> Facebook is going to be managing/filtering/curating/policing the site to some extent and yes, they want to show ads, as that's how they make money
Right up until they're spending more time and money on policing that they're benefitting from increased revenue.
> And some of the site management is about maintaining some level of decency or decorum
Yes, in a world where they link everything to everyone's feed, that need that.
But if they didn't do that, instead only linking when specifically mentioned, they wouldn't need to censor anything because you'd just unfollow people who link annoying things.
> Facebook the company is made up of people, and assuming that everything they're doing is purely to maximize profit at the cost of all else.
Right, they have lunch hours, etc. But how do you suppose their work is evaluated if they don't have concrete goals such as 'increase readership', etc?
You think they're all paid just to fiddle with stuff for their own individual desires?
> To make such an assumption would be similar to me assuming everything you're posting has some ulterior motive, something beyond having a civil constructive discussion. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Is it?
I'm not a for-profit company. If I was I think it'd be a fair assumption.
> Perhaps you're arguing that Facebook shouldn't exist? If that's the case, just say so.
Nope. I'm arguing that they're making their own problems and could stop if they wanted to. I don't feel like making excuses for them.
Right up until they're spending more time and money on policing that they're benefitting from increased revenue.
> And some of the site management is about maintaining some level of decency or decorum
Yes, in a world where they link everything to everyone's feed, that need that.
But if they didn't do that, instead only linking when specifically mentioned, they wouldn't need to censor anything because you'd just unfollow people who link annoying things.
> Facebook the company is made up of people, and assuming that everything they're doing is purely to maximize profit at the cost of all else.
Right, they have lunch hours, etc. But how do you suppose their work is evaluated if they don't have concrete goals such as 'increase readership', etc?
You think they're all paid just to fiddle with stuff for their own individual desires?
> To make such an assumption would be similar to me assuming everything you're posting has some ulterior motive, something beyond having a civil constructive discussion. I don't think that's a fair assumption to make. Is it?
I'm not a for-profit company. If I was I think it'd be a fair assumption.
> Perhaps you're arguing that Facebook shouldn't exist? If that's the case, just say so.
Nope. I'm arguing that they're making their own problems and could stop if they wanted to. I don't feel like making excuses for them.