decades that surveillance, manipulation, and profiteering is all they care about, and the public is wising up to this fact. "We're screwing you clueless people for your own sake" is no longer effective as a thought terminating cliche and can only create stronger animosity towards the industry.

Are there laws against clauses in the T&Cs that allow companies to arbitrarily change the said T&Cs? Are there laws against clauses that prevents consumers from suing companies? Unless there are, T&Cs absolutely are the get out of jail free card both on paper and in the real world.

> you get to have cheaper purchases for your entire life with no downside

If you uncritically believe things like this, I have a bridge to sell you. You should praise me for it too, because that's the kind of thing you explicitly condone.

> Leftists think this is terrible

Nah, it says more about your worldview than it does about your favorite bogeyman, especially when you ignore the entire article and start attacking a straw man.

It's jarring to read a bunch of LLMs rushing to defend a predatory industry.

If one needs brainpower to just use the redirection operator, it shows a likely lack of understanding of basic concepts in computing like processes and files. That should be concerning.

I suppose a lot of people use less rather than cat for looking at files though.

`alt + .` is much more versatile. You can use it to cycle through and insert the last arguments of previous commands.

The redirection operator is consistent and requires less typing though.

I guess the file is usually the last argument because it's the one that can be omitted.

Funnily, the 5th is the "right to remain silent." I think you're talking about the 2nd Amendment.

I know the recent presidency really lowered the bar, but Obama wasn't decent. Sure, he was good at speeches. Yet one of the first things he did was let war criminals off the hook. He went soft on fraudsters at Wall Street after they caused a global financial crisis. He prosecuted more whistleblowers than his predecessors combined. He sent drones to foreign soil and extrajudicially assassinated thousands of people outside of war zones, including many civilians. All of this is insane and did play a role for what came after. The world deserves better.

Those T&Cs contain clauses that allow companies to 1. arbitrarily change its terms whenever they want and 2. forbid consumers from suing them. They make a complete mockery of justice, and they might as well just write "haha, screw you" to save all of us time.

A war criminal is threatening us with a good time! It'll be a huge win for justice, peace, and human rights if that ever happens.

No, we the tech industry are key enablers. For the past two decades, we were obsessed with refining the methods of mass-surveillance and manipulation. We've brought about tremendous harm to society and it's time to start taking accountability.

Except it's just an excuse to make everyone surrender their phone numbers as one more way to tie people to their real identities. You try hard to paint one of the wealthiest companies in the world as some kind of victim, when in reality it's them that used Gmail as a trojan horse to make people create Google accounts so that they can spy on everyone online, and increasingly in the real world too.

Also contrary to your insinuation that I'm an entitled jerk trying to rip off a trillion dollar company, I de-Googled a long time ago. Because I know they're the company that lets their clueless robots brand desperate parents trying to cure their children as child predators, punishes them by taking away the key to their entire digital lives, and worse, doubles down and continues to defame them when proven wrong [1].

But it's not fair to fault people who still depend on Google. Lack of informed consent, reinforced by dark patterns and justified with "user-friendliness" BS is what drew people in. Peer pressure also forces people to create accounts when they otherwise wouldn't have. I just have zero tolerance for corporate cheerleaders who justify this sort of thing by blaming the victim in the most condescending way possible.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538805

Haha, smart. But those quotes still don't justify me taking away your one year old ham sandwich.

Don't you think that "security" non-sequitur boogeyman is a bit too forced? You took my example, cherry-picked some words, and turned it into something else entirely. And too bad it doesn't even hold up because surrendering your phone number won't prevent securities fraud, which is what I was specifically referring to in my example.