wu-ikkyu

Because sometimes you only have seconds or milliseconds to decide how best to potentially save your own life and/or the lives of your family.

Sometimes "safely escaping" is not something you have the time or option to even consider.

It's simply about the human right to defend one's own life.

How is that comparable? Seems like a non sequitur

The violated policies were in regards to hate speech and bullying, no?

How is this not a far worse case of hateful bullying?

Are you claiming only math majors are capable of understanding statistics and therefore should be the only people legally entitled to make decisions?

>the empty buildings and districts, and that mall in Beijing that is never going to attract any stores, or why the apartment buildings we live in is half empty but has a thriving ant tribe in the basement.

>would never believe it was that crazy.

That doesn't sound crazy at all, as I've seen plenty of all that in the US...

>she will make system more human centered, more friendly to humans. I can understand her, but I cannot understand you.

Any marginal increase in human friendliness this may cause is negligible because advertising in general is a inherently "thing" oriented industry worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

It is at odds with human satisfaction and survival.

I am reminded of an MLK quote:

"We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered".

Advertising is the driving force behind the current state of insatiable materialism/consumerism that is leading to the destruction our ecosystem.

With all that being said, "advertising" can indeed be used for "good", human oriented goals, but as it stands it's mostly being used for exploitation.

They did end up showing her an ad for adoption

We cannot have open/honest discussion or make progress if we are too concerned with making sure no one gets their feelings hurt.

There has never been a successful human rights movement that was polite and didn't offend.

The truth can be very painful to accept, which is why we often subconsciously avoid it and shun such discussions

They won't admit it but internet mobs, viral click bait, and bots are all good for FB's stock price. They all increase engagement and active user counts.

Saying they should fix their "problems" by doing more policing is like saying a government which has robbed/oppressed it's people into poverty and desperation should solve their problems with more policing.

It's an appeal to authority and ignores the root problem.

Nah, money is a strong motivator, and the sale of private information on the dark net is a lucrative world wide enterprise. How could you possibly know if one anonymous party has less of an interest to make money than another, simply because they're "foreign"?

You're falsely presenting theory as fact, as is quite common in psychological/psychiatric discussions; social and environmental factors seem to have very strong effects/influences as well.

>It's very easy to demonise Google and think they stand to benefit from this all, but in reality they are hurt by it as much as anyone else

False if bot traffic > estimated bot traffic

For others like FB and Twitter, it's a fact their active user counts are inflated by bots and that they are disincentivized to accurately account for it.

Why are you so surprised?