that would likely turn on him in a heart beat.

Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.

Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.

A minority that probably hates his guts.

How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.

I haven’t noticed it being small. Any app recommendations?

The type of investors who invest speculatively in the money grab that this move is aren’t the types that invest into heartfelt projects which may or may not bring any money. There’s a reason why the fellowship had a budget of $94 million and an unexpected journey had between $200 and $315 million depending on source.

There isn’t a fixed budget somewhere that all these projects are competing for. Whomever is financing this movie is not going to finance whatever projects you’re talking about. However, it might just be that if this is a success and brings a profit and visibility, those other smaller projects will get more funds thrown their way.

so what? It will either be terrible or interesting. Either way, we, personally, have nothing to lose from this being made and a lot to win if it’s not terrible.

Yes, thank you! I think this should be written in capitals somewhere so that people could understand it quicker. The answers are not wrong or right on purpose. LLMs don’t have any way of distinguishing between the two.

immediately move on to even more anti consumer ways

but they’ll keep collecting that data even after the slap on the wrist which will be more like a gentle tap

Yeah, a contributing factor for sure. Just like whatever company produced the pencils used by Einstein was a contributing factor to the theory of relativity. Not a sole factor. No, not a sole factor but a factor. Yes

I’m saying musk has never believed in the free market in his life and has never argued in good faith.

isn’t this the definition of hypocrisy?

I think that what you’re saying is that actions of hypocrites cannot be considered hypocritical since it’s their nature to be hypocrites. It’s all a bit circular, isn’t it?

I think that in the case of Mr. Musk, the issue is that he has been seen as an innovator not just as a capitalist for much of his time in the spotlight. For 2018 Musk, this declaration would have been hypocritical. For 2024 Musk, whatever, why are we still listening to this clown?

you’re attributing a state of fact to a cause that has nothing to do with it. I’m not nitpicking, i’m pointing out a fallacy: the effect doesn’t prove the cause, it only works the other way around

what relevance would that have over the time span discussed here?

And no, whatever you read about agile, the development speed comes down to people not to procedure. That’s true even if we disregard the fact that very few companies claiming to use agile actually understand what agile is

The project management approach does not dictate the feature priority. The business dictates the priority. Project management is just a tool

I disagree, this has nothing to do with software development models, It’s all about purpose. If your website must start making money quickly, then you can be sure it will have a payment model regardless of how things are developed. Social media business (and others) translated user growth into investment models: you give us this much money at this “completely made up valuation” and we’ll use it to grow our user-base by this much.

This was possible because interest rates have been very low for the most of the 2010s. This meant that investors would be losing money if they held on to it so they just threw it at “the new tech” hoping something would stick. In the past few years, inflation has driven the interest rates very high and it means that money is not cheap anymore so all these businesses now have to transition to a money making model. That’s all.

54% of Wikipedia pages contain at least one link in their “References” section that points to a page that no longer exists.

It would be interesting to know how many of these references don’t exist anymore and how many have just moved. Web has come a very long way since 2013 and I bet that websites hosting the references have undergone several iterations altering the URLs in some way.

Everything you post has potential to remain forever even if it’s not monetized directly. Cautioning people about it makes sense now and has always made sense.

haven’t all UI changes in most product made things worse lately? The “2010s generation” of software solutions has been growing up on investment rather than profit for a long time and we’ve experienced a weird decade in which getting users was more important than getting money from them. Now we’re seeing the other side in which squeezing profit form each user is more important than retention. All solutions are getting crappier because they not meant evolved for their intended purpose anymore.

let me put it this way: if you have money, time can be whatever you want it to be

the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.

In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.