'Everything I Say Leaks,' Zuckerberg Says in Leaked Meeting Audio
-
“The Art of the Deal”
The book Trump has never even read (according to the guy who actually wrote it).
-
Them stop talking Mark.
-
I really think this is the exception rather than the rule. People who know what endocrine disruptors are, understand epigenetics, and understand how prenatal hormone environments can affect brain development probably almost all universally support trans people.
It's like global warming: 99 percent of smart scientists agree it exists, and the remaining 1 percent have random reasons to think otherwise.
The thing is people who understand (on even a low level) epigenetics, prenatal hormones, endocrine disruptors, and how brain structural changes can impact senses of gender probably comprise less than 1 percent of 1 percent of the population. Most people are very dumb and on lemmy, the average IQ is probably 1 SD above normal, meaning the average lemmy user is easily in the top 20% of IQs. The average person is so unintelligent relative to a lemmy user it's like comparing an atom to Jupiter. The Musks (autism) and Dawkins (old age and cognitive inflexibility) of the world are not typical of the intelligent people in society, they are just high profile outliers. Almost everyone intelligent supports trans people and those that don't are cognitively defective. Vance at one point thought he was gay and dressed like a woman. Being a bisexual who chooses not to act on same-sex urges perhaps creates extreme cognitive dissonance or perhaps Vance is less hostile towards trans people and is poltiically savy. I just don't think anyone with any intelligence can be hostile to trans people unless there is something impacting their brain in a negative way (extreme lack of empathy, religion, extreme cognitive inflexibility, extreme cognitive dissonance).
-
Then maybe you should shut your Trump dick sucking mouth, champ.
-
With that hair he could pass for a hobbit.
Dildo Baggins, CEO of Meta
-
Your internal meetings constitute legitimate interests and will be shared with our 8 billion partners
[ ok ]
-
I'm fully expecting tumpty to change the cover of the latter book, slapping his face on it and the title "Mein Trumpf", keeping the interior intact
-
I think the government created Facebook, Zuckerberg is a highly intelligent operative with a back story (strangely made into a movie), and I do not think he always chooses his choices. You will never convince me otherwise. Look up Lifelog. The evidence is too convincing. Anyone who gets a 1600 on the SATs gets recruited and he likely got that.
-
Oh I think we all know.
-
He may have made a calculation about this not based on money and can't disclose it without altering the calculation.
Example:
Scenario 1: Tell Trump to fuck off for treatment of transgender people. Result: Trump using monopoly power to break up Facebook, truth social increases in power, no way to monitor hate groups effectively
Scenario 2: Pretend to agree with Trump and move hard right, monitor hate groups, come back slowly center in subtle ways, no rise in Truth Social users, ability to shape acceptance over time
Even with fuck you money, saying fuck you makes scenario 2 possible. Say what you want avout Zuckerberg, but he's no idiot. If I as an indifferent person can do a simple decision tree example in 3 seconds in my head, imagine how much he analyzed such a big decision.
My point is Facebook sucks because they make it almost impossible for users to use Facebook without submitting to surveillance capitalism and ban people without giving them recourse in a mean shitty way. He must be aware of that and for allowing that, he sucks. And as a US company that is likely in bed with surveillance capitalism and the intelligence community, their "private" ways of verifying individuals is unlikely to be private, and they offer no alternative. So he sucks for that, but I'm not sure he specifically sucks for this reason. He's even heavily implying strategic thinking is requiring him to do things he otherwise wouldn't and can't discuss it without altering the outcome.
Whether the end never justifies the means (same "we won't vote for Kamala because of Gaza stance" mindset) is better ethically even if impractical is another debate.
