Even if someone was crazy about facebook, there was a limited amount of content they could see from my friends, you'd be done watching everything in 10 minutes. The levels of addiction we see today on TikTok, IG, etc were not even possible.

I don’t think Meta is bad for releasing open models, but are you really going to ignore all the terrible things they’ve done over the years just because of that?

As for DeepSeek or any other Chinese lab, I’m not aware of any practices that would make me consider them a bad actor. Can you say the same about OpenAI, Meta or Anthropic?

Investors calling to change red cards because the best players should play, etc

It's going to be the "red card brought to you by Pizza Hut" soon...

Hah and because Pizza Hut wants exposure, it'll come out more and more.

Are you asking me to give some of my profits to the workers? Are you a communist? /s

even as sarcasm and that's really not how communism works, where there's no notion of profits.

There’s also no notion of basic civil liberties all the time, and the notion of food half of the time.

There’s an assumption on HN that everyone can identify AI slop because pretty much everyone here can. But my personal experience and what I think might be more in line with reality is that the majority of social media users can’t tell or don’t care.

How do they save money by hiring people in the US with H1B? Most of these companies have compensation policies so it’s not like they can hire a person at the same level and pay a lot less…

Ex-Googler here, at least in the UK, privacy was taken very seriously by all employees, we never collected data without explicit consent and never used it for anything but what the user granted permissions for.

Also ex, for a reason, everyone with ethics left, and Google “is a conventional company” now

Edit: reference https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/ipo-letter/#:~:tex...

Didn't Google release many data collection features as an "opt-out" setting (ie: without user consent)?

> privacy was taken very seriously by all employees, we never collected data without explicit consent and never used it for anything but what the user granted permissions for.

Except when you literally trick people into providing their data: https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1664682689591377923 by pretending that your dark patterns are "explicit consent"

Or except when you literally trick people into providing their data by connecting totally unrelated services https://x.com/dmitriid/status/1908951546869498085 and you don't stop until the person gives up and submits to you.

Except when your own support explicitly says that your behaviour is tracked across completely unrelated Google services: https://x.com/TeamYouTube/status/1849952594992435493

Except when you literally sign people into user accounts automatically with most data collection options turned on.

Except...

correct. An example of this is building a WhatsApp client, you need certification from Meta and that seems to legitimate.

TM

I know it feels like this might be part of a big plan against sideloading, but from my time at Google, I’d say it’s more likely to be the idea of some exec trying to get a promo.

Do you think you were in a position there to hear about any of the actual "big plans" of Google, in case such do exist? Nobody is saying that every last employee who executes on such tasks are "in" on some big secret plan.

Also the two are not in conflict. People are getting promoted for things that advance company goals. They are following rational self-interest of the company.