• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 6th, 2023

help-circle

  • If he’s trying to say “Biden wanted this but Trump already started it”

    Which “he?”

    Zuckerberg blames it exclusively and entirely on the Biden administration.

    that tells me BOTH parties requested it. Hence, if you don’t like Biden because of this, you don’t want Trump either. And of course, vice versa. In short, this policy is not unique to either party or administration.

    Exactly, but that’s explicitly not what Zuckerberg is saying. He’s saying that it was entirely and exclusively Biden, which is a lie.


  • Why did Zuckerberg choose now to make this announcement and publicly reveal the inside play?

    There’s actually a tidbit that the author notes that points at the obvious reason for it.

    In his letter to Congressional investigators, he flat-out said what everyone else has been saying for years now.

    In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content…

    The author then goes on to say though:

    A few clarifications. The censorship began much earlier than that, from March 2020 at the very least if not earlier.

    What’s significant about that? Trump was president then.

    So Zuckerberg is rather obviously trying to pin entirely on the Biden administration a set of policies that were already in place under Trump.

    To what end? Obviously to do the same thing he did in 2016 and 2020 - to overtly promote Trump.

    This particular one certainly not coincidentally plays into the whole Republican narrative that the Democrats are oppressive and dishonest, which in turn is meant to provide a context for their intention to dispute the election results when Trump loses. Zuckerberg is simply doing his part to further that narrative.








  • So… by my count, the board of directors actually outnumber the employees.

    At a “non-profit” (until that was revoked) company that gets most of its funding through Patreon.

    Years from now (and at this rate, not very many of them), when people wonder how it was that such a promising venture that championed decentralization turned into just another enshittified megacorporation squatting over a piece of internet real estate and extracting rent to pay obscene salaries to a handful of executives - this is how. We’re watching as the foundation is being laid, right now.



  • No - piracy, since it always carries at least some amount of difficulty and risk, is easy to compete against. And in fact, paid services, including Netflix, have proven that over and over. All it takes is to offer dependable convenience and quality and to treat customers well. People are always willing to pay a reasonable price for that.

    The problem is that piracy becomes difficult to compete against when, as Netflix is currently doing, you shift from a business model of providing good service under fair terms for a reasonable price to a business model of providing crappy service under onerous terms for too much money, because the greedy, selfish, short-sighted sacks of shit at the top want to make even more obscene amounts of money. That’s the point at which piracy gains enough of an advantage to outweigh its difficulties and risks.

    And when that’s the case, it’s pretty obvious what the real problem is.