Thread

Meta takes down a critical video about meta AI Glasses after filming at Meta

632 points · 395 comments · pieterr

jimbo456 · 1790253899 · focus · HN ↗
We need to move beyond just banning these glasses - all smart glasses of all kinds - to breaking up these companies. Undo the acquisitions of Insta and Whatsapp - I don't care that will be expensive, thats a shareholders problem.
1. pc86 · 1790254657 · focus · HN ↗
  What does this have to do with WhatsApp?
  Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
  1. bamboozled · 1790254920 · focus · HN ↗
    I think the point is, it's been a good system, but it's out of control. It's not that people don't like people having money, it's people don't like the status quo of watching society and the world be destroyed by generating share holder value alone. We need a better system. Not saying that is communism or whatever, but the monopolies and corruption are off the charts.
  2. jmathai · 1790255027 · focus · HN ↗
    WhatsApp is definitely part of Meta's distribution and reach strategy. So it's very relevant.
    I don't think OP is trying to punish investors. I think they are saying the overall damage of letting these companies continue the current trend will be worse than the cost of unwinding it now.
    I'm an advocate of reformed legislation to enable this.
    shimman · 1790257031 · focus · HN ↗
    Why shouldn't we punish investors? This is the risk when you invest in these types of companies where regulation is nonexistent. It's not the job of the government to make sure rich shareholders stay green.
    mxkopy · 1790259339 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s absolutely insane to me how intro economics classes spout that capital takes on risks to implement new ideas while completely glossing over the political process of ensuring profit floors and guarantees under the “rent seeking” definition. Like, rent seeking seems to be the only goal of capital now.
    Egregious example:
    <a href="https://www.loevy.com/for-profit-prison/" rel="nofollow">https://www.loevy.com/for-profit-prison/
    parineum · 1790261196 · focus · HN ↗
    Public prisons have all of the same incentives to reduce costs and anything you should do to ensure public prisons are following minimum standards (regular inspections and regulations) can just as easily be applied to private prisons.
    The problem isn't the profit. The problem is the lack of accountability.
    shimman · 1790268096 · focus · HN ↗
    The profit motive introduces the lack of accountability because now they care about making money and not housing humans and providing dignity.
    parineum · 1790297732 · focus · HN ↗
    Politicians don't care about that either. They care about trying to balance the budget by cutting money from the places that people care about the least.
    shimman · 1790304314 · focus · HN ↗
    Politicians care about this around me, they even campaign and win on these issues. Try not to speak in absolutes
  3. Goronmon · 1790255207 · focus · HN ↗
    Also as much as you might like to punish investors (most of whom just have it in their 401k) because you don't like people with money, there are legal protections and the government can't just do something like that without an actual reason.
    As much as you might like to defend the wealthy because the only thing you care about is money, regardless of the human cost, doesn't mean that we can't use the law and the government to limit the harm being done to humans.
    I know what you are going to say. "Fuck people! I only worship money!" but I think you need to look beyond just the financial aspects of this situation.
  4. smallmancontrov · 1790258434 · focus · HN ↗
    I know that shareholders just want monopolies and free money and don't want to compete for it, but we should make them. Like we did before Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork shot the kneecaps out of our antitrust law. It's not about punishing shareholders, it's about making them earn their keep. It's just good business.
  5. danny_codes · 1790263888 · focus · HN ↗
    The government can do whatever it wants. Laws are written by the government. We have a democracy. If enough votes exist to, say, pass a law banning drug dealing (like meta does), then the company will die.
    Simple as that
  6. alsetmusic · 1790339323 · focus · HN ↗
    > because you don't like people with money
    What a great way to flip a discussion on privacy. I'm so happy for your investments. I have investments, too. That didn't stop me from telling our financial advisor that I didn't want shares in specific evil companies, regardless of their profitability. Maybe that's because I have enough money to be selective about it, which apparently will earn your respect.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.