zlacker

> 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+(OP)
The guy in charge being Lizardman, who almost tripped over his own claws to get rid of fact checkers, to allow calling non-heterosexuals metally ill, etcetera etcetera now that we are witnessing the second coming of The White House Cheeto

>>wodeno+(OP)
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+112
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+d22
The hypothesis I saw proposed is that his marriage is breaking down/actually done. Basically he's going the Elon route.

>>XorNot+ed2
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.

>>XorNot+ed2
Zuch was granted his wish and was turned into a real boy. And now he knows he can do a lot better.

>>fishst+Lf2
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.

>>this_u+112
> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election

What on earth are you talking about? 18-29 year olds were the most Democratic age group, as usual. 18-29 year old men might have slightly favored Trump, but to a significantly lower degree than older men.

>>cipher+1C2
Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin which is an absolute death sentence for the democrat party considering people only vote further right as they get older. For context Obama won that demographic by 20% in 2012, and won it by even more in 2008. If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections

https://apnews.com/article/election-harris-trump-women-latin...

>>pessim+uv2
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.

>>this_u+112
Right wing streamers who are not part of Fox themselves put two and two together and came up with section 230.

They even said that Trump could threaten Facebook with specifically removing protections for the platform, and then turn around and not do it: resulting in damage to the platform without having to do anything.

I think everyone knows why Zuck is doing it. If there were any other republican government, the capitulation wouldn’t be this abject.

>>ren_en+jN2
> Gen Z only voted democrat by a 4% margin

Yes, which is not remotely the same claim as

> Gen Z were heavily supporting Trump in the recent election [and therefore Zuckerberg needed to change political course for his social media to stay relevant]

which is the false claim I was responding to.

> If those numbers hold democrats have no path to winning national elections

Yes, it's certainly the case that if Democrats keep getting the same percentage of votes as in elections they lost badly, they'll keep losing elections.

>>antonv+0T2
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+Hi3
It could be bots as well

>>onemor+KB3
That’s a dangerous assumption to habitualize in its own right…

>>jazzyj+d22
Gen Z exit polling data from the 2024 US Presidential Election shows a significant rightward shift among gen Z voters. Instagram is still popular with "the kids", and it does tend to have more lax moderation. It leans somewhat conservative/right favored through inaction/sheer mass of posts.

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-genz-kamala-harris-trump-...

>>DiggyJ+T04
And yet it can't be dismissed out of hand either. AI's contributions to society are truly multi-faceted.

>>forget+G84
It hardly need be AI: just a couple lines of Python.

>>forget+Hi3
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.