zlacker

>>senkor+(OP)
> Of course, here it is ten years later, and the guy in charge just sent it back fifty years. Way to upstage me, dude.

I feel like there's a link to a story missing there

>>wodeno+RG4
It's about the company's recent course change, which includes Zuckerberg's Joe Rogan interview from last week. IMO this has a lot to do with the younger generations. Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election, and Zuck has probably realised that he needs to align Meta with them if they want to remain a relevant player in the social media space.

>>this_u+SH6
I don't buy it, Gen Z hasnt swung right, but the young left has swung apathetic. Zuck has his own reasons for sucking up to Trump and it's not to stay popular with the kids, who have already moved on from Meta properties.

>>jazzyj+4J6
The hypothesis I saw proposed is that his marriage is breaking down/actually done. Basically he's going the Elon route.

>>XorNot+5U6
This is why it's important not just that people do the right thing but also why they do it. Circumstances can change, but if people do the right thing for the "right reasons", then what they do won't change.

Doing sth because of somebody's spouse is a bad reason, imagine the relationship goes sour and they face a divorce, boom they change their tune.

>>fishst+CW6
What's important is that we break these companies up so they aren't used as tools by the powerful. Neither Zuckerberg's or Musk's income streams should be allowed to have such an important effect on everyone's lives, but as long as these communication companies are allowed to exchange their obedience for a regime's lack of antitrust enforcement, our 1st Amendment rights are meaningless.

> This is why it's important not just that people do the right thing but also why they do it.

I care about what Zuckerberg, Loraine Powell Jobs or Musk feel the right thing is about as much as I care about what my bus driver thinks the right thing is. What we need is a functioning government.

>>pessim+lc7
A functioning government is not possible as long as money is speech, corporations are people, etc. That directly translates to government by the wealthiest people.

>>antonv+Rz7
I've noticed a distinct trend in the last month where even the most casual mention of the oligarchy attracts a bunch of downvotes. I'm trying to decide if this is an indication that some cohort of users here are deeply and passionately delusional about the political state of play, or merely uncomfortable about having it pointed out.

>>forget+yZ7
I mean, we're on a site that revolves largely around the Silicon Valley VC world. There've always been ultracapitalist types here who treat oligarchy as aspirational.

If anything, I'd say that's become less prominent in recent years as the consequences of that mindset have been playing out around us.