seanca

From a product perspective this feels a lot like blaming the market instead of taking responsibility that you didn't build the right product. "When Gujral and other domestic manufacturers saw an opportunity to help protect frontline workers ... many of them shifted gears to make face shields and hand sanitizer, which are relatively simple to produce." Right, you built what was easy (face shields) instead of what the market wanted most (N95 masks). Now your product isn't differentiated and the market is flooded with a product that doesn't best meet the market's needs. We knew six months ago that N95 masks were the critical product for frontline workers, not listening to that market feedback isn't the federal government's fault but rather your own.

Not surprising - as someone who has worked in the Facebook APIs for going on three years, the amount of undocumented breaking changes or abrupt API retirements is insane. Their overarching principle here has been "we're doing it now so you figure it out."

Dumb article is dumb. Ex-product manager = / = Facebook exec, this person also hasn't worked there in four years. "Targeting emotionally troubled teens" without detailed explanation as to how someone could implies simplicity in the matter, but it's not like an advertiser is typing in "show my ads to emotionally troubled teens please."

Very well. Now closing in on a year without Uber or Lyft, Fasten, Fare, and RideAustin have really come into their own as reliable options, especially on weekends that don't have extremely high demand numbers (ACL, SXSW, NYE weekends the apps have been less reliable).

Exactly. What someone else might call spam, Facebook might call "great news."

If having free speech produces "infinite spam", then that's a byproduct worth the benefits of not being limited on what ideas are ok to say and what ideas are not.

Facebook seems to be stumbling down the same page that Twitter did here in terms of attempting to regulate some content, by means that they themselves determines to be un-biased and in the best interests of users... which hasn't quite worked out so well for Twitter.

If everything is fine and unmoderated, there is no bias. If some things are flagged, not allowed, etc, I don't care how much a 3rd party is trusted. It's still humans picking and choosing one piece of content over another, and there are inherent biases involved there.

Watched my parents split. Currently watching older colleagues going through messy financial divorces or staying with someone to avoid said messy financial divorce.

Until outrageous divorce laws are fixed, I'll opt out of signing that trainwreck of a contract.

This is about the left, not about millennials. In the past it was the right condemning behaviors, but now it's the left. The left has taken on the motto of "intolerance for intolerance"; what that really means though is, if I don't agree with it it shouldn't be allowed. The left aren't advocating for free speech, but for specifically allowed speech. And that's more dangerous than the alleged bigotry they think they're stopping.

Twitter is really only useful for following influencers, famous public figures, popular people, however you'd like to describe them. There isn't that much of a reason for a more normal user with a few hundred followers (maybe) to engage on it other than interact with more prominent users. Everything people go to Twitter for therefore can be done without having an actual account yourself; everything is public, so why have an account other than to curate a list of things prominent users say.

Which might not even be a bad model if you think about it. To have it be the premier "find out what they said" space, without the hoopla from idiots, trolls, etc. Would people pay to visit a site like that? I'm not sure. Would there be a way to monetize that sort of experience? I think so. Just my $0.02.