piva00

It doesn't help Joel Kaplan was their main policy executive until this year. It doesn't help either to read all the beans spilled in "Careless People" about how Zuckerberg and Sandberg discovered they could use Facebook's/Meta's reach to tilt the political landscape and force candidates to be on their side regarding regulations.

They've been doing this for a decade, no reckoning yet in sight.

With the need to enact political change so incentives align for the benefit of society at large.

It's a stupid proposal, railways should cover the most populous and economically active areas first since rail in Brazil is nearly non-existent outside of transporting raw mined ore. Replace the fucking trucks going up and down Brazil's south-southeast, which historically the car lobby blocked that to push for more trucks and cars. I'm very sure environmentalists would support a push to replace those trucks with rail.

Are you prepared to understand you are being swindled?

Unfortunately I have a few like you in my family, completely rotten brains from antipetismo and falling for stupidity like "building railways on the most difficult and least economically active area of the country", do you understand you are being lied to?

Brazil's poor industrialisation isn't an issue caused by caring about the climate though. Destroying the Amazon to continue the same bullshit of exporting unprocessed minerals won't improve Brazilian society.

Why exactly is Brazil disadvantaged about climate policies to industrialise given it has enormous potential in renewables (hydro, solar, wind)? Could even have more nuclear power. Industrialisation accelerates with cheap energy which Brazil has plenty of.

Have you thought that maybe the nonsense is coming from inside your skull?

Have you read "Careless People"?

If you did (or do read at some point) the final 10-15 chapters detail exactly why Facebook/Meta should be treated as a threat.

> Point is each geographic entity is maximizing their resources. And they have every right to without outside interference.

Not really when they create a global problem. Tragedy of the commons, huh...

Figuring out how to provide more for people using less resources, isn't that a great achievement?

I think reducing this discussion into only two polar opposites is rather juvenile, the struggle we face is on how can we be more efficient, and less damaging to the our general environment while providing for people.

That's a lot more sci-fi to me than sending rockets to Mars to colonise it.

When the state is a full 30 degrees of latitude southern than Sweden, with consistent sun throughout the year, yeah, it will generate more energy through solar.

What's the point you're making?

The new oil is data, and has been steadily growing into this position for the past 20 years.

LLM are just now consuming data, ad networks have been gobbling on it for many years.

Well, then it's time for the USA to pack it up from all bases in Europe and go back home, if it isn't a partnership there's no need to be loitering around for this long, no?

Ultimately it ended up being about money in politics, that the original complaint was about a movie is entirely moot given the consequences of the decision.

That's not at all what I'm saying, you can make your point without trying to stuff words in my mouth.

> Social media didn’t invent that.

Hence why I started with "fanning the flames". It means the issues are there, they need to be worked on but with social media we are stuck, solving complex issues require compromises, long-term thinking and planning, nothing that is enabled by social media's knee-jerk reactions, ephemeral messaging, etc.

I think you downplay the role of social media in fanning the flames.

"Careless People" talks about it and how it was the inception of Meta's powerplay into politics by becoming indispensable for politicians to use their platforms to reach voters. The only thing they cared about is engagement and avoiding regulations, both are easily achievable if polarisation becomes the norm, the obliteration of proper political discourse into the form it exists now is a consequence of that.

I don't believe those far-right parties would have this much support if public discourse wasn't mostly focused on online platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Twitter/X, etc., they wouldn't have the reach nor the tools for creating information bubbles as existing right now. Those platforms allow for the formation of entire separate realities that are self-reinforcing.

There are philosophical consistencies, it's not because someone can coopt the meaning of it that makes it meaningless, it's just deceptive.