Note: Due to the lengthy or excessively wordy nature of this article, I scrolled past the majority of it without reading it.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook Implies That Facebook's Business Model of Maximizing Engagement Leads to Polarization and Violence
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's amazing, the amount of lies and BS that are flowing in the past 4 years, and the last week. It's as if, lately, the valves have been open, and the tsunami of BS is getting deep and wide. So sad...
FB is playing all virginal and uninterested in what's in our sock drawer. Yeah, right... They would sell people on a stump to the highest bidder if they could.
FB is playing all virginal and uninterested in what's in our sock drawer. Yeah, right... They would sell people on a stump to the highest bidder if they could.
Absolutely agreed. All social media is complicit in stirring the pot and allowing us to become so polarized. They feed us what they think we want to see and that causes us to live in echo chambers constantly inundated with views we agree with. The average liberal and average conservative aren’t really that far apart. But the media and social media love to polarize, and censor.
Don’t forget iAd. Apple sucks at things that require you to completely abandon human decency and morals.
You can’t really say this about many companies, but the world would be a better place without Facebook in it.*
*Or a Facebook that focused on its true advertised mission of helping old friends connect rather than stoking the fires of division and rhetoric for financial gain.
*Or a Facebook that focused on its true advertised mission of helping old friends connect rather than stoking the fires of division and rhetoric for financial gain.
You lost me at: “we all know that (insert random unfounded statement that is entirely personal opinion here)”.
The only thing “we all know” for sure is that purporting one’s personally held view as commonly known fact instead, is haughty, arrogant, and disingenuous.
And we're here today because the path of least resistance is rarely the path of wisdom.
I love that line.
I love that line.
Frankly I think thats a cheap excuse to not do the work for yourself. To give up before you begin. And I also think that I can look past the bias to judge for myself what makes the most sense...especially when I have multiple sources to compare.
A lot of people are quick to point out the problems. Whats your solution? The post you are putting down is when I told someone that I didn't think word of mouth is a reliable source of news. Maybe there is no ideal source of news, but word of mouth has to be about the lowest form there is.
I am not going to turn a blind eye just because its challenging to find the truth.
I agree this is the way to do it. Sadly most people aren't willing to make the effort, but rather blame their lack of knowledge on not trusting the media.
100% agree with Mr. Cook here. Facebook is digital nicotine, with sensationalism and radicalism having the highest concentrations and most likely to lead to addiction. Facebook and other social media companies, knowing this, promote sensationalism and radicalism most to drive up their revenue (Why promote Marlboro Lights when you retain more customers promoting Marlboro Reds). They are using addiction for profit with no regard for their users' or society's well being, just like drug manufacturers have done with opioids.
Last edited:
I have been on the internet long enough to have seen how the internet as declined into one big hate fest. I do think social media allowing all this hate to congregate on their platforms have hurt society but you can control it by limiting what time or data you are giving these companies. I have filters on my computer/smartphone that will block FB and others from tracking me.
The less data they have the less powerful they will have.
The less data they have the less powerful they will have.
Watch the Social Dilemma on Netflix. Cook is getting after the message of that movie.
In a weird way, this feels like Jobs going after Flash. You just don’t see this type of thing in the valley.
Good for Cook.
In a weird way, this feels like Jobs going after Flash. You just don’t see this type of thing in the valley.
Good for Cook.
Yep. Political discourse was more civil, productive, and less polarized when you had to discuss things face to face.
I am not saying not to do the work. I am saying that you are likely to reach the same conclusion after encountering 10 memes as you would after reading one biased article.
Here is all you need to know about the news media.
1. Watch the average news report about a topic you know a great deal about.
2. Be amazed at how misinformed and wrong the report is.
3. watch a report about a topic you don’t know much about.
4. Ask yourself why you trust them this time?
Reddit is quite a bit different. Yes, there is stuff there that can be bad, but it is also far easier to track and shut down the bad stuff. It is categorized into subreddits that have a topic and can be banned based on what happens in them. Facebook is much messier as there isn't a way to ban a topic, only people and pages.
Yes, like a lot of other things in life there is both good and bad aspects. Overall, I do like the Internet and many of the changes it has brought into my life.
Doesn't mean it can't be improved, though.
And like Tim Cook said in his statement:
"To all of you who have joined us today, please keep pushing us all forward."
and
"We've made progress together, and we must make more. Because the time is always right to be bold and brave in service of a world where, as Giovanni Buttarelli put it, technology serves people, and not the other way around."
And my point was that the Afghans had next to nothing to do with the events of Septemer 11.
Renegade Saudis were the culprits.
Thus, they (the Afghans) were the wrong target, not least because the Taliban were (and are) insular Pashtun nationalists fanatically obsessed with ridding Afghanistan of foreign influences and invaders and promoting (and enforcing) an unusually severe and exceptionally austere and repressive version of Islam domestically, but entirely lacking in any sort of international perspective.
Last edited:
And my point was that the Afghans had next to nothing to do with the events of Septemer 11.
Renegade Saudis were the culprits.
Thus, they (the Afghans) were the wrong target, not least because the Taliban were (and are) insular Pashtun nationalists fanatically obsessed with ridding Afghanistan of foreign influences and invaders and promoting (and enforcing) an unusually severe and exceptionallly austere version of Islam domestically, but entirely lacking in any sort of international perspective.
And Afghanistan was not the target.
The target were the Taliban (which held power on almost all Afghanistan; and they were brutal on Afghans, especially women and children), and Al Qaida members that were in Afghanistan, protected by the Taliban. The Afghan war was - I repeat - different than the other wars specifically because of 1) 9/11 2) the power structure in Afghanistan (a mix of state and tribal actors). The taliban still control lots, if not most, of the power and regions in Afghanistan although it seems that they chilled out a bit from an international terrorism point of view.