Meta CEO mocks Apple for 'sitting on' iPhone 20 years later despite doing the same with Fa...

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 88
    killroykillroy Posts: 291member
    What an a hole. This man has no ethics whatsoever. His office should be under a rock.
    9secondkox2PeaceLoveAndKindnesswilliamlondonsconosciutojSnivelyronn
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 88
    thedba said:
    leighr said:
    The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 
    The earth is flat.
    The moon landings were faked.
    Vaccines cause autism.
    The earth is 6000 years old.

    Fact checking arguments such as these, in your opinion, is like turning us into North Korea?
    I don't get why y'all are harping on North Korea. They have the best economy of any country, the top-rated health care system, zero crime, solved poverty and hunger, have zero unemployment, have the least restrictive travel policies of any nation, and the residents are the happiest folks on the planet. And if you dare to fact-check me on any of that, you are just a self-appointed expert that thinks they have the power to arbitrarily decide what is true and what isn't. Oppressor!

    There is a certain irony that leighr is arguing that we can't have fact checking because the truth is subjective based on the fact checker while also predicating their argument on the accepted truth that North Korea and China are oppressive. It is a heck of a contradiction that they have going on. Either we have the truth or we don't . The anti-truth people should just refrain from public discourse since, by their admission,  what they are saying cannot be trusted.  
    killroytmayAppleZuluAlex_Vroundaboutnowmike1ronn
     6Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 88
    nubusnubus Posts: 678member
    I respectfully disagree with your perspective, but our disagreement extends beyond mere fact-checking or the principles of free speech.  Discussing those things wouldn't really be productive.The crux of our disagreement lies in your perception of publicly traded companies and governments as interchangeable entities.  You assert that Meta, along with the governments of North Korea and China, constitutes a singular type of organization.In contrast, I hold the view that publicly traded companies and governments are fundamentally distinct entities, serving vastly different purposes.  
    Fully support your view. The idea that a company is somehow comparable to a nation is often seen here. It makes no sense. Companies have no legislative power and can't use physical force (Weber). Nations can easily ban products as seen from Apple Watch 9 to TikTok.

    Some don't get the difference and it causes some odd "Meta has the right to..." arguments. Companies only have the rights given to them by nations. Like UAE banning FaceTime, UK demanding 5 years of warranty, Indonesia demanding investments, and EU (not a nation...but still) demanding USB-C.  Companies only exist if allowed by nations and they have to operate within the framework given to them.
    killroymuthuk_vanalingamtmaywilliamlondonAppleMicroAndLinuxAlex_Vronn
     6Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 88
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,330member
    North Korea exists as it does because a decision was made during the Korean War, when the US interfered in another country’s affairs that it wanted to exclude itself from further interference.  This seems entirely reasonable to me. 
    FYI: North Korea has troops fighting for Russia in Ukraine. 
    Yes they do but Russia is also killing the North Korean soldiers because they can't figure out who they're shooting at.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 88
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,669member
    netrox said:
    That is why I am working on deactivating my Meta accounts. I am so fed up with Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg and their stances on many topics that are simply incompatible with my values.  
    A consideration -- if you deactivate or delete an account, someone else can create one using your name/id. That might not be ideal. 

    The thing that hurts Meta and X is if you just don't use your account and don't look at any content/ads on their platforms. That's really the key. 
    mattinozAlex_Vsconosciutoroundaboutnowronn
     3Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 88
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,669member
    I'm really glad AI has added a "Dislike" button. 
    ilarynxAlex_Vapple4thewinsconosciutojSnivelymike1ronn
     6Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 88
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,669member
    Here's the thing about Zuckerberg -- he believes in nothing other than his own self-interest and will say or do anything, without shame, to advance his self interest. If circumstances require him to apologize, he will apologize. He will literally say whatever anybody wants to hear if that results in him getting what he wants. 

    I've heard it said that sociopaths are made while psychopaths are born. I suspect he's a psychopath. 
    nubuskillroyAlex_Vapple4thewinsconosciutoronn
     5Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 28 of 88
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,669member
    Since 2007, Apple has developed several successful and valuable technologies, products, and services:

    iPad
    Apple Watch
    AirPods
    Apple TV+
    Apple Silicon Macs
    Swift, Metal, and a wide variety of other software technologies

    And, though not yet commercially successful, the AVP is certainly new and innovative and has the potential for commercial success if they stick with it. 

    Facebook has done a few things, too. They bought WhatsApp and Instagram and made them both worse. Their hardware products are money losing flops. 
    The only thing that seems remotely successful is Threads, which was only enabled by Musk being even more hated than Zuckerberg. But my guess is that blusky will beat them both. 
    tmaykillroyroundaboutnowronn
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 88
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,862member
    I also agree with Wes so anything I say would just be piling on. One underlying issue with the current social dynamic is that money buys power and influence. When someone reaches that level of money and power they have what Howard Stern used to call "F-You Money," meaning that you no longer have to answer to anyone for any reason. Being in that space gives you an enormous amount of power to influence other people's lives. At that point it comes down to the manner in which you want to influence other people's lives. Is it for the greater good of strangers and humanity, is it for evil, is it to force your beliefs on other people, is it to accumulate even more money and power, is it to punish your enemies, polish your legacy, elevate yourself to demigod status, act out your perverse pleasures, or whatever? All people at that level have a choice to do whatever they want.

    I'm disappointed in Musk and Zuckerberg when they act on their destructive inclinations because they have a unique opportunity to make such positive changes that aren't shaded by their own ideologies. To me it doesn't matter if you donate millions or billions to charity when you're at the same time causing suffering in other people's lives, or you're donating to charities for causes you want to control implicitly. I'm very impressed by philanthropists like MacKenzie Scott who donate to people and causes without restrictions or any strings attached. I don't see her donating a million dollars to help fund an inauguration party of a political zealot. She's a great example of someone who has F-U Money but isn't using it to seek political favors or special consideration that enhances your own causes or lines your pockets with more money.
    tmayPeaceLoveAndKindnesskillroyAlex_Vronn
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 88
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,777member
    leighr said:
    The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 
    Can you imagine what would happen if all the engineers who check bridge designs, buildings, engines in cars, etc thought this way?

    There is a reality out there which has undeniable facts about how things work, despite what all the crooks in the world seeking money/power are trying to convince you of for their own personal gain.
    dewmemattinoztmaykillroymaccamAlex_Vsconosciutoroundaboutnowmike1ronn
     10Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 88
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,511member
    North Korea exists as it does because a decision was made during the Korean War, when the US interfered in another country’s affairs that it wanted to exclude itself from further interference.  This seems entirely reasonable to me. 
    FYI: North Korea has troops fighting for Russia in Ukraine. 
    And there’s a Bromance between the newly elected president and Putin FYI…..

    The Korean war was, a precursor to the Vietnam fiasco and every other failed foreign War that came after, what’s interesting out of all of the excursions (Wars) the Ukrainians are one of the few that actually want to fight for themselves. And half of the current Republicans don’t want to help.
    edited January 11
    13485tmaykillroysconosciutoronn
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 88
    ilarynxilarynx Posts: 134member
    Steve Jobs flew a pirate flag when developing the Mac.

    Mark Zuckerberg...

    https://theonion.com/mark-zuckerberg-defends-decision-to-fly-confederate-fla-1826847417/

    “Facebook considers itself an open environment that accepts all perspectives, and white nationalism is an important part of the conversation,” said Zuckerberg, telling reporters that the Confederate battle flag waving majestically above the company’s main campus would give employees and users alike an opportunity to reflect on the brave sacrifices made by the Rebel army during the War of Northern Aggression.

    /snark
    tmaykillroymaccamronn
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 88
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,552member
    nubus said:
    20 years of Mark Nefarious tracking every kid on the planet while trying to look innocent is too much. His hoodies are stained and tired. His platforms are distributing hate and lies for profit while selling our privacy. FB is much worse than it used to be while iPhone is better than ever.
    Look at the players involved in supporting Facebook and it becomes clear this was their aim for the product all along.
    killroyAlex_Vsconosciutoronn
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 88
    I do not trust the man. I don't like Zuckerberg's attitude toward privacy. I have been on Facebook since 2009. I have never given my phone number to them. I have never used anything that involves money. I have never paid them anything. I don't use Facebook for connecting to other apps or for logins, they don't need that information.

    I do not use it for news, that should be done by legitimate news organizations, that is why they are there. I also use ad blockers. I just use Facebook for staying connected with friends and groups that I like.
    edited January 11
    tmayPeaceLoveAndKindnesskillroysconosciuto
     3Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 35 of 88
    Mark Doucheberg has NEVER innovated. He was LUCKY! Before FB there was MySpace and TheGlobe.com. Both of these companies innovated. FB was right place/right time. His billionaire-ness is not because of his brilliance! He should basically shut the F up. His billions are not deserved. And the fact that’s he’s criticizing one the most successful companies on the planet proves his ignorance and arrogance. 
    tmaykillroynubusronn
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 88
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,296member
    leighr said:
    The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. 
    EXCEPT... you realize that for decades, three major broadcast networks and a few major daily newspapers were, in fact, the arbiters of what America received as truth and facts. And before television, it was a few major radio stations and daily newspapers. And before radio, it was whatever the one or two newspapers in your city decided was truth. So your notion that fact-checking in the hands of a few (relatively speaking) will somehow lead us down the road to the censorship of China or North Korea is absolutely, provably and historically FALSE. Funny thing: while Orange Jeezuz never actually specifies which time in the past he is referring to when America "was" great, it is certainly a time before social media existed, when the news and the truth were delivered by a relatively small group of arbiters and fact-checkers, and the people in those jobs took their responsibility to deliver FACTS very seriously. 
    edited January 11
    muthuk_vanalingammaccamsconosciutoroundaboutnowmike1
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 88
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,270member
    The cognitive dissonance with these folks is really something. 

    It starts with Rogan complaining about how hard it is to leave the Apple ecosystem to Zuckerberg, a guy whose business model is built on both blatantly and surreptitiously infiltrating and tracking your every move across the internet. Zuckerberg complains about Apple’s “rules” cutting his profits by half, and nobody mentions from whom all that extra money would be extracted. I have some ideas. 

    Zuckerberg says Apple is ‘resting’ on the iPhone and says its feature upgrades have slowed, while failing to mention the crapfest his Facebook has become. I still have a facebook account, because buried in it is availability of contact and light social interaction with friends and acquaintances. 
    Heaped on top of that is an increasingly thick sludge of unsolicited “information,” which was already false or misleading before Zuckerberg said he was abandoning fact checking. I’m talking about a continuing stream of information that is ostensibly of interest, but not that important,  regularly including false content. 

    If I were to indulge in conspiracy thinking, I might suggest that that sludge of pointlessly false and counter factual information is being unleashed to dull users’ capacity for critical thinking. Rather than the previous generation of algorithms catering to echo-chamber receptivity for targeted confirmation bias disinformation, Zuckerberg’s “service” offers a pliable nihilistic audience, receptive to any brand of disinformation. 

    But yeah, Apple’s “rules” are the problem. 
    williamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamdewmesconosciuto
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 88
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,270member
    leighr said:
    The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 
    I'm assuming this means that when a teacher graded your paper and marked an answer incorrect, it was a violation of your free speech? No one has the power to decide what is true or not. Reality is the only truth. But by making fact checking crowdsourced, you remove truth from fact, and I guess that's why they say we're in a post truth society. People only want to hear things they agree with, and everything else is deemed a lie, "fake news."

    It is tragic how bad things have become. People mistrusting professionals, believing conspiracies, hating everything different from themselves.

    It is tragic. I mourn the death of knowledge, of fact, of reality, of compassion. The only thing left is greed and hate in the people that follow him. It is pitiful.
    A population trained to believe nothing is also a population trained to believe anything. 
    edited January 11
    mattinoztmaydewmemaccamsconosciutoroundaboutnow
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 88
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,520moderator
    auxio said:
    leighr said:
    The end of so called “fact checkers” is a welcome relief for true free speech. When one person, or group, has the power to decide what is ‘true’ or not, we are all in trouble. See exhibit one: China, or even worse, North Korea. We all need to fight against this sort of abuse of money and power, and while I am not a huge Facebook fan, I’m glad that they are following X’s lead in allowing free speech. 
    Can you imagine what would happen if all the engineers who check bridge designs, buildings, engines in cars, etc thought this way?

    There is a reality out there which has undeniable facts about how things work, despite what all the crooks in the world seeking money/power are trying to convince you of for their own personal gain.
    That's not what it's about though and this was covered in the interview. Zuckerberg said the government had been forcing them to suppress information and had people screaming obscenities down the phone to suppress truthful information, they were trying to get memes/satire taken down.

    Facebook's original intent was to fact-check clearly factual things (Zuckerberg mentioned flat earth as an example) and only those things but it evolved into political bias where they felt they were deciding between opinions. Some of the bias was in which things they chose to fact-check. This makes up a lot of the bias in the media that people don't pay attention to, which is selective reporting. One news company will push a story down or not even report it that doesn't fit with their general views or audience and another company will do the opposite with the same story.

    Fact-checkers sometimes leave articles labeled 'inconclusive' if something is say 60% likely to be true. What is true or not isn't always binary, it can be a probability until more information is available or subject to interpretation and things that are considered indisputable are 99%+ true. A lot of things, especially in politics, have a lower probability of being true because they rely on hearsay, who witnessed the event and whether they are credible. Deciding whether someone is a credible witness is a biased process.

    Here's an example where a fact-checker is trying to figure out if a word that was spoken had an apostrophe and had a different meaning, both interpretations are plausible but not everyone will see each interpretation as being equally plausible:

    https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/10/30/biden-trump-supporters-garbage/

    This is the kind of vague political nonsense that is a waste of time getting involved with. Politics is an argument that never ends and at the scale Facebook operates at, it is a near impossible task to fact-check everything in a consistent and reliable way. They will get a reasonable proportion of the checks correct but those are rarely the problem because they are obvious to most people too, it's the vague ones that slip through.

    There are highly respected officials saying on record that UFOs with non-human creatures exist and mainstream news outlets report it, should this be reported and spread as truthful without them providing evidence or suppressed as misinformation until they provide evidence:

    https://www.newsweek.com/ufos-exist-what-experts-told-congress-1985865

    It's not enough to absolve themselves of responsibility by saying they aren't reporting that what is being said is true, only that those people said it (which is objectively true) because they could do the same for a quack doctor that says drinking pineapple juice every day prevents cancer. The 'we're just the messenger' defense.

    The addition of memes/satire complicates things. If someone is spreading misinformation in text, it can be labelled as such and suppressed but it can be wrapped into a meme and permitted to spread because it's just a joke.

    Having a central committee overseeing what constitutes what's true or not has the benefit of being authoritative and methodical but it also has a limited perspective, especially on international issues. While using the public for fact-checking can allow crazies to hijack the process, at a large enough scale this doesn't happen because the extremists are usually in the minority. The community notes on X.com have been very reliable and unbiased and that's what Facebook plans to use. It will probably catch misinformation, misleading content, AI content much faster than before because people who have a vested interest in opposing it will try harder to get it corrected than a team whose job is to clean up after it becomes a liability for them.

    The platform operators aren't trying to increase hateful content or misinformation, they are trying to make their platforms the least oppressive platforms for discussion. Elon Musk's interview with the BBC shows how each side views the problem:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRkcLYbvApU

    Musk says at 18:00 that they want to try to limit speech to what is limited by law. The people of a country agree what speech should be suppressed by law and that's what the platform abides by. This is a reasonable stance but obviously leaves platforms wide open for abuse on a large scale.

    I think the focus on factual accuracy isn't the best approach. Misinformation and hateful rhetoric spreads much less in person than it does online and the reason for this I suspect is civility. In the real world, there's a social contract where people exchange information politely and with positive intent. This is opposite in the digital world because the social contract is different. Online, people who are centrists are nobodies, people who have opposing views are enemies, people who have more extreme views on a supporting side are allies and reward each other with affirmation. This breeds ever more extreme perspectives because it rewards it. Unfortunately, the more people spend online, this is making its way into the real world.

    Focusing on promoting and rewarding civil conversation would create more wholesome platforms where the participants don't want to share hateful or misleading content because they won't be rewarded for it. This can be aided using AI where when someone posts a comment with expletives, incendiary content, some kind of attack, it will be detected and the platform can tell the user to write their comment more politely or it will be suppressed and count negatively against their digital persona. The digital persona will be tagged as a hateful, misleading persona and the worst personas and content can be suppressed by the platform. This can be applied retroactively. Reward people who are polite, tackle behavior rather than ideas, how people express themselves rather than what they express and the platforms will improve.

    An example AI summary of an online user would say something like: this user frequently posts aggressive messages, is politically left/right/center, shares offensive/misleading memes, promotes extremist users etc and put the summary right where they can see it. Embarrass them into being a better person online.
    Wesley Hilliardmuthuk_vanalingamavon b7dewmeblastdoorsconosciuto
     2Likes 3Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 40 of 88
    That Rogan guy regularly has guests that come on claiming they are experts in physics and they just talk 100% horseshit. It amazes me that people can be so retarded to listen to that shit.
    killroysconosciuto
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.