Some of these are direct actions by the company. Some are unintended consequences. And this isn't even getting into the personal harm and unhealthy behavior that comes from use of Facebook and similar manipulative social media.
Facebook is a genuinely evil company with genuinely evil people doing genuinely evil things to manipulate the world in negative ways, and I want nothing to do with them. They've been immoral/unethical from the start.
They manipulate their users, cause genuine harm to people, the world, and democracy, and should not be rewarded with continued use of their services.
Edit: Because people have been downvoting/flagging my comments, I'm no longer allowed to reply to people and continue the discussion.
Am I the only irritated by these inevitable questions from people with no sense of literary craft any time an article from the New Yorker is posted on HN?
Considering that it's run by FEMA, and they are mandated by law to only use it in national emergencies, and multiple FEMA officials have to sign off on any message sent out, political misuse of it is fairly unlikely.
There are a few possible scenarios where a national alert makes sense: ICBM launches that they either can't yet predict the target of or on a scale that is targeting across the country, massive cyberattacks targeting national infrastructure, supervolcano eruption, foreign invasion, etc.
The idea is that it would only be used in the most extreme of scenarios that affect the country as a whole.
It does this by default without a subscription service in the event of a detected fall if you do not respond to an alert within a certain amount of time.
Hope nobody falls on their watch and are uninjured but break the touch sensor, preventing them from being able to cancel the 911 call…
Investing in total market index funds is literally investing in the economy as a whole. (Or as much of a whole as the index represents.) So while yes, they will crash with future market crashes, of which there will be many in each of our lifetimes, historically in the U.S. so far the market has always recovered.
One of those is based in fact and reality, the other is not. The reason you're having a hard time finding "neutral" news is because reality is not inherently neutral.
Oh, I understood what you meant, I was just providing an additional data point for this particular conversation in response to what you were saying re: search queries vs. results.
"AFAIUI" is nowhere even close to as common as your other examples. I have never encountered it before, and Google Trends doesn't even register it in a comparison between the others.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/facebook-role-rohingy...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-cambr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinke...
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-...
Some of these are direct actions by the company. Some are unintended consequences. And this isn't even getting into the personal harm and unhealthy behavior that comes from use of Facebook and similar manipulative social media.