2905
Yikes.
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
2905 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59111 readers
4050 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
“Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.“
How the fuck did Harvard students act so stupid and give out their info like that? I thought they were like the smartest people in the US. 🤔
Most Harvard students are still just 18-22 year old "kids". Think of how dumb/naive you were at that age.
Try telling that to a 18-22 yr old. You think you know everything at that age. Then you get older and realize no one knows any fucking thing
To be fair, when you're at that age and come into contact with dozens of "adults" that never mentally grew past 12, you're bound to think you're "very smart".
Yea except I know I know everything so I'm built different
There’s a reason second-year students are called sophomores. It’s a compound with the same roots as “sophisticated” and “moron”. It literally means “learned idiot”. It’s referring to the students who have a year of schooling under their belt, and think that they understand everything about the world. It’s basically referring to the Dunning-Krueger Effect, where people who know very little about something are the most likely to overestimate their knowledge on the topic.
As a 21 year old I would be offended but then I remember I just admitted my exact age on the internet
Oh don't worry, I'm still in that age range, I guess I'll find out how dumb I am in a few years from now. 😅
You don’t get any smarter, just wise enough to know how dumb you are.
Maybe.
If you're lucky
The problem is that that is a very low bar to overcome
Nah, it's just the kids of the wealthiest people and a handful of diversity admissions.
This is still I think the most telling glimpse into who the "ZUCK" really is. Looking at what meta has become, how it has operated... No matter how professional and respectable he acts.
This is who he really is.
I don't it's a fair assessment - dude was just a kid.
I've watched some podcasts and interviews and I think he's a much more complex of a person. I do genuinely think he's thinks he's doing good and I do think that Meta stuff is a net benefit to the humanity.
Even if you hate Facebook it brought people together in so many places, especially if you consider developing world.
Doing good does not absolve you of having done evil.
Zuck has utterly failed in preventing facebook from doing clear, preventable, harm.
I don't get to walk free, no matter how many homeless people I feed, if I kill one.
The same should go for corporations. If they do evil, once, they should done. Not fined. There is no math which makes the bad that facebook does, necessary to achieve the good it does.
You kinda just gutted 99% of corporations. And done overall nothing for society because they already all reopened under different names.
Why are you assuming the legal framework for ending corporations couldn't have mechanisms to prevent that?
For example, offending corporations could be broken up, and have their assets sold to their competitors. The resulting money used as severance for the employees, who didn't necessarily do anything wrong.
A company can't just "start back up" if you take all their capital. And no-one would re-invest in people known for taking legal risks that might make that investment go "poof".
And 99% of corporations wouldn't be evil if wasn't fucking legal, and basically required to compete!
I don't think it's even legal to give away a company's assets without their consent, be they criminal or not.
And anyway, that's easy to get around that too. Full of companies that already """go bankrupt""" to avoid paying their due and then reopen with money magically appearing from "somewhere". In the end to me it just seems the more rules/laws you add, the more the average person will suffer because of it while not really causing any for assholes.
"This thing would be illegal" is a pretty shit argument when changing the law is on the table.
And I see you're a fan "anti-regulation" ideals. Did it occur to you that this system could entirely replace a shitload of micro-managing bs current regulation? And did you miss the part where re-investment in criminals wouldn't be a thing it was that expensive? The only reason it happens right now is because it technically legal, and cheap.
It's not just changing the law of a country though, I'm pretty sure some degree of private property is in the Human Rights and would require changing international law. Not to mention it would open a whole another can of worms.
And by the way, I wasn't talking about re-investment, more like those CEOs funneling all of their money into some backwards fund or hiding it with fake IDs, You can't accurately seize assets if those "assets" can be hidden or saved somewhere else. They just pass off as bankrupt, lose their debt and get buck in business with the same money they had before.
Are you seriously trying to argue that corporations should be allowed to get away with harming humans, because human rights? Were not discussing the current system, were discussing what would be the lost fair. Is this really the take you want to go with?
Some places execute criminal people, why should criminal organisations be any different? With those, there doesn't even have to be any actual killing involved. But you think its untenable ecause it would harm the people who own it, and benefitted from the crime?
The only reason hiding personal wealth in that way is because government let it happen, mostly because the people making the laws, do it too.
That should obviously stop.
The issue is that it's a slippery slope. When you start taking human rights away from one group of people, it could very easily lead to innocent people, or entire groups, being framed and legally stripped of their possessions. That's why I think opening that can of worms is a bad idea.
And it's not that easy. People figured hundreds of ways to hide wealth and there's no way you can regulate them all. Split it between relatives, buy non-quantifiable assets, hell they could buy bitcoins with multiple proxies on the dark web from an old pc in the middle of Africa and we'd know absolutely nothing of that. Unless you build some sort of utopic database which documents every living person's possessions and the exchange between them, it's just not possible.
What exactly is your point?
That because it would be difficult to get right, we shouldn't try?
Isn't that true for most things worth doing?
I just think giving the government a legal way to close down corporations and seize their assets doesn’t set a good precedent and could do more harm than good.
In contrast, I think having fines that actually matter and laws more strict on what a site can do without permission from the user are easier to do and have overall less ways to be exploited.
That's why limited liability is bullshit. You make the decisions, you go to prison for the crimes that come of them.
It's kind of a gray area though. Do you just jail the CEO if a company does evil? What if it was someone else inside the company and the CEO didn't know? And conversely, what if the CEO knew and is trying to pass off like they didn't, how do you prove it? It turns into slippery slopes pretty fast.
My personal solution would be just to actually scale up the fines. If someone gets fined for something they profited from, it's extremely stupid for the fine to be less than their profit. You're basically telling them to do it again.
I mean, aren't CEOs massive pay justified because they supposedly take on ultimate responsibility for the company?
If a company does something criminal under their watch, then even if they didn't give the orders they have been criminally negligent - surely?
Now, mind, I don't think that they should necessarily be the person punished most - the person's down the chain more responsible should serve more time. But the person at the top shouldn't get away free.
Regardless though I agree - fines with teeth are the most important thing.
I mean, aren't CEOs massive pay justified because they supposedly take on ultimate responsibility for the company?
If a company does something criminal under their watch, then even if they didn't give the orders they have been criminally negligent - surely?
Now, mind, I don't think that they should necessarily be the person punished most - the person's down the chain more responsible should serve more time. But the person at the top shouldn't get away free.
Regardless though I agree - fines with teeth are the most important thing.
Have you watched ‘The Social Dilemma’?
Facebook actively promotes things that will make you scared and angry, because those are the emotions that drive the most engagement and get the most clicks.
The problem I see is that you've bought into his lie. He might "sound" genuine in thinking he's done good, much like Bill Gates sounds genuine when he talks about his philantropic shenanigans. It's all an act.
The only net benefit I see off FB/Meta is that it taught us how dangerous and shitty a centralized internet is.
Woah! How is this real?