I wonder if the fear is that you might end up having less than ethical (rogue?) employees that might think they're helping the company by using some form of workaround to track users. I'm not sure if that's overly paranoid or just the right amount of paranoia, but I can imagine the fear.
That's fair, it does sound like a novice take; but it's still "business as usual" w/r/t what is touted as best practices where it comes to version control. At least that's my slightly above novice take on the matter.
regardless of whether that would have been more prudent, blame for over charging a young man to the point that he's suicidal is the factor I think we're most interested in
From my years playing Minecraft, it's probably got a lot more to do with the layout of the upper room. Like you don't want your spiral ending toward a wall, you want it ending toward the room itself.
Since switching to React functional components I haven't once felt a need to switch back to class based components. The hook ecosystem just feels right. I suppose it's a matter of opinion at this point, but I do really appreciate the hook feature of React.
Before reading this list I didn't know that base64 can read files. So it's useful in the respect that a novice can get a better understanding of their attack surface (I think, I'm a novice to this after all) :)
>>> Of course, there are many practical matters that would have to be ironed out. For one, Facebook might be a US company, but its utility-like services are delivered to the entire globe, so there are real questions about what a publicly owned or regulated Facebook would actually look like — questions like “Which public?” or “Regulated by whom?”
>>>Avoiding mass censorship efforts doesn’t mean we’re powerless to do anything. There are clear changes that can be made to Facebook’s algorithms, design, central mission, and resourcing that would bring it closer to the true public service it claims to be than the nihilistic, profit-making juggernaut it operates like, and none of them would threaten our right to speak freely or mess with our ability to stay in touch with loved ones, organize events, or such platforms’ other useful features.
The author makes a couple of attempts to characterize Facebook as a "utility", and even provides a link [1] to eff.org as proof of that claim as though being a public service is enough to constitute being declared a utility in need of direct regulation.
The author also claims that Facebook is "deliberately designed to be addictive", which I concede is true. I'd like to further point out that HN is also addictive, and seems to have been designed with absolutely no interest in making it addictive. And lastly, I'd like to mention that the US government recently relaxed its laws concerning government funded propaganda[2].
So I have a couple of questions:
1. If government wants a social media utility, then why doesn't it attempt to buy or build one that it can more easily regulate/understand?
2. Is social media itself an addictive element in our lives?
3. Is the level of addiction similar in harm to that of television, YouTube, or news aggregation sites? How would you rate it?
4. How do you justify asking government to offer (potentially) addictive services as public utilities?
5. With respect to the deregulation of propaganda, should Facebook be held to a higher standard than our government?
When I wrote "could you explain why you think I'm wrong", I was expecting that people who had reasons to believe I'm wrong would respond, and would explain those reasons, not that someone would explain to me how speculation works.
If you think I'm wrong on a technical level, could you please explain how?
That's not really explaining why (or how) I'm wrong, just that you don't believe me.. which is fine, but not constructive.
It seems generally less believable that Facebook would censor people without telling them.
Other commenters [0] appear to believe the same as I do, and note that FB typically informs the user that their action/behavior is against the site's terms of use.
I'm going to go on out on a limb and guess that this isn't really a case of censorship, because it's not like Facebook to not tell you directly that they've removed your content. Or they go the other route and post a disclaiming "fact check" under it.. but so far as silently removing posts, and marking them as "sent", seems more likely to be a bug.
When I attempt to navigate to gnews.org the site is very slow, and I wonder if Facebook is having trouble assigning some kind of risk factor to it, then giving up, but ends up sending a "success" response anyway, whereby the front end just assumes the message was sent property and pushes it to your message cache without attempting to fetch it over the network.
edit: since this has been down voted, could you explain why you think I'm wrong?
>> You can work out for an hour, and one soda wipes it out entirely, or a couple slices of pizza.
Not exactly, just because you've replaced those calories doesn't mean that your body didn't gain muscle mass which itself requires calories just for your body to maintain. This leads to a higher basal metabolic rate, which ends up burning calories even while you rest.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/souuve/dad_mic...