TPPOW0020

The logic is simple. Obama talked about net neutrality. And Obama wanted to take our guns away. So net neutrality is bad. Q.E.D.

No really, after reading the article a second time, I still can't come up with a better explanation for their motives. If you think you have a better explanation, please reply. This truly baffles me and it bothers me that I can't understand how some of my fellow Americans think.

Sorry to hear that. I can sort of relate. Ran a blog once for a niche topic, and put in effort to promote it. Some of my things got read, but so much felt like I was talking to an empty room.

Same with HN. It's a ghost town. I commented here with another account for a few years. Never made a connection with anyone beyond someone replying to a comment. It's too big for users to encounter eachother on a regular basis, so you never get to know anyone. It's just a bunch of strangers.

The reason Om cites as why Facebook won't change is similar to the reasons companies don't change in response to disruptive innovation, as described in Christensen's "The Innovators Dilemma." Big companies are too invested in a successful business model for them to easily switch to a new one overnight. Even if Zuckerberg grasps the threat to FB's brand posed by fake news and smartphone addiction, his company is streamlined to operate the way it always has been. The best he can achieve is short term fixes and lip service. Solving these problems would require Facebook to value something other than people's attention. But doing that would cannibalize their advertising business.

Don't worry. Facebook's going to solve the problem by verifying advertisers with postcards.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/20/587070994...

Except they only apply to ads with candidates mentioned in the copy, so it wouldn't stop Russians from promoting anti-immigrant sentiment, texas secessionism, or co-opting black lives matter protests. And it doesn't stop a Russian national from buying ads if they maintain a residence in the US. And it wouldn't stop the sort of meddling outside of advertising (fake accounts, fake pages, fake news articles).

So Facebook's working very hard to look like they're solving the problem. Guess we're in safe hands.

It's great that you love AMP. There were probably people who were happy with Ma Bell's phone service too. Monopolies usually deliver efficient service, at least for as long as they have to.

Regardless of what we call it, it's not helpful to defend Google by saying Apple is worse. It doesn't contribute to the discussion. Just deflects.

Now if someone was bringing up Apple to draw similarities between what they do and what Google does, or to make distinctions, I can see how that would enrich people's understanding of the issue.

But that's not what happened in the comment in question.

If we're not careful, this whole thread will be a pissing contest between Google and Apple fans. And we'll forget what's really important (the fact that companies are trying to claim the open web as their own territory)

>Wanting to be profitable doesn't make a company intrinsically evil, that's what companies are for.

But they increased profits by intentionally misleading people and getting them hooked on unhealthy food. They helped themselves by hurting others. In plain English, we'd call that evil.

Let's admit that legal, profit seeking behavior, can sometimes be evil.

Furthermore, there's nothing ridiculous with going after bad actors in the past. I agree the main focus should be on companies doing harm in the present. But holding past actions to account sends the message that you can't get away with harming customers forever. It's a deterrent.

As a professional who gets work done with Linux, I disagree. Lots of desktop environments (KDE, XFCE, Cinnamon) offer a UI is just as polished as mac or windows.

Lack of suitable software can be a dealbreaker for some professions. There aren't many professional video editing suites, for example. But in companies I've worked at, most workers only need a browser and an office suite to do their jobs. Linux would work for them.

I think the real obstacle is training. You have a workforce that's already used to the way windows works. It's easier to hire IT people with windows experience than it is with Linux. Users know how to do their tasks in Microsoft office, and even though Libre office is similar, they might have to learn a few new things.