It's one of those "I'm not trapped here with you; you're trapped here with me" type things.

I think this situation is described best as being "above" the law.

Pedantic, but fair. You're right.

Voting with your feet doesn't work if you don't have a place to go. People are afraid of losing their connections, which are some of the most precious things we have. Doesn't matter if it's an illusion, that's enough. Zuck is holding us hostage on our most basic human instincts. I think that's fucked up.

Eh, I care and I don't do it, but my wife does. I do not agree with her choices in that area and voice the concerns in a way that I hoped would speak to her, but it does not work as it is now a deeply ingrained habit.

I, too, have vices she tolerates so I don't push as hard as I otherwise would have, but I would argue it is not inconsistency. It is a question of what level of compromise is acceptable.

I keep sharing stories like this with them. Privacy violations, genocide, mental health, …. Whenever I think it might be something someone cares about I share with them. I also make an effort to explain to my non tech folks that meta is Facebook, instagram, WhatsApp, to make sure they understand recognize the name. Many people do not know what meta is. Sometimes I suspect it was a way to capture the bad publicity and protect their brands.

> The worst part for me personally is that almost everyone I know cares about this stuff and yet they keep all of their Meta accounts.

They care as much as people who claim to care about animals but still eat them, people who claim to love their wives and still beat/cheat them. Your actions are the sole embodiment of your beliefs

$1 for the first user, $2 for second, $4 for third...By the 30th user, it would be painful even for mega corps. By 40th, it would be an absurd number.

Might also be worth trying to force them to display a banner on every page of the site "you're on facebook, you have no privacy here", like those warnings on cigarette boxes. These might not work though, people would just see and ignore them, just like smokers ignore warnings about cigarettes.

three digit ? the only thing these folks understand is exponential growth per affected user.

Who's this "they" you speak of, and why would they bother doing that?

Sarah Williams (forgot the name) testified in US Congress as to Facebooks strategies on handling governments. Based on her book, it seems Brazil has been the most effective out of major democratic governments in confronting Facebook. Of course, you have China completely banning Facebook.

I think Mark Zuckerberg is acutely aware of the political power he holds and has been using this immense power at least for the last decade. But since Facebook is a US company and the US government is not interested in touching Faceebok, I doubt anyone will see what Zuckerberg and Facebook are up to. The US would have to put Lina Khan back in at the FTC, or put her high up in the Department of Justice to split Facebook into pieces. I guess the other hope is that states' attorneys' general when an anti-monopoly lawsuit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't "blame Facebook". I lament the environment that empowers Facebook to exist and do harm. These companies should be gutted by the state, but they won't because they pump the S&P.

Funny, but this kinda implies that some person designed this way. It's a resultant sum of small vectors, with corporate lobbying playing a significant role. Corporate lobbying systemically can't do anything else than try to increase profits, which usually means less regulation. Clean slate design would require a system collapse.

I once ran across Zuckerberg in a Palo Alto cafe. I only noticed him (I was in the process of ordering a sandwich, and don’t really care about shit like that) because he was being ‘eeeeeeee’d’ by a couple of random women that he didn’t seem to know. He seemed pretty uncomfortable about the whole thing. One of them had a stroller which she was profoundly ignoring during the whole thing, which I found a bit disturbing.

The next time I saw him in Palo Alto (a couple months later on the street), he had 2 totally-not-security-dudes flanking him, and I saw at least one random passerby ‘redirected’ away from him. This wasn’t at the cafe though, it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t go there again.

This was a decade before Luigi. Luigi was well after meta was in the news for spending massive amounts of money on security and Zuck had a lot of controversy for his ‘compound’ in PA.

I can assure you, Meta is well aware of the situation, and a Luigi isn’t going to have a chance in this situation.

The reality in my experience that is any random person given the amount of wealth these folks end up with would end up making similar (or worse) decisions, and while contra-pressure from Luigi’s is important in the overall system, folks like Zuckerberg are more a result of the system and rules than the cause of them (but then influence the next system/rules in a giant Oroborous type situation).

Kind of a we either die young a hero, or live to be the villain kind of thing. But because the only reason anyone dies a young hero is because they lost the fight against the prior old villains. If they’d won (even in a heroic fashion), life would turn them into the old villains shortly.

The wheel turns.

[flagged]