I don't know how to educate other parents to encourage more controls. Most are too busy to care it seems, the kids are content with their brain rot etc. I hate that these companies turn me into a villain with my kids because they produce hyper addictive crap without any constraints.
What does not mean exactly?
There is a happy medium between "brain rot for hours" and "absolutely zero".
Thankfully I don't have the FOMO part with my kids - they all seem to understand the reasoning and seem pretty fine with it - none of them have ever asked for TikTok for instance. We recently went to a family gathering though and I was genuinely shocked to see one toddler, barely able to speak, left alone with TikTok on a phone, just swiping away for hours.
Meta is far worse than most people realize.
Later in the book, the China story was a close second. In order to get into China (to "grow") - exec team agreed to host Facebook's servers in China where the government could get access to customer private data, so they could stifle dissent.
Tons of other weird/bad/embarrassing stuff too. The author, a member of the core executive team, was seriously complicit but redeemed herself in my view with this no-holds-barred account of the complete lack of ethics up top.
In general a damning portrait of the executive team as just not giving a shit about anything except for growth and willing to actively participate in dictatorship in order to make it happen.
That's exactly what Apple does with iCloud in China.
I don't know exactly how they do this in non-english languages, but english speakers have complained that all the posts they see from friends are the most abrasive and inflammatory. Specifically those. So it's not just "a neutral platform". If this was happening in Myanmar then of course it inflamed ethnic tensions
Second, Facebook's barging into emerging markets - with Free Basics, they sent letters on behalf of Indians to the telecom regulatory body (including net neutrality advocates who were very much against it). Facebook in Myanmar would not even be a thing in the first place were it not for their larger internet.org initiative. (I don't dislike "social media". It's fine to connect with people, but not the way FB does it) Whether we ought to have these services wholly decentralized or some sort of KYC system - dunno. But FB (and specifically Zuckerberg) are just bad faith actors
The free-speech absolutists would presumably just shrug but that seems absolutely wild.
Sheryl Sandberg comes off poorly too, calling her assistant "Little Doll," beckoning her to sleep in her lap during private jet trips and buying her lingerie on business trips. Then on another trip she tried to get a different employee to come cuddle and sleep in the jet bed with her and pouted when this person declined, saying the first assistant always would so why does this person have a problem with it. She also has racist comments, talking about how she likes to always hire Filipino nannies because they are "service oriented."
Every last one of them should be rotting in jail, but that ain’t good for the ol GDP which is more important that peoples lives.
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/unitedhealths-alleged-plan-t...
Even if it happened, they’d get pardoned.
Now it's 'Fraud is fine'.
But it's not about GDP. It's about shareholder value which is absolutely not representative of the whole population.
Extreme greed is now part of US social contract, top to bottom, and has driven the whole society to madness sadly.
But otherwise your point is correct
It's like a video game where the more depraved your thinking is, the more money you make off it, and the rest of the characters sit around like NPCs and just let it happen. Well, maybe they don't, but when they pull a Super Mario Brothers trick the entire state apparatus is used to track them down and imprison them.
This is at the crux of everything in America. There are zero punishments for corporations and executives but there are bureaucratic lock ins for "customers".
And the answer is not merely regulation. Why shouldn't I be able to switch health insurance at ANY time? If I am unsatisfied with United Healthcare, I should be able to get anything else right away. Why impose laws on me?
This really is a problem only the government can solve, by continuously auditing coverage decisions at random, and sufficiently penalizing the companies that understaff at best, and intentionally deny or delay payment at worst.
Currently, years might go by until CMS audits the company, and even then, there are no consequences. Try arguing for a higher budget for more $400k doctors and $200k pharmacists in this environment.
The current situation is because one company can lower premiums by reducing quality of service, all the other ones have to also, and the buyer rarely buys on anything but price since it’s usually a third party buying it, like an employer.
It's almost as if there is nothing insurance-like about US health "insurance" but the name.
Picture health insurance models laid on top of your car. Imagine your car gets totaled:
Your insurer says, "Hey, we're going to pay out $25,000 for your vehicle. So you have a $1,000 deductible, so that's $24,000, and then your copay for a total loss is $2,000, so that brings us down to $22,000. For total losses, your coinsurance as your contribution for your vehicle coverage is 20%, which is $5,000, so here's a check for $17,000. Buttttt... that's only if you're buying a Hyundai, otherwise the vehicle is out of network and you'll get a check for $8,500 instead."
US health insurance coverage is very insurance-like, due to the out of pocket maximum.
Determining auto insurance coverage is very simple, because fixing/replacing cars is simple.
Determining health insurance coverage can't be simple, because fixing bodies is not simple. It's unknown what will and will not fix issues, how to even measure if there is an issue, and what will cause more issues and the cost/benefit of that fix.
The people who can fix the issue are a lot more rare and in demand than the people who can fix automobiles.
Also, the medicine is patented, and the seller of the medicine wants to be able to charge different prices to different buyers, hence all the games.
If someone could get the cheapest plan when they're healthy and then go switch to the best plan as soon as they started getting sick with something, everyone would do exactly that.
Insurance companies are required to accept patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, so there has to be something counter-balancing that to prevent people from only getting good insurance when they plan to use it.
Well, I mean, except for large, systemic ramifications that affect everyone in society, but who's counting?
When I speak with overseas friends there's often a sense of "of course" or "reasonable" moral lines in the relationship between their culture and where capitalism can't tread. That seems completely gone right now in the US, though it's been heading in that direction for decades. It was mediated by social constructs that have since been completely eradicated.
EDIT: Always interesting to watch comment points go up and then come down.
They live in private neighborhoods with private security guards and send their kids to private schools. Once they get enough money they fly on private jets and go to private islands to private parties that you're not invited to.
Simply put the consolidation of wealth in a very small percentage of the population always leads to outcomes like this. These people become completely disconnected from the reality that 98% of the rest of their country lives in.
The collapse of collective consideration is a major reason the west is in decline. Championed by neoliberals without insight into history, it seems.
Ah yes, it was the neoliberals that spout "I am the rugged American individualist and I don't need no society"
Legislation on education curriculums can also have an impact on people's core morals, though that can be tough when even concepts like "share your toys" and "slavery was wrong" can be called indoctrination these days.
That is a very false and misleading dilemma.
Coordination matters. And coordination is too hard to do as a call for everyone to just be good.
If you live in a jungle of “free” actors (unconstrained by a need to compete constructively), the good path becomes unrealistic for everyone. And everyone but a few, have to work increasingly harder to pay off the damage of those few.
Or suffer the unrelenting undertow on their lives as highly rewarded parasitic behavior finances its own continued growth.
—
What would a single chart of computing power devoted to commercial surveillance and feed manipulation, on hire to actors both good and bad, look like?
I can tell you, that the scrapbook and organic sharing aspects of the major social networks, even with non-surveillance personalized ads, would be profitable with a small fraction of the servers being used to optimize users for advertisers. If that wasn’t the enabled bar.
In the meantime, the leverage compounds as how do good actors who need to advertise compete without themselves feeding these highly centralized surveillance/manipulation machines? Even while they increasingly siphon off the margins of their revenue as real producers?
And how can direct competitors avoid becoming monsters? Whatever OpenAI’s natural good intentions, high or low: to compete with Google and Facebook in the consumer market they will also have no choice but to also start and innovate new ways of extracting surveillance/manipulation value from users.
Not just ads to cover natural costs, but s/m driven ads to keep up with the s/m margins and therefore investment by competitors they have to compete with.
—
Without guardrails for everyone, everyone (at a practical level) is forced to be actively or passively complicit in increasing damage as a major growth industry.
Margins for profits in legally externalized negative outcomes are, by definition, better than for productive on-their-merits businesses.
You absolutely can use legislation to tamp down on amoral behavior, though.
Humanity is a largely defined by our exercise of legislating morality. For a lack of insight into history you should consult a mirror.
Why is there a requirement for consequences to act moral? If I have to have a threat of punishment to be good, then I'm not being good and it's all transactional.
Which isn't to say capitalism is worthless, it can be a powerful force when regulated for the benefit of everyone.
See, most people don't want to murder and kill other people. For them we don't need to make laws saying murder is wrong and we'll hook your ass to ole'sparky if you proceed to do it.
For you, we do need to make that law so you have to think twice about carving people up like cantaloupes, and for dealing with those that do break the law.
A lot of law is the encoding of moral and ethical behavior. We didn't have the law, some people acted immoral, then we made the law to punish said behavior. For many people this pushed them away from the grey area between legal behavior that is immoral because if they act unethical new laws would be developed to punish them further (and people wonder why we have so many laws in the first place, quit acting like shitheads and we won't).
>then I'm not being good and it's all transactional.
Hurray, you've realized there is no god and the physical world we live in is built on cause and effect, thank you for catching up to the 20th century.
Cause: "you act good"
Effect: "I don't crack open your head and eat the tasty goo inside while screaming like a primate, since acting good allows us to build societies that have benefits for us all"
There are two populations: population A is those who prefer ethical behavior internally and would volunteer for it even if not compelled. Population B is those who don't prefer ethical behavior internally, wouldn't volunteer for it, and must be compelled to act ethically from without if they are to act ethically at all.
In a landscape that impartially disincentivizes unethical behavior, both A and B can coexist.
But in a landscape that DOES NOT impartially disincentivize unethical behavior, everyone acts the same as before—unless there's a benefit to acting unethically. In which case, A, those who prefer to be ethical for its own sake, will inevitably be outcompeted by B, those who engage in any behavior regardless of ethics, so long as that behavior confers advantage.
Enough of that on a long enough time scale and the voluntarily ethical population just disappears.
So, either we enforce ethical behavior (even on those who need no forcing), or we create an unethical free-for-all waiting to happen.
In some cases the "waiting to happen" stage can last a surprisingly long time. Centuries, maybe. But never, as long as B's exist and are free to act, without end.
Typically the behavior is "Very slowly, then suddenly all at once". Which makes issues easy to ignore and by the time all at once happens there is no time to actually deal with it.
In fact, it behooves all B's to make all the A's BELIEVE that society is still "Basically Ethical" for as long as possible.
That's what prevents the A's from banding together and forcibly restructuring things to reset the clock... for as long as possible.
So the thing Liberal societies have done is create systems where we punish BEHAVIOR rather than trying to classify people. And it works, as long as we do the "impartially disincentivizing unethical behavior" thing I mentioned before.
Morals are not universal; different people have different morals. Ancient Greece would not have batted an eye at relationships that we consider pedophilia. Slaves were kept in various societies over time, as recently as 6 generations ago, with varying levels of "morality" attributed to the practice.
I see what you did there :)
Tech companies in the US have generally been good actors ethically.
Facebook in particular has been a scapegoat for years now.
I think you could make this argument many years ago (before Facebook existed), but that ship has long since sailed.
Ascribing this to just "US companies" is a cop-out or a cope. The US is in complete social collapse across the entire spectrum of society.
I am coming at this from a right-wing perspective.
Hold short. They already lost a CEO to an act of revenge at the end of '24... and still didn't think that maybe they should stop, reflect on themselves and cut down on the BS before the next CEO catches a bullet?
I'm not sure if it's audacity, ignorance or stupidity that's at play here.
If you actually look at the data, the vast majority of expenditures in medicine are the last few months of life. Paying ~500K to 1M to extend life ~6 months so you can spend the time hooked up to tubes and passing in and out of consciousness to deal with the pain is NOT HUMANE.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/uber-for-nursing...
That is a ship that sailed a long, long, long time ago.
It’s worse than that, it’s like bringing a knife to a fight against an entire army equipped with all the latest and greatest weapons of the day.
- freedom to be racist against people of color
- freedom to do hitler salutes wherever you want
- freedom to carry a gun to school or to mcdonalds
- freedom to get lead poisoning from your municipal drinking water
- freedom to coal roll your truck next to people
- freedom to have car tires without any profile that can explode any time
- freedom to get bankrupted by uninsured asshat's car crashing into you
- freedom to work at age 80 as a walmart greeter
Freedom to raise your children without having them exploited for profit is also freedom.
If you do that ethically, fine. If you're not sure if it's ethical, try anyways. If it's unethical, do it. If it's illegal, do the cost-benefit analysis of what the punishment would cost the shareholders.
That's how these people think, and it's a direct threat to the liberty and well-being of our society.
EDIT: Downvote me all you want, but look around. That's how many of the people at the top of companies think as evidenced by their companies' behavior.
People can downvote my original comment all they want, but understand, that is the mindset of people like Mark Zuckerberg. Make money any way possible.
That's a choice, not a law of nature. We can make law that changes that. Individual executives can push back. Society at large can change norms and expectations.
Why would we choose the nightmare world where profit must come first?
The only reason you hear this argument deployed seriously is when the person saying it has their own motivations for wanting profit to be supreme.
Readers reading the first sentence are probably downvoting immediately thinking that's your PoV.
Meta buried 'causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege
- Attorney client privilege is unethical.
- Reducing your legal risk by deleting old data that is no longer needed and no longer on legal hold is unethical.
- Violating laws that say you can't collect data on children is okay to do.
I personally don't see these as bad things. Lawyers will trying and minimize the risk the company is in for violating various laws that exist around the world. I think it is ethical for them to give such advice. I also think attorney client privilege is also a big part of being ethical and saying that it is unethical is just trying to manipulate people's values to the author's benefit.
I personally don't see these as bad things.
I don't think it was a useful example since what is happening with Meta is different. It's not like a British soldier admitted to Adams that he murdered someone and Adams shared that fact in court.
Of course it would break the rules about civility here to directly accuse someone of that. Which makes me want to joke that it's an intentional feature of the site and explains why a VC firm wants to run a tech watering hole.
This, to me, is the crime. They are purposefully destroying data because they know it poses a legal risk to them. That is different from deleting data that is costing you money and isn't useful to your business. This is also different than counseling them to delete data to avoid problems if there is a security breach. Both of these are valid reasons to delete data in support of the business and in defense of risks associated with holding that data. Counseling that you should delete data because it may be used as evidence against you in a criminal probe though is obstructing foreseeable future investigations because you believe you may be committing crimes. The distinction, I think, is clear.
I agree with you that lawyers should be aggressive about protecting their clients and counseling them but when that counsel is to tell them to obstruct investigations they, to me, are now part of the crime.
Generally that lawyers in tech can be both good and bad, but that both the culture at west coast tech companies and how they handle their attorneys often leads to ethical issues that just do not happen in more buttoned down industries elsewhere. In particular many tech companies are just more protective of employees for no discernable purpose. An investment bank faced with a similar situation as the DC v. Meta case would have blamed and terminated the employees and attorneys involved, and trussed them up for prison if needed to protect the company. An oil company accused of faking environmental studies would throw the guy who doctored them under the bus.
This also serves the public interest (although some may disagree) because it preserves a productive company and provides a powerful incentive for management to grind individual corporate criminals into meatballs to protect itself and shareholders.
Meta's instinct was to defend the employee and the illegal activity rather than sacrificing the lamb to protect the company and the shareholders. They are not the only company that does things like this and it just makes no sense. It is something in the water in Northern California that makes them do this or some strange Pacific wind.
The other stupid thing that Meta did was commissioning these studies in the first place. What is the company doing? How does this benefit shareholder value? Is this a jobs program? If you did not like the answers they might give you, you should never have paid a bunch of academics to do these studies in the first place. The company sells digital fent to the masses. Of course it's bad for kids. You don't need a study to tell you that.
It's unchecked greed, that's the thing. It absolutely makes sense if you know you can bring your guy into the office of President - print money and if you break laws and get caught before the President is on your side, use all your resources to prolong the case just enough.
And lo and behold, we saw one Big Tech exec after the other swear fealty to Trump. A mixture of rule by mob (it was literally called the "PayPal mafia") and neo-feudalism.
Meta chose the other option - keep breaking the law and use all resources at their disposal to delay any sort of consequences.
the article doesn't argue this. It argues that sometimes attorney client privilege can be abused to shield criminal acts and that lawyers and state bar associations have a role to play in preventing those abuses and holding violators accountable, which hasn't happened in this case.
> Reducing your legal risk by deleting old data that is no longer needed and no longer on legal hold is unethical.
It doesn't say this either. It talks about the deliberate destruction of evidence of actual crimes and the intentional suppression of the truth so that people can continue to be hurt.
> Violating laws that say you can't collect data on children is okay to do.
I have no idea where you even got that impression.
The idea is the Meta researcher who said every time they put on a headset, they ended up seeing sexual acts from adults directed at children, was the problem because they were collecting data on children.
I genuinely hope it's out of: a lack of understanding of legal terms, ethics, and how to read critically. And that it is not trolling.
It's quite stultifying to read as someone who does have those understandings.
It reads as lying at best and trolling at worst, but my red-line is assigning motivation.
Which is a shame, because the article is a good example of what happens when you're cowardly and pretend "reacting to what it is" is "assigning motivation": inter alia, a 17 strike sex trafficker policy, signed off by corporate.
Seriously, if you are not a Meta lawyer, what tribe or political group do you feel you're defending with this? I can't imagine anyone except maybe Zuckerberg himself who would defend the things Meta and their lawyers have done and are currently doing to America's children.
>"Seriously, if you are not a Meta lawyer, what tribe or political group do you feel you're defending with this? I can't imagine anyone except maybe Zuckerberg himself who would defend the things Meta and their lawyers have done and are currently doing to America's children."
Please review the HN Guidelines:
>"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
>"Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
>"Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
>"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Only people ready to do "anything" to optimize their performance rating and team goal are successful at facebook. And remember, facebook only hires smart people. So they do know what they are doing.
So it is true, they really do only hire insufferable pricks.
But as a company? Meta has been entirely incapable to innovate since it was renamed. Betting billions on an obviously flawed idea of a Facebook-owned VR universe, then shortly pivoting to a cryptocurrency that ended up being little more than a rugpull, and, after investing billions in expensive AI staff, they're now pulling the plug on that, too
The most successful products like WhatsApp and Instagram were purchased, not internal developments. Nobody cares about Threads and it mostly only exists because Elon Musk destroyed Twitter.
I sure hope Instagram and WhatsApp are bringing in enough money because Meta is running out of things to do, other than milking their current customers dry.
Do they know what they're doing? Do they really?
That is quite clearly not what they are asserting, discussing, or even adjacent to conversationally.
It doesn't help when you're exaggerating to make it have some foundation, and obviously so. (they pivoted from VR to crypto? pulled the plug on AI?)
Their apps also regularly nag you to allow access to stuff like contacts and the photo gallery when you've already said no the first time.
And for a personal anecdote: I was recently helping a senior setup Whatsapp Desktop on her Windows computer. It could chat fine but refused to join calls, displaying an error that said there was no microphone connected. I mean, there is a mic connected and it could record voice notes fine. Turns out that error actually meant that there was no webcam connected, and a webcam was required to join calls. I think it's the same way in the mobile app where you need to give it the camera permission to join a video call even if you turn the video off. Meanwhile Zoom, Teams, Webex, and others allow you to join any call without a mic or camera.
As she didn't have a webcam I first tried the OBS virtual camera but Whatsapp refused to recognize that despite all other apps working fine with it. Somehow Droidcam with no phone connected worked fine, displaying a black screen in the virtual camera feed, and that got Whatsapp to join the call successfully. Absolutely ridiculous and it's clear to me how desperately they want that camera access and that sweet data.
At best, you can indoctrinate people with a religion, conventional religion or a modern ascetic stoic humanist religion.
But its silly to think that religion is going to stop 100% of the population from doing anti-social things.
This might be strange to hear, but people have different and conflicting values. The worker at Meta might have a life goal to help society, the executive might have a life goal of making lots of money. These conflict, and its overly optimistic to rely on individual ethics to create a good world to live in.
Now I'll give an example: Should affairs be punished? Currently, there are plenty of US states that don't have laws on this. However, there may be something to be said about having a contractual agreement that penalizes this. If there is no contract, then it doesn't matter.
We can enforce pro-social values, we don't need to rely on individuals being wholly good.
Politicians are notorious for their lack of ethics. Journalists have acquiesced to reprinting police reports and political press releases. Assuming someone unfortunately attains legal standing, the court process is so expensive and tedious it remains unaccessible anyway. This is to say nothing of political corruption or the way criminal proceedings work for people like Meta executives versus the general public.
How do you reconcile this dissonance?
Alas.
If the laws make Meta somehow possibly responsible for child abuse happening on Roblox, and the legal team protects them from this, I think the legal team is on the ethical side.
> Holding Meta accountable includes holding its lawyers accountable
Wow. Just wow.
> On October 23, 2025, a judge in a separate case validated what the whistleblowers and court documents had described. Invoking the rarely used crime-fraud exception to pierce Meta’s attorney-client privilege, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Yvonne Williams found Meta’s lawyers had coached researchers to hide, block, and sanitize studies on teen mental-health harm in order to shield the company from liability. Judge Williams determined there was probable cause that these communications were “fundamentally inconsistent with the basic premises of the adversary system.” [emphasis mine]
Yes, the lawyers are totally in the clear here.
We need brutal, public executions for people like this.
Zuckerberg's only saving grace by now is that he's not the only despicable billionaire.
But I don't think the author is correctly interpreting the principles of legal ethics, and their repeated questioning of attorney-client privilege, which I've considered to be one of the foundations of the American legal system, is hard to take seriously.
Also, I don't think their depiction of John Adams's representation of the British soldiers is accurate. From what I can tell, Adams sought only to give his clients as strong a legal defense as possible. In the trial, he called the American protestors a "mob", gave a racist depiction of one of the victims to justify the soldiers' panic, and ultimately saw all but two soldiers acquitted. Adams viewed this as a patriotic act, yes, but only insofar as he believed all accused of crimes in America deserved fair legal representation. He was a lawyer defending his clients, not the judge or jury trying to find the "truth" of the matter.
Well - capitalism nullified that. You need money - and connections - to win for many cases in court. So it is more of a milking game than "the old ideals".
> today’s legal ethics codes still speak of lawyers’ threefold duty: to the client, to the court, and to the country
This creates a conflict of interest. If the lawyer thinks he is not responsible for winning the case, then a defendent should be able to defend himself or herself in court. Though this leads to an automatic loss, let's be honest. The current system is designed to make the courts and lawyers rich(er).
> Imagine if Adams had decided that defending his clients meant winning at all costs.
So why should this matter for the client? Why would Adams be allowed to be lazy and lose? How is that a winning strategy for the client?
> Meta lawyers ordering evidence of child exploitation destroyed
Well - people made Facebook rich. That was a big mistake on their behalf. Now children suffer - perhaps you should not have made Facebook rich in the first place.
> These lawyers collapsed Adams’ threefold duty into one — serve the client alone, whatever the cost to the courts and the country.
I think Facebook should be disbanded, but I fail to see why the lawyers should consider "courts and the country". That makes no sense. Then again I also don't think corporations should have persona-rights either - the whole system is not fair.
> Meta’s attorneys have forgotten that the law’s legitimacy derives from the integrity of those who practice it.
Except that the rich have always gamified the system. Look at Trump.
The whole focus on Facebook here makes no sense. This is a systematic problem. Question the whole system. It is basically legal corruption.
> Holding Meta accountable includes holding its lawyers accountable
They know they work for evil but they get money that way. So the question is: why does evil pay so much money? The whole system is geared towards that.
> The truth will out for Meta’s lawyers — eventually — as happened with Big Tobacco’s
I am not sure this can be compared 1:1. Tobacco lied about cancer and smoking.
I don't think Meta faces the same problem, even if they ruin people's life. The data just isn't as clear as for smoking.
The whole article is really weak. I'd be the first to chop down Facebook, Google etc... and split these up for evil, but you need to write good articles as to why. That article seems superweak. The comparison to Big Tobacco simply don't apply 1:1. And being an evil lawyer in itself does not invalidate a case, even if their rationale for throwing out cases is also garbage.
Can you imagine if you ask an engineer "what's your opinion on the maximum load this bridge can take?" he answered "for a fee, I will claim that my opinion is what you tell me". In any other profession this would be corruption, but when it comes to lawyers that's their job. Intellectual prostitutes.
I'm sure folks will come out of the woodwork to say that this isn't relevant as it was 20 years ago and Zuckerberg was just a wee lad at the time. However, I've never seen any evidence that Meta's attitude towards its users has changed since this quote was written. Every new Meta scandal just helps keep this thing relevant for another year or two.
0ckpuppet•2h ago