For most people, their work is the thing they know most about. If a person shows up here to discuss that and is met with this sort of harassment, it disincentivizes them—and probably others reading—to contribute about what they know. That makes HN strictly worse.

I know the counterargument for posting like this, but there are lots of places on the internet where shaming is the norm, and you can take this there. This is a community where shaming is not the norm (please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and we're not going to let that slide.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Are you talking about Facebook's abuse of power to strengthen its monopoly position in developing nations?

If so, 83% of voters in the USA thinks what you are describing as "subsidy" should be illegal here[1], and it would better be described as neo-colonialism than a subsidy.

Is there some other way in which facebook is "subsidizing internet access"?

[1] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/364528-poll-83-percent...

It makes sense, too — the overall pile of disposable income didn't meaningfully increase thanks to Facebook, so it's a zero sum game between small businesses and Coca-Cola. We know who wins that in the long term. Although now with local papers out of business, gutted by facebook.

What about the countless scams or dubious products advertised in Facebook ads while you look the other way because they're still making money for company? If you have the power to broadcast content to a major part of the world's population, this should also involve some responsibility and strict controls on the content, aka thorough human reviews. I don't care if it makes the prices of the ads go up; legitimate brands will still be able to afford it, and the market will become a better place for everyone (plus maybe with less crap in the ads people will actually like them a bit more).

Finally, if you want to do ads, why not just ask the users what products they're interested in, categories they belong to, etc and use that for targeting instead of stalking their every move to try and infer this information?

I suggest you read this regarding the negative impacts of advertising on society: http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html

https://theoutline.com/post/4383/facebook-quietly-ended-free...

And the "small businesses" you describe are mostly MLM and anti-vaccine snake oil sellers, so I'm not sure why you feel good about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/02...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/11/15/majority-an...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/anti-vaccination-group...

With all the respect due, you've got blood on your hands. We have a word for that in civilized society; I think it's "murderer," but maybe they call it something different at Facebook.

Is everyone working at BP complicit with the Gulf oil spill? Is everyone working at PG&E responsible for the fires? No. That’s absurd.

Anyways, I’m not a mod, but I did flag your comment because you’re breaking two site rules:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Social pressure is one of the principal ways we stop people from making self-interested decisions that are detrimental to the group.

You shouldn't attack people for who they are, or anything outside of their control (race, gender, etc)

But for choices they make, that affect other people? These are exactly the things you should judge people for

How is attacking someone for what they do an insult?

Is there an ethical line?

If someone kills my family, certainly I am not insulting them for calling them a murder?

The Facebook case is different. Them stalking people isn't an accident, it's the whole purpose of the company and what pays their bills. Despite seeing the negative effects of their behaviour on society and being given countless opportunities to learn and become less nasty they are continuing as if nothing happened.

Anyone with an option to work elsewhere, yes, though keep in mind, there's a difference between "Working at Facebook" and "Working on Surveillance Dragnet at Facebook."

Workers have power, and workers at Facebook have a lot of power. It's not like they can't get a job elsewhere. That they haven't quit, or unionized and forced Facebook to stop the, frankly, evil things they're doing, is a mark against their moral character.

Working on ad systems actively makes the world worse, and hating a person for working on something that actively makes the world worse will always be reasonable (and justifiable).

> there is ABSOLUTELY a place in this world for advertising on the internet

I have no idea what this means. What I do know is that adtech turns everything it touches into shit.

Facebook is a large company, and I hate them just fine; but I don’t hate all of their employees and not all of their employees are evil.

And now that it's bought guess what's the purpose of this game (hint: it's not about being a game, it's about collecting even more data and getting people addicted; the "game" part is just a side-effect).

At this point anyone that works at that toxic company is either naive or unethical. There's been way too many warning signs and incidents to figure out that anything they do is in one way or another to stalk people even more and waste their time with ads.