Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings?

If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

▲

Permit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do they think they will use this information to serve Ads?

There are many interesting ways that the conversation could have been carried forward but there is no way to continue the conservation as the OP doesn't make it clear what they think.

The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out, please tell me what you're trying to say here.

▲

latexr 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out

On the contrary, looks like you can:

> (…) sell the user's data (…) use this information to train AI models (…) use this information to serve Ads

▲

Permit 3 hours ago | parent [-]

What’s the point in providing a rebuttal to these points (e.g. that Meta doesn’t actually sell data to anyone) if the OP can simply say “that’s not what I meant”?

They are taking a position that cannot be argued against or even discussed because they don’t make that position clear.

	▲	latexr 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> providing a rebuttal to these points (e.g. that Meta doesn’t actually sell data to anyone) So one of your suggestions of what the OP could mean was something you explicitly don’t think is true and would argue against? That sounds like a bad faith straw man set up. Perhaps it’s just as well that the OP didn’t provide one specific reason to be nitpicked ad nauseam by an army of “well ackshually” missing the forest for the trees. You could, as the HN guidelines suggest, argue in good faith and steel man. The distinction between “selling your data” and “profiting from your data” isn’t important for a high level discussion. Can you truly not see through Meta’s intentions? There are entire published books, investigations, and whistleblowers to reference. Zuckerberg called people “dumb fucks” for trusting him with their data and has time and again proven to be a hypocrite who doesn’t care about anyone but himself.
	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	thomastjeffery 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You are the only one arguing here. Not every conversation is an invitation to argument.

▲

olcay_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think they meant that Meta is offloading the cost (fines) of farming minor's data onto the operating systems. With an up-front cost of 2 billion dollars in lobbying, they can avoid paying 300m+ fees regularly.

▲

toss1 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Or, OP is not hiding their position and shutting down conversation — they are not imposing their position and are opening it up to discussion.

What prevents you from saying "Yes, and Xyz!!" and another poster "Yup, and Pdq, and Foo too!"

Or, maybe OP is just being a bit lazy, but again, it seems the context is conversation, not formal scientific inquiry where everything must be falsifiable?