In the striking memo, the tech giant noted that the ethically-fraught feature should ideally be launched “during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns.”
Great article. Per usual, meta is a horrible company filled with horrible people who make the decisions.
Yeah, it is pretty striking, because it hints at something much larger, such as Meta being the cause of political unrest to further it’s own agenda. That is striking indeed. They should be fully investigated and dismantled in a fair and just democracy.
A couple of days ago I finished reading “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams. This book really shows how awful the people at the top of Facebook are (it probably applies to other similar companies as well). And it’s not that they want to be evil, it’s more like they are playing a game of fame, pride and power and don’t care about the consequences. It made me recall the quote about “the banality of evil”.
I feel like since the book was written they’ve slowly slipped into willful evil. Even in the book, as time went on they got more and more comfortable doing evil rather than just not avoiding doing evil.
Something else, apparently. They would determine that in real time and launch after confirming that the other technology was facing significant backlash.
Great article. Per usual, meta is a horrible company filled with horrible people who make the decisions.
Yeah, it is pretty striking, because it hints at something much larger, such as Meta being the cause of political unrest to further it’s own agenda. That is striking indeed. They should be fully investigated and dismantled in a fair and just democracy.
A couple of days ago I finished reading “Careless People” by Sarah Wynn-Williams. This book really shows how awful the people at the top of Facebook are (it probably applies to other similar companies as well). And it’s not that they want to be evil, it’s more like they are playing a game of fame, pride and power and don’t care about the consequences. It made me recall the quote about “the banality of evil”.
I feel like since the book was written they’ve slowly slipped into willful evil. Even in the book, as time went on they got more and more comfortable doing evil rather than just not avoiding doing evil.
I’m curious what they mean by “dynamic political environment” and “other concerns”.
Like I get that it’s “launch a controversial thing while the people that would care are distracted”. But what are we distracted by?
Something else, apparently. They would determine that in real time and launch after confirming that the other technology was facing significant backlash.