Well you can also just stop using these products. I don't have or use Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, Reddit (since they removed old.reddit.com unless you have an account), TikTok, Snap, or anything else.
Folks want Facebook or whatever to be regulated into some perfect idea they have in their heads of how it should work and how it should be regulated. Sorry, many people have many views on that, and you're never going to be happy with an outcome. Even this article - Facebook is complying with EU rules/regulations and now you're not happy that your voice isn't heard through your preferred form of political activism. If Facebook allows this content, they break EU laws, or they have to allow some content you disagree with and now you're mad.
I don't know why people, right, left, or sideways keep putting up with this stuff.
Yes it does. You're using the product and seeing the ad. You and others are mad that the product is complying with the regulation in a way you don't prefer. Stop using the product, and no ad is there to be seen and none of this matters.
> When the newly reopened Teatre Raval, which seats 193 spectators, asked Meta, the parent company of the two social media sites, why its publicity had been blocked, it was told “any mention of civil rights, feminism or social reform [topics that are central to Woolf’s work] are usually classified as ‘social topics’ by our automatic system” and are filtered out.
That’s Meta response. There is no mention of any regulation in that article.
Just because The Guardian intentionally didn't mention the regulations or role they might play and you want to be pedantic about their existence doesn't mean there aren't any.
Businesses are allowed to and routinely comply with regulations to their best ability even if it wasn't as intended based on the act of the regulator/government.
It wasn't in the article. Ok we can move past that now.
You can ban something by requiring excessive compliance with a regulation that is unobtainable or very unprofitable. The Guardian failed to even mention the regulation or what may have motivated Meta's actions.
Meta go one further and literally spell it out with an equivalent example of advertising for an equivalent event in their own published guidelines on Slide - in this case a 'Civil Rights Exhibition' - as eligible to run in the EU.
This was either an automated filter set to 'anti-woke' or some childish attempt at malicious compliance, or both. Thousands of such plays are advertised on numerous platforms across Europe every year without incident or comment.
That's Meta's response to advertising rules that they find too onerous. Governments keep trying to regulate businesses to appease the voters, sometimes they go too far and the business decides the sensible thing is to leave the market.
This is especially an issue with insurance in disaster prone areas. Insurance company comes along and notices that in the east it's houses very close to the beach (hurricanes/storm surge), in California it's wildfires. Insurance companies raise the premiums in such areas to reflect the risk, the people living there scream. The state does things that mandate spreading the risk--now the dangerous behavior continues but others pay the cost. And those others start screaming because they are paying insurance rates way above the value delivered. And sometimes we insurance companies simply pull up stakes and leave--and we see states responding by saying if you want to do any business in the state you'll provide the homeowner's insurance at a "fair" (not fair, it's a price they're losing money on) rate. I'm not aware of any insurance companies completely leaving a state yet.
We have seen this with malpractice insurance for doctors, though. The biggest carrier simply quit and the market went crazy. Locally we had doctors who would pay more for malpractice insurance for delivering a baby than the insurance payment for delivering said baby.
So how exactly is an ad for a play by an author who died 85 years ago political and requiring regulation? A person who died so long ago that, even in the EU with its onerous copyright regime, her work is in the public domain!?
It is a general thing that people only want to ban or regulate things that are against the social standards of their political organization, feminism and civil rights are two things that are pretty central to the EU. I know they must be, because I always read American right-wing commentators say about how feminism and civil rights are destroying the EU. For this reason I do not believe it is actually normal compliance with any regulation, it is malicious compliance meant to undermine the regulation.
I am sure some person who is glad for the malicious compliance would like to make a statement to the effect that it is the EU's fault that Meta has done it this way, so allow me to forestall it with some other observations.
If Meta feels the law requires them to remove ads for any art that supports a cause, including causes that are considered mainstream and accepted in the EU, then almost no art can ever advertised.
Guernica may not be shown, as it was anti-fascist, AND I should note Picasso's works are still under copyright so we know that's got to be regulated STAT!
The works of anyone who has ever been against slavery must not be mentioned, no Twain, Melville, Stowe, etc. etc.
But let's not stop there, surely Shakespeare's Richard III did not support that fellow's claims to the throne of England and we should not discuss it, don't tell me anything about it being a long time ago - if for Meta Virginia Wolf springs eternal then surely Shakespeare should get the same benefit of censorship. Dante's taking sides in the civil wars that damaged the Italy of his time should allow us to throw him off the platform as well!
There is very little art and few artists in this world that have been so anodyne that Meta could not censor them for having supported a social issue. I certainly hope they will do so, and quickly, so that people may be persuaded to abandon the platform. I also hope that this post is clear enough that I don't have to hear any more about how Meta had to do it the way they did, as I have recently been talking with my ex-wife, so my allowance for hearing dumb stuff is all used for today.
Same here - idk why are people jumping on the wagon of attributing the restriction to EU regulation. Looks to be a US compliance banning social topics that Trump administration is pursuing (but again, idk if that's the case, this is guesswork on my part)
And the Trump administration has even tried to enforce this on other countries. For example they have threatened to ban companies promoting diversity and inclusion policies from doing business with the federal government.
> Well you can also just stop using these products. I don't have or use Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, Reddit (since they removed old.reddit.com unless you have an account), TikTok, Snap, or anything else.
I don't have any of those but I do need one messenger to communicate with my buddies in the EU. As I'm a "fuck the Zuck" person and an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft), Telegram is my poison.
I don't have any doubt: I know it's not E2EE (and I doubt that one-on-one encrypted communication --it's a setting you MUST turn on-- in Telegram is actually really E2EE).
But Telegram is neither from the Zuck nor from Microsoft, so that's a big win for me.
Also basically everyone in the EU has Telegram now.
> (and I doubt that one-on-one encrypted communication --it's a setting you MUST turn on-- in Telegram is actually really E2EE).
Secret Chats in telegram really is E2EE.
It is just a bit clumsy to use because it offers quite good protections. Because of it, it only works between two people and on one device of each participant. They also must be online at the same time for the key exchange/generation protocol to work. This makes it a hassle and nobody uses it. But what is there does meet the requirements of E2EE even more so than WhatApp or Signal where for example an extra party can be added to an encrypted chat. The police have used this feature to snoop in Germany: <a href="https://cybernews.com/privacy/police-telegram-whatsapp-signal-surveillance-linked-devices/" rel="nofollow">https://cybernews.com/privacy/police-telegram-whatsapp-signa...
With Telegram Secret Chats they wouldn't be able to do this. On the other hand, because it's so clumsy nobody uses it and thus people use the much worse off alternative of no E2EE at all in the regular Telegram which the police have also monitored. So it's arguable that whatsapp/signal's compromise was a good one. If you put up too many hurdles in security the people will stop using it.
But I wouldn't call Telegram's secret chats "not real E2EE".
>I don't have or use Facebook, Instagram, Whats App, Reddit
There is a particular amount of economic privilege in this statement. While I am a person who doesn't use those services (and recently stopped using reddit), a large number of people are required to use those services for their job, so they can get money, so they can put food on the table.
Worse these companies ingrain themselves into a lot of physical locations and data collection from other sources so your not free of them.
Individual boycotts rarely work, even ones that attract attention from a good number of people, companies are better at waiting than individuals seem to be. Political action has a much higher likelihood of success when driven by smaller motivated groups.
> There is a particular amount of economic privilege in this statement.
Good, I am pro-privilege and support being privileged. I'm not sure how and why we came to the point in our society where if someone says "hey these products suck and I'm not going to use them", someone has to come along and attempt to guilt them into using them? You want me to create a Facebook account and post pictures of funny cats because Joe and Sally podcaster need eyeballs for their rage-bait podcasts or quirky coffee mug they drop-shipped from China?
Sorry, not buying it. Don't like the products? Stop using them. Reliant on them? Go complain to regulators. Not my monkeys, not my circus.
For many, it is less silly cat pictures and more listing products for sale from a legitimate registered business (catering is a common one for example). Gotta do what you gotta do sometimes. If you do not take advantage of tools afforded to you, someone will and because social media like facebook is "free," that is a go-to.
The "someone will" arguments never work for me.
I live in a community (outside USA) where it is common to advertise offline or alternative outlets.
There's no dependence "because others do". That is just defeatism. If people choose en masse to change their habits, the world has to follow suit, imho.
This is nearly saying "If people stop murdering each other we won't have murder any more". Well, yea no shit, a tautology is a tautology. The question is how do you elicit social change in an environment that is actively fighting back against you doing so and has a massive amount more information than you do.
One of the key points here is you live outside the US so it's much more likely that your communities are far less digitally integrated and have a much different history of social change and dynamics. For example car culture presents an absolutely massive amount of friction to social change. It literally physically separates us at much larger distances than states that do not have car culture. There is also the fact the modern social media swept over the US first drawing in most of the population long before we recognized the dangers of it. Government agencies and businesses moved a healthy amount of their communications to things like social media platforms. The network effects are powerful.
The next thing I'd like you to do is get on social media where all these people you want to change are and tell them to get off.... oooh, your account was banned. These companies are organisms that will fight back against what your trying. You forget the tobacco companies fought in the US for 30+ years inventing entirely new methods of propaganda before we developed laws to protect the rest of us against smoke in public.
You are not talking about a choice. You are talking about a war that is actively being fought.
If your business requires the use of one of these platforms in order to exist I would question its viability. Willingly giving a single company that much power over you is a horrible position to be in. Maybe it does put food on the table this month, great! But what happens if Zuck (or a piece of dumb automation) decides next month to boot you?
> a large number of people are required to use those services for their job, so they can get money, so they can put food on the table.
You mean 'influencers'?
Nothing of value has been lost.
> Worse these companies ingrain themselves into a lot of physical locations and data collection from other sources so your not free of them
Please can you provide an example. I can't say I've ever experienced such a thing (and would never GDPR opt-in to such data sharing even if the opportunity was there).
While, yes, influences of course use social media, most companies have realized having a social media presence is important today. I would be interested to see stats on how beneficial social media has been to, say, Wendy's.
Yea, I think among a fair portion of HN there is a misunderstanding of how economically connected social media is to businesses and people. For example Meta is one of the largest advertising agencies on earth.
My wife for example has a $200k+ job that involves a whole lot of interaction with social media. For her that would mean ending her job and moving on to god knows what, but probably not anything that pays near as well.
And then you come to the people that represent her customers. They make 70%+ of their income advertising services either on line or social media platforms.
So you end up in a race conditions. These people can't quit social media in one way or another or they stop eating. The customers have to move somewhere else first to redistribute the power the companies hold over those needing to advertise. Mostly what we see is not people quitting social media, but just moving to another social media platform shifting the problem. But also, because these people are advertising and doing tangentially related things on social media it brings their users to social media to get information.
I mean it's also the same thing we're starting to see with programmers and AI too, which is highly ironic after tall the "lrn 2 code" stuff that was posted online around that time.
If a programmer says I'm not going to use AI and the company says use AI, the programmer can absolutely walk, but god, I would not want to try to find a new job right now.
This is why things like unions and consumers pushing for consumer protection laws are fought by companies so hard. They are far more effective than individual actions because the incentives are against individual success.
I think that's slightly different though - technology changes. Most of the l2code came from journalists, government officials, and others who were inevitably liberal and felt really nice talking about how they were simply going to have all these coal miners re-skill.
Do you support the coal miner's union and protecting those jobs? What if it's at a loss? What about the environmental impacts? I see parallels with social media. Is your wife's $200,000 job worth the creation of iPad kids or the lives lost due to vaccine misinformation?
I'm not judging you or anything, you guys gotta do what you gotta do just like the guy selling cigarettes, the gal working in the coal mines, or the folks getting kids addicted to sweets.
But going back to the OP here you posted about this as though there's some "privilege". I strongly disagree with that assertion. If anything, I'd argue your point of view is the privileged one. You get to make as a household $200,000 selling using Facebook. What about the barista? What about the mom struggling whose kid learns about Tide Pods and goes and eats one and has a $15,000 medical bill?
Separately I find it quite annoying that somehow accusing me or someone else of privilege when you're bringing in $200,000 just from Facebook lol. Like really? I mean I don't care, I am proud of my privilege (whatever that amounts to) and will use it to my every advantage, but you should take a hard look in the mirror.
I want to mention there's a lot of nuance in these discussions and specific instances and we're painting in broad strokes. There are connecting themes but also meaningful differences.
Counter-counterproposal, ban influencers without attempting to ban advertising triggering an immune response from a multi-hundred billion dollar a year industry.
> Well you can also just stop using these products
True. But there is a social cost, for now
In my neighborhood Facebook became the defacto "town square" where community organising happens. A bad idea in hindsight, but there it is
I nolonger use Facebook. Not my choice, my account disappeared and I decided not to reconstitute it, and now I pay the price
But the price gets less as time goes by as Meta killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their greed and carelessness is making the service less valuable or useful
This (ban Virgina Wolf FFS) is another example. If you cannot advertise what you are doing as part of your community, then what is the point?
Why be part of a service that no longer links people without fear or favour (Facebook of fifteen years ago) but solely exists to market at you?
"We" is a massive group of people who all have wildly different ideas. Saying "laws could be what we want them to be" is highly subjective depending on who the "we" is at that current time.
Yea, people use We as the royal we quite often. What "people" miss about the royal we is it works much better when you have lots and lots of money.
Yeah I see know that "people" dont actually understand what they are saying, and love blaming billionaires for all "their" problems.
colingauvin · · focus · HN ↗
tygon · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Folks want Facebook or whatever to be regulated into some perfect idea they have in their heads of how it should work and how it should be regulated. Sorry, many people have many views on that, and you're never going to be happy with an outcome. Even this article - Facebook is complying with EU rules/regulations and now you're not happy that your voice isn't heard through your preferred form of political activism. If Facebook allows this content, they break EU laws, or they have to allow some content you disagree with and now you're mad.
I don't know why people, right, left, or sideways keep putting up with this stuff.
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
That’s Meta response. There is no mention of any regulation in that article.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Businesses are allowed to and routinely comply with regulations to their best ability even if it wasn't as intended based on the act of the regulator/government.
For ex:
[1] <a href="https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/META_EU_Update_Ads_about_Social_issues_Elections_or_Politics.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/META_EU_Update...
[2] <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/transparency-and-targeting-of-political-advertising.html" rel="nofollow">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/transpare...
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
Have you read that regulation? Because I did, and it’s not any form of ban on political advertising
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
You can ban something by requiring excessive compliance with a regulation that is unobtainable or very unprofitable. The Guardian failed to even mention the regulation or what may have motivated Meta's actions.
piltdownman · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/META_EU_Update_Ads_about_Social_issues_Elections_or_Politics.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/META_EU_Update...
This was either an automated filter set to 'anti-woke' or some childish attempt at malicious compliance, or both. Thousands of such plays are advertised on numerous platforms across Europe every year without incident or comment.
dgellow · · focus · HN ↗
emmelaich · · focus · HN ↗
LorenPechtel · · focus · HN ↗
This is especially an issue with insurance in disaster prone areas. Insurance company comes along and notices that in the east it's houses very close to the beach (hurricanes/storm surge), in California it's wildfires. Insurance companies raise the premiums in such areas to reflect the risk, the people living there scream. The state does things that mandate spreading the risk--now the dangerous behavior continues but others pay the cost. And those others start screaming because they are paying insurance rates way above the value delivered. And sometimes we insurance companies simply pull up stakes and leave--and we see states responding by saying if you want to do any business in the state you'll provide the homeowner's insurance at a "fair" (not fair, it's a price they're losing money on) rate. I'm not aware of any insurance companies completely leaving a state yet.
We have seen this with malpractice insurance for doctors, though. The biggest carrier simply quit and the market went crazy. Locally we had doctors who would pay more for malpractice insurance for delivering a baby than the insurance payment for delivering said baby.
bryanrasmussen · · focus · HN ↗
It is a general thing that people only want to ban or regulate things that are against the social standards of their political organization, feminism and civil rights are two things that are pretty central to the EU. I know they must be, because I always read American right-wing commentators say about how feminism and civil rights are destroying the EU. For this reason I do not believe it is actually normal compliance with any regulation, it is malicious compliance meant to undermine the regulation.
I am sure some person who is glad for the malicious compliance would like to make a statement to the effect that it is the EU's fault that Meta has done it this way, so allow me to forestall it with some other observations.
If Meta feels the law requires them to remove ads for any art that supports a cause, including causes that are considered mainstream and accepted in the EU, then almost no art can ever advertised.
Guernica may not be shown, as it was anti-fascist, AND I should note Picasso's works are still under copyright so we know that's got to be regulated STAT!
The works of anyone who has ever been against slavery must not be mentioned, no Twain, Melville, Stowe, etc. etc.
But let's not stop there, surely Shakespeare's Richard III did not support that fellow's claims to the throne of England and we should not discuss it, don't tell me anything about it being a long time ago - if for Meta Virginia Wolf springs eternal then surely Shakespeare should get the same benefit of censorship. Dante's taking sides in the civil wars that damaged the Italy of his time should allow us to throw him off the platform as well!
There is very little art and few artists in this world that have been so anodyne that Meta could not censor them for having supported a social issue. I certainly hope they will do so, and quickly, so that people may be persuaded to abandon the platform. I also hope that this post is clear enough that I don't have to hear any more about how Meta had to do it the way they did, as I have recently been talking with my ex-wife, so my allowance for hearing dumb stuff is all used for today.
eithed · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
TacticalCoder · · focus · HN ↗
I don't have any of those but I do need one messenger to communicate with my buddies in the EU. As I'm a "fuck the Zuck" person and an "ABM" (Anything But Microsoft), Telegram is my poison.
I don't have any doubt: I know it's not E2EE (and I doubt that one-on-one encrypted communication --it's a setting you MUST turn on-- in Telegram is actually really E2EE).
But Telegram is neither from the Zuck nor from Microsoft, so that's a big win for me.
Also basically everyone in the EU has Telegram now.
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
Secret Chats in telegram really is E2EE.
It is just a bit clumsy to use because it offers quite good protections. Because of it, it only works between two people and on one device of each participant. They also must be online at the same time for the key exchange/generation protocol to work. This makes it a hassle and nobody uses it. But what is there does meet the requirements of E2EE even more so than WhatApp or Signal where for example an extra party can be added to an encrypted chat. The police have used this feature to snoop in Germany: <a href="https://cybernews.com/privacy/police-telegram-whatsapp-signal-surveillance-linked-devices/" rel="nofollow">https://cybernews.com/privacy/police-telegram-whatsapp-signa...
With Telegram Secret Chats they wouldn't be able to do this. On the other hand, because it's so clumsy nobody uses it and thus people use the much worse off alternative of no E2EE at all in the regular Telegram which the police have also monitored. So it's arguable that whatsapp/signal's compromise was a good one. If you put up too many hurdles in security the people will stop using it.
But I wouldn't call Telegram's secret chats "not real E2EE".
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
There is a particular amount of economic privilege in this statement. While I am a person who doesn't use those services (and recently stopped using reddit), a large number of people are required to use those services for their job, so they can get money, so they can put food on the table.
Worse these companies ingrain themselves into a lot of physical locations and data collection from other sources so your not free of them.
Individual boycotts rarely work, even ones that attract attention from a good number of people, companies are better at waiting than individuals seem to be. Political action has a much higher likelihood of success when driven by smaller motivated groups.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Good, I am pro-privilege and support being privileged. I'm not sure how and why we came to the point in our society where if someone says "hey these products suck and I'm not going to use them", someone has to come along and attempt to guilt them into using them? You want me to create a Facebook account and post pictures of funny cats because Joe and Sally podcaster need eyeballs for their rage-bait podcasts or quirky coffee mug they drop-shipped from China?
Sorry, not buying it. Don't like the products? Stop using them. Reliant on them? Go complain to regulators. Not my monkeys, not my circus.
tygon · · focus · HN ↗
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
tescreal · · focus · HN ↗
I live in a community (outside USA) where it is common to advertise offline or alternative outlets.
There's no dependence "because others do". That is just defeatism. If people choose en masse to change their habits, the world has to follow suit, imho.
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
This is nearly saying "If people stop murdering each other we won't have murder any more". Well, yea no shit, a tautology is a tautology. The question is how do you elicit social change in an environment that is actively fighting back against you doing so and has a massive amount more information than you do.
One of the key points here is you live outside the US so it's much more likely that your communities are far less digitally integrated and have a much different history of social change and dynamics. For example car culture presents an absolutely massive amount of friction to social change. It literally physically separates us at much larger distances than states that do not have car culture. There is also the fact the modern social media swept over the US first drawing in most of the population long before we recognized the dangers of it. Government agencies and businesses moved a healthy amount of their communications to things like social media platforms. The network effects are powerful.
The next thing I'd like you to do is get on social media where all these people you want to change are and tell them to get off.... oooh, your account was banned. These companies are organisms that will fight back against what your trying. You forget the tobacco companies fought in the US for 30+ years inventing entirely new methods of propaganda before we developed laws to protect the rest of us against smoke in public.
You are not talking about a choice. You are talking about a war that is actively being fought.
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
tjpnz · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
GJim · · focus · HN ↗
You mean 'influencers'?
Nothing of value has been lost.
> Worse these companies ingrain themselves into a lot of physical locations and data collection from other sources so your not free of them
Please can you provide an example. I can't say I've ever experienced such a thing (and would never GDPR opt-in to such data sharing even if the opportunity was there).
tygon · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
My wife for example has a $200k+ job that involves a whole lot of interaction with social media. For her that would mean ending her job and moving on to god knows what, but probably not anything that pays near as well.
And then you come to the people that represent her customers. They make 70%+ of their income advertising services either on line or social media platforms.
So you end up in a race conditions. These people can't quit social media in one way or another or they stop eating. The customers have to move somewhere else first to redistribute the power the companies hold over those needing to advertise. Mostly what we see is not people quitting social media, but just moving to another social media platform shifting the problem. But also, because these people are advertising and doing tangentially related things on social media it brings their users to social media to get information.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
If a programmer says I'm not going to use AI and the company says use AI, the programmer can absolutely walk, but god, I would not want to try to find a new job right now.
This is why things like unions and consumers pushing for consumer protection laws are fought by companies so hard. They are far more effective than individual actions because the incentives are against individual success.
ericmay · · focus · HN ↗
Do you support the coal miner's union and protecting those jobs? What if it's at a loss? What about the environmental impacts? I see parallels with social media. Is your wife's $200,000 job worth the creation of iPad kids or the lives lost due to vaccine misinformation?
I'm not judging you or anything, you guys gotta do what you gotta do just like the guy selling cigarettes, the gal working in the coal mines, or the folks getting kids addicted to sweets.
But going back to the OP here you posted about this as though there's some "privilege". I strongly disagree with that assertion. If anything, I'd argue your point of view is the privileged one. You get to make as a household $200,000 selling using Facebook. What about the barista? What about the mom struggling whose kid learns about Tide Pods and goes and eats one and has a $15,000 medical bill?
Separately I find it quite annoying that somehow accusing me or someone else of privilege when you're bringing in $200,000 just from Facebook lol. Like really? I mean I don't care, I am proud of my privilege (whatever that amounts to) and will use it to my every advantage, but you should take a hard look in the mirror.
I want to mention there's a lot of nuance in these discussions and specific instances and we're painting in broad strokes. There are connecting themes but also meaningful differences.
singleshot_ · · focus · HN ↗
Okay, but their job is a net drag on our society, so you haven’t quite convinced me.
Counterproposal: ban influencers
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
welwala · · focus · HN ↗
worik · · focus · HN ↗
True. But there is a social cost, for now
In my neighborhood Facebook became the defacto "town square" where community organising happens. A bad idea in hindsight, but there it is
I nolonger use Facebook. Not my choice, my account disappeared and I decided not to reconstitute it, and now I pay the price
But the price gets less as time goes by as Meta killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their greed and carelessness is making the service less valuable or useful
This (ban Virgina Wolf FFS) is another example. If you cannot advertise what you are doing as part of your community, then what is the point?
Why be part of a service that no longer links people without fear or favour (Facebook of fifteen years ago) but solely exists to market at you?
alt227 · · focus · HN ↗
pixl97 · · focus · HN ↗
alt227 · · focus · HN ↗