amirmc

That’s certainly part of it. I think people underestimate the value of getting to ‘good enough’. Once that’s reached, the economics start to be more of a factor in decision making.

However, I think geopolitics has also become a factor as the very existence of this article indicates.

Which is a much better article

I see. It seems that I was getting the empty page half an hour ago for just that link. Now it’s taking me to the full page.

Interesting. That specific page is blank but others redirect to a more useful 404

https://www.ft.com/thispagedoesnotexist

Of course FB wants to control content. It helps them increase engagement and also monetise.

‘Willingly’? I think unwittingly is more likely.

I’d argue it’s not the same. It certainly gives you a very close and stark window into what it’s like, but it doesn’t compare to the lived experience.

> Companies are hardly going to make tons of money on unapproved therapies anyway, because the word will get out if x patients tried it and had no benefits.

That seems wildly optimistic to me. Companies, especially pharma, will always find ways to 'make tons of money'. The second part of the sentence assumes a level of disclosure (from the companies) and rationality (on the part of average people), that I don't believe exists in the world. There are plenty of examples to back that up, especially people's willingness to believe self-serving 'facts'.

IIRC WhatsApp also cared a lot about making the app available on all kinds of phones. Not just iOS/Android. So all those people in the rest of the world could start using it and bring their families on board.

> But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon...

I did not consider the questions to be particularly ‘logical’ at all. Naive, perhaps, but not logical.

There’s presumably 30 years of knowledge you could look up to formulate better questions.

You seem to be trying to refute models of complicated atmospheric processes based on (necessarily) over-simplified high school physics.

I’m sure there much more reading material out there than just the two Wikipedia pages you linked. Try the following for some more: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

> * The scientific method is such that Science is never wrong. It's god-esque.*

You've misunderstood my point. The scientific method is such that 'Science' is always wrong. It's a method to continually try to become less wrong about how the world works.

I don't even know what you're referring to when you capitalise 'science' the way you have been. It's not like there's a single entity called 'Science' that issues proclamations.

> However, Science makes no effort to own those mistakes.

That sounds ludicrous to me. The entirely of the scientific method is about generating hypotheses, testing them out, finding out you're wrong, and then refining/rewriting those hypotheses and trying again, ad infinitum. Plenty of scientists have been 'wrong' for years.

I'd argue the problem you're trying to highlight isn't about 'Science' per se, but the fact that people/the masses/etc like to have just one immutable 'answer' for something. They find it difficult to cope when new results point to different answers. Is that really the fault of 'Science'?

> Science is science reporting.

No, it is not. This is why I drew the distinction in the first place.

> Normal people can only understand what is reported.

Which backs up my point that sensationalised reporting is a problem. Peer-reviewed, scientific papers are written for other scientific researchers — that's as it should be.

> (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer.

It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).

Except that’s not what happened here. In this analogy, that engineer made public statements before the investigation was completed and then the investgating group told them to leave.

> "Respondents were asked to score how each of the social media platforms they use impact upon issues such as anxiety, loneliness and community building. The site with the most positive rating was YouTube, followed by Twitter. Facebook and Snapchat came third and fourth respectively."

YouTube had the most positive rating!? I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. The experience of 14-24 year olds must be vastly different to the comments etc I've seen there.

The section of the Wikipedia page probably needs updating. The very next section describes how they went from 50 people, to 150, then lifted the limits entirely.

> ...which might explain why there wasn't as much benefit from it as one might have hoped.

I think you've got this the wrong way around. The users probably didn't like being constrained to an arbitrary number. My main point was that any service that tries to impose such limits is going to feel pressure to raise/abolish them.

I don't think this would work since users would protest and the limits would be eventually be lifted. I have friends who already purge their FB lists now and then, so people who want to do that already can.

Also, Path [1] was social network app that had these kinds of limits back in the day.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_(social_network)

> It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose.

I don't think Zuckerberg should be given a pass just because of this. His life since college has been nothing like the 20s that anyone else would go through (even others from Harvard). Not even close. Imagine the kind of effect that has on someone, especially with the kind of power he wielded (and still wields) through Facebook.

There’s something particularly creepy in what Zuckerberg said and what the folks in Myanmar claim.

Zuck says “we detected”, whereas the folks in Myanmar say they explicitly tried to raise the issue.

Having a ‘report and moderate’ capability seems like one thing but from the above, it seems FB believes in constant monitoring and (presumably) censoring — which is something else entirely. Combine that with a country where “Facebook is the internet”, and it’s quite scary.

I think ‘the sharing economy’ already did that.

> The people who built the radio didn't get called before an international criminal tribunal; it was the broadcasters who did.

FB is both though. They built the system & tech (the ‘radio’), and via their algos/policies also control what gets spread and to what extent (the ‘broadcasting’).

It’s not at all clear cut.

> Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone.

It's not hypocrisy to warn of dangers, regardless of being exposed in other ways. Also, your comment here equates 'smart speakers' with 'smart homes', which are not the same thing (yet).

This conversation can only progress when you consider the actual threat models (like security folks talk about). It seem strange to me to rant about the risks of smartphones vs smart home devices, when the data from both of those is potentially ending up with the same small set of companies.

You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit.

CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigger impact since (specifically with respect to scale and ability for fine-grained targeting).

Consumer tech corporations, do seem to end up with monopolies — and they'll fight, lobby, and pay (through acquisitions) to keep them. It's a complete red-herring to argue that they don't last forever since that's utterly irrelevant to the impact they can have while they are around.

Google's been around for almost 20 years now, FB didn't kill it. FB has been around for 14 years and can sway elections.

If you want privacy from government, then you'll only get it if you can be private from corporations. They basically run things anyway via lobbyists.