Some more got it when Zuck said his users were "dumb fucks" https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb...
There are still some people who don't get it at all.
People are acting supprized that there are links to Palantir with cambridge analitica -- I am not because Theil and Zuckerberg are two peas in a pod.
Funny how this turned out: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-bias/facebooks-z... they took the "people" out of the news feed in the process -- enable much?
Lets rewind even further - to the days of slashdot and the 2000 election. Diebold was the big issue and "how to secure voting" --- we screamed for a paper trail then and we still are today.
Honestly for those of us who have been keeping up we aren't shocked or supprized at all "we told you so" a long time ago - you just chose to ignore us.
It's not that people weren't critical, but during the heyday those voices were suppressed. Now that sentiment has slowly shifted, these articles are seeing traction
When you've indicted several foreign nationals for violations of federal election law and have established to a court that Rick Gates coordinated with a foreign intelligence agency to penetrate an email server and strategically leak the contents, I have trouble seeing how the "Russian Collusion narrative" is dying.
Definitely not, but it also wasn't a mainstream view. Of my whole family I'm the only person without a Facebook account. And their way of interpreting that is that I'm anti-social, because after all it is 'social media'.
Not at all! Most surprisingly my parents are the ones who looked at this and instantly followed their guts once they felt that something was off and removed their fb accounts years ago.
Still, the majority won't fully understand any of this until all their private photo's start circulating on the web.
On Wednesday, Collins said he accepted the offer of evidence from Cox, and suggested the Facebook executive answer U.K. lawmakers' questions on April 24.
"However, given the seriousness of these issues we still believe that Mark Zuckerberg himself is the right person to give evidence," he said in a letter to Rebecca Stimson, Facebook's head of public policy.
"Mr Zuckerberg has stated in interviews that if he is the right person to appear, he will appear. He appears to have acted on this belief with respect to appearing before Congress. We now request confirmation as to whether he will make the same decision for us."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/28/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg...
"Facebook wont confirm whether CEO Mark Zuckerberg will testify before Congress, even though he already said he was open to it.
...
Officially, Facebook says that it is still undecided, and a spokesperson declined to confirm CNNs story, which states Zuckerberg has come to terms with the fact that he will have to testify before Congress within a matter of weeks, and Facebook is currently planning the strategy for his testimony."
https://www.recode.net/2018/3/27/17168614/facebook-mark-zuck...
Symbol: ZUCKERBERG.063018
Start Date: 03/20/2018
End Date: 06/30/2018 11:59 PM (ET)
Shares Traded: 98,254
Today's Volume: 124
Total Shares: 33,948
Today's Change: NC
Should Mr. Zuckerberg appear at such a hearing, but decline to answer any and all substantive questions asked by committee members upon invoking his 5th Amendment rights, this market will resolve as No, whether or not Mr. Zuckerberg submits a sworn statement or reads all or part of such statement aloud during the hearing."
https://www.predictit.org/Contract/9916/Will-Mark-Zuckerberg...
Sometimes I see comments on HN about how that person would gladly pay for an ad free version of the service but experiences have shown over and over that it just doesn't work.
I like the riches in niches but even there it's increasingly more challenging getting a share of wallet because consumers are getting incredible value from services like Netflix/Spotify/Office/etc. They've been programmed for free or subsidized.
It's impossible to determine but as a thought experiment imagine if the only way to subscribe to Facebook after the .edu phase was to pay $1 / £1 / €1 per year.
Overall revenue would be lower but they wouldn't have to maintain enormous sales and ad-tech teams.
app.net flunked IMHO because noone understood what it was, not because it required payment.
It came with a block of cloud storage, an ad free social network, an API for devs to build on top of... those three ingredients alone were fertile ground for developers to make some very engaging, unique apps. It also felt much more communal.
I was a fan and definitely miss App.net
I don't think this was as obvious in 2012.
Wow software 'entrepreneurs' are really pathetic sometimes. This is not the normal cutthroat business that normally happens in the real world... So the Facebook executive apologised for giving OP a generous offer to buy their startup which Facebook doesn't even need anymore? Sounds like charity to me. OP is a spoiled brat in my opinion. Based on my experience, what should have happened is the executive should have laughed at him all the way to the door for being so foolish/arrogant.
Now you understand why Facebook is full of entitled jerks... They acquihired them.