← Back to context

Comment by Permit

1 month ago

> Their actual reason? You can figure that out.

This is unfalsifiable. Just say what you think it is explicitly.

12 comments

Permit

Reply
toss1  1 month ago

Isn't this conversation, not publishing scientific hypotheses, theories and findings?

If so, it is customarily permissible to use rhetoric and sarcasm to more strongly emphasize a point. Or, to leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader.

  • Permit  1 month ago

    By intentionally hiding their position (and simultaneously acting as though it is completely obvious) the OP shuts down any useful conversation that might follow. Do they think Meta will sell the user's data? Do they think different people are in charge of different policies at Meta leading to actions that appear to be in conflict with each other? Do they think they will use this information to train AI models? Do they think they will use this information to serve Ads?

    There are many interesting ways that the conversation could have been carried forward but there is no way to continue the conservation as the OP doesn't make it clear what they think.

    The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out, please tell me what you're trying to say here.

    • latexr  1 month ago

      > The only thing I can say is: No I cannot figure it out

      On the contrary, looks like you can:

      > (…) sell the user's data (…) use this information to train AI models (…) use this information to serve Ads

      4 replies →

    • toss1  1 month ago

      Or, OP is not hiding their position and shutting down conversation — they are not imposing their position and are opening it up to discussion.

      What prevents you from saying "Yes, and Xyz!!" and another poster "Yup, and Pdq, and Foo too!"

      Or, maybe OP is just being a bit lazy, but again, it seems the context is conversation, not formal scientific inquiry where everything must be falsifiable?

    • olcay_  1 month ago

      I think they meant that Meta is offloading the cost (fines) of farming minor's data onto the operating systems. With an up-front cost of 2 billion dollars in lobbying, they can avoid paying 300m+ fees regularly.