I'm sure they came to this finding by how many "likes" they got on the employee blast email announcing it. Funny though, there was no dislike button.
Watching The Social Dilemma on Netflix[1] was eye opening for me. I say that as someone who is intimately familiar with the technology related to the topics discussed.<p>[1]<a href="https://www.netflix.com/watch/81254224" rel="nofollow">https://www.netflix.com/watch/81254224</a>
I'm always confused by this discourse, because my Facebook feed is stream a bunch of vacation and baby photos, while my Twitter, no matter how hard I try to curate it, is a toxic cesspool of political vitriol. Why are we even talking about facebook?
This is surprising. I'd have thought execs would claim FB is indeed root cause. And then in repeat of vigorous e-protest employees would again skip desserts after finishing off company provided gourmet lunches.
What a farce. Everyone with a pulse can see the damage that Facebook has caused to our democracy and around the world. Facebook employees have a black stain on their resumes that they will need to answer for for the rest of their careers.
Reginald Denny, the LA protests, roof Asians, and flag burning all existed well before FB. It’s difficult to see how anyone can point to FB as the root of the problem.
They are right. The root cause for polarization is wealth inequality which is caused by government fiat money printing; of which Facebook happens to be a major beneficiary. Facebook is therefore only a beneficiary of the problem and not the root cause.<p>Wealth inequality leads to inequality of opportunities which causes inconsistent experiences of the same economic system and causes polarization. One side's experience is characterized by constant struggle with repeated and almost inescapable failure (obvious glass ceilings everywhere)... The other side's experience is characterized by repeated success with little effort required and so they think that people on the other side must be extremely lazy or stupid.