europsucks

But what exactly is "white nationalist content"? If I say something positive about Trump, will it already get me banned? What if I disagree with something a PoC says?

Of course FB as a private company is entitled to censor whatever they want.

In a general sense, I don't really understand the need, as usually in social networks like Facebook people only see the stuff they want to see. There are lots of tools to facilitate your own filter bubble, and people use them. So the worry that "ideology x is spreading via Facebook" is somewhat unfounded in my opinion.

Unfortunately, there is also a lot of uncertainty in buying a "used" home. There can also be issues the seller doesn't tell you about.

I know a lot of people who can't use a computer or a smartphone, which is also very sad. They never learned to explore and experiment with the user interface. If you explain something to them, they write down every step. When the next software update changes a little thing, they are lost again. That's very similar to your "just turn it by 90°" example.

Do you have elderly parents you support with their computers? Then maybe you know what I am talking about.

I am not saying kids shouldn't play with bricks. The whole premise of the article seems silly. Nobody claims kids should play with computers instead of bricks.

As for becoming computer savvy, I've seen kids pick up quite a lot from playing with computers. They quickly figure out how to find and launch the games they like, for example. And they also experiment, for example rearranging the UI. Then there is Minecraft.

How do you measure the value of stacking bricks, then?

The incentives should be "landing a government contract", though? So if government makes "landing a contract" dependent on rehabilitation rates, it could work?

What will earn him more money in later life, though - stacking bricks, or using a computer?

Why can't you do both?

Did they also study how much you learn about using a computer by stacking bricks?

What if they found that kids who only play with bricks suck at Tetris? Would that be a cause for concern?

What a silly spin. Do they even provide any evidence that "the rich" use less screens? There were some reports about some specific rich people not giving their kids phones (I think mainly Zuckerberg). But "the rich"?

And what is the message they want to convey? The rich use screens to exploit us? Or to get rich, don't use screens? Both notions are completely ridiculous.

The main takeaway I guess is that there are "the rich", and the rest of us. So unfair! I feel the rage building inside of me already. Hate the rich! My internet addiction is strictly their fault! How dare they build addictive services like Google or Facebook, and thereby ruin my life?

Wait, did I just waste 15 minutes reading the NYT? I guess they are to blame, too, if I don't become rich.

So they will create a transgender bathroom for you, but before you enter it you have to wonder if society will accept your choice?

I think that is exactly not how it is supposed to work.

If hiring was the issue, there would have to be a pool of IT women who can't find a job. I don't think such a pool exists.

There are many other factors that can come into play. It is simply incorrect to draw the conclusions you do.

One example is earning prospects, which might matter more for men than for women. Personally, I was torn between studying maths and film making, for example. I decided to go for maths because of the better money making prospects (I thought), thinking I could still go into film making later.

If you don't worry about income prospects, maybe you are more likely to choose English literature of the 16th century over engineering.

Just one example.

Maybe tech companies shouldn't let journalists tell them how to run their companies.

Then that's one thing to look at for reasons. And maybe deals can be struck.

It is fine if entities try to increase profits.

Usually competition is the way to insure fair prices.

The collusion then might be to not allow competition. In the case of pharmacy, for example, I would guess there are many regulations that make it very expensive or infeasible to start a competing firm.