I don't go around telling people to kill themselves because I'm not twelve anymore. But I hardly think it is worthwhile to promote a culture which pretends a snarky "kill yourself" is different than anything else said with snark or sarcasm. Someone who kills themself or does or feels much of anything due to a snarky or sarcastic message online beyond about 60 seconds of walking away is seriously psychologically unstable and needs serious help. Or possibly they need to watch a comedy central roast and realize how you feel in response to words is something you are doing and not the speaker.
"The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups."
Fair enough but as you later go on to point out one side has views which have historically lead to the systemic murder and enslavement of millions of people on the basis of what we now know to be largely arbitrary and baseless criteria. Racial supremacy has no valid logical support, most won't admit that there was a reason to believe it might at the times these views dominated and these horrible acts occurred though such reason did exist, but the simple fact is there is no valid logical support for these ideas today. Since the concept is invalid, there is nothing to gained by these movements.
The opposition isn't basing their arguments on support for racial supremacy but equality. The assumption of equality carries many logical benefits and has not been proven out by history to result in systemic murder and enslavement. That said the practice of these opposition groups isn't consistent with their argument. Consistently their methodology starts with a conclusion and then goes in search of a solution. That is no different than religion and is a poor way to establish valid results. Most of the ideas pushed by this group actually depend on the same invalid and arbitrary concepts and ideas that are the foundation of the same groups they oppose.
"What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?"
I would classify the idea that you can label millions of individual people based on criteria which is not objective and make any meaningful assertion about "them" as irredeemably evil. No person lacks the potential for redemption especially from "evilness" because "evil" is a relative concept and people do things based on opinions and beliefs which can change over time.
"Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens."
Which is no different than Christians or what the Israeli people are doing now. One could simply blame all of this on religion. But then Christian and Muslim culture is also responsible for math, sciences, arts, and technologies that has arguably had a greater impact on mankind's future than those historical deaths. Christ or Mohammad could return perform a miracle on every doorstep tomorrow and prove one of them right, just because they don't have a valid logical basis for their beliefs doesn't mean they won't turn out to have been correct in the end. Profiling, Stereotyping, Racial, and gender supremecy on the other hand are all ideas which lack any a history of good or potential good. Any benefit that can gained along these lines would also be captured by simply EQUALLY opposing these concepts and judging individual merit with a normal healthy skepticism of individual motives, ideas, and abilities.
"On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals."
Yes and they are obviously misguided but they are misguided in equating some rebellious Prince Harry at a costume party with agents of a group that murdered millions of men, women, and children. They are misguided in thinking their violence is justified. But they aren't misguided in the idea of racism and eugenics are faulty concepts.
You are misguided in your implied concept that violence can never be the answer, without violence the real Nazi's of history would not have been stopped. I would hope that we don't ever become a culture so sensitized to violence that we lack the conviction and
You need some serious help with reading comprehension.
"I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour."
He is most definitely saying he wants to stop being unfairly associated with these groups and those who support their behaviors when he expresses his opinion but has given up hope.
Yes, he is facing the same injustice we all are, you have two groups of extremists and if you fall anywhere in the middle both will equate you to the other. As a consequences more and more people are shifting to the extremes. Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it and while the other has mass numbers and will immediately associate you with it if you start to point out their message is hate thinly veiled as a plea for tolerance.
"I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."
If you are claiming that isn't caving on his principles out of fear of unjust association I can't imagine what you WOULD consider caving...
That doesn't mean we should support it or simply accept that it must be so. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Even being outraged and standing in opposition is still something even if your voice is all you have. When you give up and no longer consider what is right when lending your support to the consensus you truly are doing nothing.
"If Facebook offered him a lot of money and he said no, then he would have something to feel good about. Instead, he eagerly and willingly sold out to one of the biggest scumbag companies in existence. Unless he has given back every penny, he's just another greedy asshole."
A fact that as he puts it, he has to live with each and every day. Though I can't think of a worse path going forward than giving $19 billion back to the "biggest scumbag companies in existence." I'm sure FB would be thrilled if he did.
That said, I'm going to back off from further commentary. I've made my general appeal to reason and philosophical charity, if he wants my support beyond that he can pay for it.;)
To further illustrate. Your payroll represents the debt the same as your debt to the one you collect for. Earmarking money for this or that purpose is simply an internal artificial distinction, your cash in hand is actually a pool. You are either stealing from the employees who performed services you agreed to pay for or you are robbing the client who contracted you in good faith. If you borrow the money and fail to pay it back you could be stealing from the lender but then is the lender not using your weakness and desperation to extract a profit from your labors without performing any of their own? If their profit is a reward for the risk they take is not a loss a risk they chose to assume when deciding to lend to you?
All one can do is try to act in good faith and with due diligence, to be ones own critic while applying philosophical charity with regard to the actions of others.
"It's not a fallacy to recognize a slippery slope that is actually there."
True, but few slippery slopes are actually there. A slippery slope would require a chain reaction of events wherein one necessarily follows another, your example confuses one action reducing inertia to the next with making the next action certain. If there were a slippery slope as you suggest an individual would only have accountability for their first theft because the slippery slope they were on made subsequent theft inevitable. The reality is that the reduced barrier to action is only in their own mind and that all else being equal there is no increased or reduced barrier.
"For me at least, there is a bit of a binary choice between "I'm not a thief, period" and "well sometimes I kinda...".
It is fallacy is to suggest that this is binary value that remains constant. Just because it is easier, psychologically, to make a mistake again once you've made it doesn't mean you will choose to do so or that something is irrevocably switched. Having been a thief doesn't mean you are a thief, you always have the option to decide who you are going to be in each moment and who you are in this moment is a choice.
Also, it is hard to place a binary value on theft since ownership is an artificial concept. The idea of a debt is simply a way to feel justified when subsequently taking something from another by some form of force or pressure but you lack the authority to decide for another when a debt is owed or terms are fair. Some argue that this is why we have laws and society but then in contradictory fashion argue against societies right to decide that they owe a debt and suggest that is stealing from them to collect taxes. After all, do you not owe a debt to your common forebearers if nothing else?
Are companies who require payment on net zero terms but pay out on net thirty not doing exactly what you called theft in your own moral dilemma? Are all companies doing this and those who willingly do business with them or for them complicit in that theft? What does it say that most every company with the leverage does so? How is that different from blackmail or simply applying superior security/anti-security skills or even brute strength to take from you?
If you can't define ownership and theft in a binary manner you certainly can't even support a claim that you are not a thief despite your lack of desire to be one. Last I checked the universe can not be represented logically with only two dimensions and no observer, you might choose to view it that way but it is trivial to dismantle an argument that attempts to paint the world in black and white.
Selling out your users and putting their privacy in Jeopardy is fine but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine? Wrong isn't some pie to be divided up where his amount of wrong somehow lessens Facebook's wrong. His guilt in no way mitigates the wrongs of Facebook.
"Selling out is fine. Walking out is fine. Turning around and trashing the buyer, not fine."
"He's the reason his users' privacy is now in jeopardy with Facebook."
So your contention is that selling out your users and putting their privacy in Jeopardy is fine but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine? Wrong isn't some pie to be divided up where his amount of wrong somehow lessens Facebook's wrong. His guilt in no way mitigates the wrongs of Facebook.
Also, given that the $19 billion in vested stock is likely still largely in vested stock it is worth considering that by badmouthing Facebook he IS most likely burning himself.
Facebook isn't the hand that fed him, he built Whatsapp and Facebook wanted it, that isn't a charity effort. He doesn't owe them anything. You don't have some kind of obligation to someone because they've served their own interests and bought something from you.
"I don't support him badmouthing the hand that fed him under false pretenses"
What false pretenses? You tend to imply there is nothing false about it with your subsequent statement:
"He sold them to Facebook. He knew Facebook's business."
Facebook is currently pretending it has up till now been allowing the platforms it has purchased to continue running as they did before purchase as a way of hedging its bets. This creates the false impression that privacy concerns about Facebook don't apply to the other platforms it owns and this action legitimately highlights that fact. You can support spreading awareness of Facebooks actions and oppose trusting his new startup at the same time. This action doesn't provide a reason to trust his startup but it DOES provide reason to not trust Facebook owned platforms.
"What we are saying is forgiveness is neither automatic nor absolute.
So, he sold out to Facebook... good for him... he then left because he disagreed... also good for him. But, at the end of the day he's pocketed billions and the users of WhatsApp have still been sold to Facebook to be treated like assets.
He can't just say "boo hoo I was wrong" and expect people to believe him or care."
I haven't heard him asking for forgiveness or suggested it should be given. If you hold animosity toward him it is you who is going out of your way to care and judge. Using what he walked away from as opportunity to drawn attention and warn people about Facebook is doing isn't asking for forgiveness or claiming it makes him some kind of hero. It is just someone who has done wrong doing something right and that something brings benefit to others. He could be the worst weasel but pointing it out when it only serves to detract and distract from his message that WhatsApp is as corrupt and invasive as Facebook isn't helpful. If he subsequently asks for trust and builds a new platform based around privacy, that is the time to bring up his compromised past. There is nothing here that requires faith in him.
No, the right thing to do would have been to simply ask and accept whatever financial penalty he might ask and the risk he might decide you are a risky investment since you were unable to plan your finances in a way that avoided a shortfall. In his position I'd have said yes on a first pass because even the best planner can make a mistake, one you could now learn from, you'd have shown integrity in asking, and unless I am going to pull my business from you a shortfall on your payroll is only going to weaken the establishment handling my funds. On the other hand if you were doing this on the regular I might have to reconsider or if willing to let you lean on me for credit charge interest.
Also, in his spot if I knew I was in a position to help others at no real cost to myself and who were in trouble at no fault of their own (your employees) I would feel an obligation to do so. If I refused it wouldn't lessen your responsibility, I'd just have a karmic debt in addition to yours. Just because I have the right to refuse doesn't mean I'm in the right if I refuse.
Yes, those who have studied critical thinking, or just the right perspective understand that the slippery slope is a fallacy. You don't automatically slide down a slippery slope because you've taken a step but the idea isn't without basis either. The truth is less that there is a slippery slope you will automatically slide down and more that you are now closer to a destination and some destinations are downhill which makes coming back from them an uphill battle.
I think most would agree that any path resulting in increased personal wealth is a downhill path with a steeper grade the more you feel (rightly or wrongly) you are entitled to it or need it.
Starving people compromise their morals for gains contrary to their hunger every day. Would the damage he did have been greater or lessor if he'd been starving beforehand?
It makes no difference, the last thing one should do is support the idea that once you've done something wrong or harmful you might as well keep at it and even magnify it because you will forever be damned and vilified. You don't have to ignore his actions and trust him with your privacy but holding animosity toward him hurts you and our society more than it impacts him. If we don't support the act of walking away from a path that hurts millions or even billions of people then we hedge in those who continue to walk that path and make it harder for them to walk away, at the same time we make it easier for those who continue on that path to justify it to themselves.
Contrary to what many would have you believe to be needy does not speak to whether you are deserving either for or against. There are no shortage of those who are needy who don't do what they can just as there are no shortage of those with plenty who don't. Most people needy or otherwise fall far short of the ideals they project on others or judge them by. It remains to be seen what he will do going forward but no matter what he does this at least was a positive step. He took it and the result is to make it clear in a very vocal way that Facebook has not let the other social media platforms it controls run as they wish and that they most likely are all compromised in the same manner as Facebook. That step benefits millions of people, whatever else he has done the man did this, and he will always have at least that. It isn't our place to judge the worth of the man, only the action.
We don't throw away software when we find a bug, we patch it and make it stronger knowing it likely has one less bug than something new. Why be so quick to throw away the people who have made and learned from mistakes?
Fifty million dollars is spendable money but it also more than threefold enough to simply invest in the S&P and have a better than top 1% income just on the dividends without need for any personal market savvy or financial adviser. It is enough to enjoy the standard of living of three successful doctors/lawyers/engineers combined for the rest of your life regardless of your age without any further effort on your part and a substantial cushion against lean economic times. It is enough to simply gift that top 1% income for life to one child while keeping it for yourself or a top 5% upper middle lifestyle for two children while doing so.
The idea that you should seek out billions through morally compromised means so you can gain the power to do better things is the same flawed ends justify the means thinking that corrupts our politicians and advocates one-by-one. That is exactly how you end up with the morally bankrupt and sold out to the highest bidder democracy and world that we have now. Moreover, it is how you end up with all the corrupt bidders who believe they are doing right when they take the power from the hands of the many and assume the role of reshaping the world to their own personal vision.
Not to mention just a few days ago Facebook was claiming they'd have to start reconsidering their policy of buying out competitors and leaving them alone to run their operations.
However much he'd already taken home, this man paid $850 million USD to let us know they were lying about having done so in the first place and to highlight for those boycotting Facebook that Facebook owned alternatives are still Facebook. Regardless of whether you judge him or what your verdict might be we should still take the message itself for what its worth. Don't allow those who would distract us from the message do so by killing the messenger.
Yes, although grades and academic performance tend to poorly capture ability in many areas of STEM and particularly T. Grades tend to reflect your ability to utilize material you've been taught in the applications in which you've been taught to apply it.
High achievement in technology tends to come from your ability to abstract concepts from other solutions and either build new tools from them and/or apply them in ways you haven't seen them before. Academic success indicates you have lots of tools in your garage so to speak, which doesn't preclude talent but also doesn't always correlate. Personally, I'd rather invest in someone who solved the challenge of making a part to my specifications with a couple custom shaped pieces of wood, a drill, a clamp, and a standard screwdriver than someone who can pass a test by turning out that part with a lathe after being taught a set of techniques in a classroom which were designed to culminate in that test. You know the former has the creativity which sets apart the best and you can always train him on and provide the superior tools from there.
By this logic nobody is ever entitled to walk away from the wrong path once they've taken a step along it.
He sold his soul and his users, he isn't denying it, at some point his conscience got the better of him and he walked away. Hopefully he did so as a better version of himself than the one who started down that road. That is all life and growth is, sometimes the wrong path is about billions, sometimes it is dimes at a lemonade stand.
Do you know how many times I've stood at the threshold of a slight compromise to my integrity that would bring me wealth and walked away... just to watch someone else take the opportunity I left open and do the damage anyway? It isn't easy. It also isn't easy to avoid judging those who went over the cliff from the moral high ground despite knowing how easily you could have tripped yourself. Sometimes the greatest merit is found in what you choose not to do and sadly wealth does not so readily follow that kind of merit. After all, how would you distinguish it from those who use integrity to mask the fact they are afraid to dive off the cliff?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't go around telling people to kill themselves because I'm not twelve anymore. But I hardly think it is worthwhile to promote a culture which pretends a snarky "kill yourself" is different than anything else said with snark or sarcasm. Someone who kills themself or does or feels much of anything due to a snarky or sarcastic message online beyond about 60 seconds of walking away is seriously psychologically unstable and needs serious help. Or possibly they need to watch a comedy central roast and realize how you feel in response to words is something you are doing and not the speaker.
The key thing to remember about your statements is you are speaking of the Nazi's that were not the kids that make up the neo-nazi's that are.
"The sad part is that, while I assume this is a reference to white supremacists, I'm really having a hard time seeing how it doesn't apply to both groups."
Fair enough but as you later go on to point out one side has views which have historically lead to the systemic murder and enslavement of millions of people on the basis of what we now know to be largely arbitrary and baseless criteria. Racial supremacy has no valid logical support, most won't admit that there was a reason to believe it might at the times these views dominated and these horrible acts occurred though such reason did exist, but the simple fact is there is no valid logical support for these ideas today. Since the concept is invalid, there is nothing to gained by these movements.
The opposition isn't basing their arguments on support for racial supremacy but equality. The assumption of equality carries many logical benefits and has not been proven out by history to result in systemic murder and enslavement. That said the practice of these opposition groups isn't consistent with their argument. Consistently their methodology starts with a conclusion and then goes in search of a solution. That is no different than religion and is a poor way to establish valid results. Most of the ideas pushed by this group actually depend on the same invalid and arbitrary concepts and ideas that are the foundation of the same groups they oppose.
"What kind of differentiation can you make between "white separatists" and Muslims, which would justify classifying only one of them as irredeemably evil?"
I would classify the idea that you can label millions of individual people based on criteria which is not objective and make any meaningful assertion about "them" as irredeemably evil. No person lacks the potential for redemption especially from "evilness" because "evil" is a relative concept and people do things based on opinions and beliefs which can change over time.
"Historically they've conquered, enslaved, and forcefully converted countless cultures, and here, today, they still insist on maintaining entire countries ruled by their ideology in which all others are either excluded or treated as second class citizens."
Which is no different than Christians or what the Israeli people are doing now. One could simply blame all of this on religion. But then Christian and Muslim culture is also responsible for math, sciences, arts, and technologies that has arguably had a greater impact on mankind's future than those historical deaths. Christ or Mohammad could return perform a miracle on every doorstep tomorrow and prove one of them right, just because they don't have a valid logical basis for their beliefs doesn't mean they won't turn out to have been correct in the end. Profiling, Stereotyping, Racial, and gender supremecy on the other hand are all ideas which lack any a history of good or potential good. Any benefit that can gained along these lines would also be captured by simply EQUALLY opposing these concepts and judging individual merit with a normal healthy skepticism of individual motives, ideas, and abilities.
"On the other side you have movements like ANTIFA which explicitly endorse violence. "Punch a Nazi" isn't just a meme spread by followers, it's a core belief of the entire organization. They feel so assured of their righteousness that they're more than happy to publicly encourage violence in pursuit of their goals."
Yes and they are obviously misguided but they are misguided in equating some rebellious Prince Harry at a costume party with agents of a group that murdered millions of men, women, and children. They are misguided in thinking their violence is justified. But they aren't misguided in the idea of racism and eugenics are faulty concepts.
You are misguided in your implied concept that violence can never be the answer, without violence the real Nazi's of history would not have been stopped. I would hope that we don't ever become a culture so sensitized to violence that we lack the conviction and
You need some serious help with reading comprehension.
"I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour."
He is most definitely saying he wants to stop being unfairly associated with these groups and those who support their behaviors when he expresses his opinion but has given up hope.
Yes, he is facing the same injustice we all are, you have two groups of extremists and if you fall anywhere in the middle both will equate you to the other. As a consequences more and more people are shifting to the extremes. Both groups are evil but one is so overtly evil no sane person would want to be associated with it and while the other has mass numbers and will immediately associate you with it if you start to point out their message is hate thinly veiled as a plea for tolerance.
How about a quote from Linus right in TFS?
"I absolutely do not want to be seen as being in the same camp as the low-life scum on the internet that think it's OK to be a white nationalist Nazi, and have some truly nasty misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic behaviour. And those people were complaining about too much political correctness too, and in the process just making my public stance look bad."
If you are claiming that isn't caving on his principles out of fear of unjust association I can't imagine what you WOULD consider caving...
That doesn't mean we should support it or simply accept that it must be so. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Even being outraged and standing in opposition is still something even if your voice is all you have. When you give up and no longer consider what is right when lending your support to the consensus you truly are doing nothing.
"If Facebook offered him a lot of money and he said no, then he would have something to feel good about. Instead, he eagerly and willingly sold out to one of the biggest scumbag companies in existence. Unless he has given back every penny, he's just another greedy asshole."
;)
A fact that as he puts it, he has to live with each and every day. Though I can't think of a worse path going forward than giving $19 billion back to the "biggest scumbag companies in existence." I'm sure FB would be thrilled if he did.
That said, I'm going to back off from further commentary. I've made my general appeal to reason and philosophical charity, if he wants my support beyond that he can pay for it.
To further illustrate. Your payroll represents the debt the same as your debt to the one you collect for. Earmarking money for this or that purpose is simply an internal artificial distinction, your cash in hand is actually a pool. You are either stealing from the employees who performed services you agreed to pay for or you are robbing the client who contracted you in good faith. If you borrow the money and fail to pay it back you could be stealing from the lender but then is the lender not using your weakness and desperation to extract a profit from your labors without performing any of their own? If their profit is a reward for the risk they take is not a loss a risk they chose to assume when deciding to lend to you?
All one can do is try to act in good faith and with due diligence, to be ones own critic while applying philosophical charity with regard to the actions of others.
"It's not a fallacy to recognize a slippery slope that is actually there."
...".
True, but few slippery slopes are actually there. A slippery slope would require a chain reaction of events wherein one necessarily follows another, your example confuses one action reducing inertia to the next with making the next action certain. If there were a slippery slope as you suggest an individual would only have accountability for their first theft because the slippery slope they were on made subsequent theft inevitable. The reality is that the reduced barrier to action is only in their own mind and that all else being equal there is no increased or reduced barrier.
"For me at least, there is a bit of a binary choice between "I'm not a thief, period" and "well sometimes I kinda
It is fallacy is to suggest that this is binary value that remains constant. Just because it is easier, psychologically, to make a mistake again once you've made it doesn't mean you will choose to do so or that something is irrevocably switched. Having been a thief doesn't mean you are a thief, you always have the option to decide who you are going to be in each moment and who you are in this moment is a choice.
Also, it is hard to place a binary value on theft since ownership is an artificial concept. The idea of a debt is simply a way to feel justified when subsequently taking something from another by some form of force or pressure but you lack the authority to decide for another when a debt is owed or terms are fair. Some argue that this is why we have laws and society but then in contradictory fashion argue against societies right to decide that they owe a debt and suggest that is stealing from them to collect taxes. After all, do you not owe a debt to your common forebearers if nothing else?
Are companies who require payment on net zero terms but pay out on net thirty not doing exactly what you called theft in your own moral dilemma? Are all companies doing this and those who willingly do business with them or for them complicit in that theft? What does it say that most every company with the leverage does so? How is that different from blackmail or simply applying superior security/anti-security skills or even brute strength to take from you?
If you can't define ownership and theft in a binary manner you certainly can't even support a claim that you are not a thief despite your lack of desire to be one. Last I checked the universe can not be represented logically with only two dimensions and no observer, you might choose to view it that way but it is trivial to dismantle an argument that attempts to paint the world in black and white.
Selling out your users and putting their privacy in Jeopardy is fine but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine? Wrong isn't some pie to be divided up where his amount of wrong somehow lessens Facebook's wrong. His guilt in no way mitigates the wrongs of Facebook.
"Selling out is fine. Walking out is fine. Turning around and trashing the buyer, not fine."
"He's the reason his users' privacy is now in jeopardy with Facebook."
So your contention is that selling out your users and putting their privacy in Jeopardy is fine but trying to mitigate the damage by making sure they are aware of it when Facebook pretends they've left their acquisitions running untouched and without interference is not fine? Wrong isn't some pie to be divided up where his amount of wrong somehow lessens Facebook's wrong. His guilt in no way mitigates the wrongs of Facebook.
Yes, that would be part of their problem.
Also, given that the $19 billion in vested stock is likely still largely in vested stock it is worth considering that by badmouthing Facebook he IS most likely burning himself.
Facebook isn't the hand that fed him, he built Whatsapp and Facebook wanted it, that isn't a charity effort. He doesn't owe them anything. You don't have some kind of obligation to someone because they've served their own interests and bought something from you.
"I don't support him badmouthing the hand that fed him under false pretenses"
What false pretenses? You tend to imply there is nothing false about it with your subsequent statement:
"He sold them to Facebook. He knew Facebook's business."
Facebook is currently pretending it has up till now been allowing the platforms it has purchased to continue running as they did before purchase as a way of hedging its bets. This creates the false impression that privacy concerns about Facebook don't apply to the other platforms it owns and this action legitimately highlights that fact. You can support spreading awareness of Facebooks actions and oppose trusting his new startup at the same time. This action doesn't provide a reason to trust his startup but it DOES provide reason to not trust Facebook owned platforms.
"What we are saying is forgiveness is neither automatic nor absolute.
... good for him ... he then left because he disagreed ... also good for him. But, at the end of the day he's pocketed billions and the users of WhatsApp have still been sold to Facebook to be treated like assets.
So, he sold out to Facebook
He can't just say "boo hoo I was wrong" and expect people to believe him or care."
I haven't heard him asking for forgiveness or suggested it should be given. If you hold animosity toward him it is you who is going out of your way to care and judge. Using what he walked away from as opportunity to drawn attention and warn people about Facebook is doing isn't asking for forgiveness or claiming it makes him some kind of hero. It is just someone who has done wrong doing something right and that something brings benefit to others. He could be the worst weasel but pointing it out when it only serves to detract and distract from his message that WhatsApp is as corrupt and invasive as Facebook isn't helpful. If he subsequently asks for trust and builds a new platform based around privacy, that is the time to bring up his compromised past. There is nothing here that requires faith in him.
"But it wasn't the right thing to do."
No, the right thing to do would have been to simply ask and accept whatever financial penalty he might ask and the risk he might decide you are a risky investment since you were unable to plan your finances in a way that avoided a shortfall. In his position I'd have said yes on a first pass because even the best planner can make a mistake, one you could now learn from, you'd have shown integrity in asking, and unless I am going to pull my business from you a shortfall on your payroll is only going to weaken the establishment handling my funds. On the other hand if you were doing this on the regular I might have to reconsider or if willing to let you lean on me for credit charge interest.
Also, in his spot if I knew I was in a position to help others at no real cost to myself and who were in trouble at no fault of their own (your employees) I would feel an obligation to do so. If I refused it wouldn't lessen your responsibility, I'd just have a karmic debt in addition to yours. Just because I have the right to refuse doesn't mean I'm in the right if I refuse.
Yes, those who have studied critical thinking, or just the right perspective understand that the slippery slope is a fallacy. You don't automatically slide down a slippery slope because you've taken a step but the idea isn't without basis either. The truth is less that there is a slippery slope you will automatically slide down and more that you are now closer to a destination and some destinations are downhill which makes coming back from them an uphill battle.
I think most would agree that any path resulting in increased personal wealth is a downhill path with a steeper grade the more you feel (rightly or wrongly) you are entitled to it or need it.
Starving people compromise their morals for gains contrary to their hunger every day. Would the damage he did have been greater or lessor if he'd been starving beforehand?
It makes no difference, the last thing one should do is support the idea that once you've done something wrong or harmful you might as well keep at it and even magnify it because you will forever be damned and vilified. You don't have to ignore his actions and trust him with your privacy but holding animosity toward him hurts you and our society more than it impacts him. If we don't support the act of walking away from a path that hurts millions or even billions of people then we hedge in those who continue to walk that path and make it harder for them to walk away, at the same time we make it easier for those who continue on that path to justify it to themselves.
Contrary to what many would have you believe to be needy does not speak to whether you are deserving either for or against. There are no shortage of those who are needy who don't do what they can just as there are no shortage of those with plenty who don't. Most people needy or otherwise fall far short of the ideals they project on others or judge them by. It remains to be seen what he will do going forward but no matter what he does this at least was a positive step. He took it and the result is to make it clear in a very vocal way that Facebook has not let the other social media platforms it controls run as they wish and that they most likely are all compromised in the same manner as Facebook. That step benefits millions of people, whatever else he has done the man did this, and he will always have at least that. It isn't our place to judge the worth of the man, only the action.
We don't throw away software when we find a bug, we patch it and make it stronger knowing it likely has one less bug than something new. Why be so quick to throw away the people who have made and learned from mistakes?
Fifty million dollars is spendable money but it also more than threefold enough to simply invest in the S&P and have a better than top 1% income just on the dividends without need for any personal market savvy or financial adviser. It is enough to enjoy the standard of living of three successful doctors/lawyers/engineers combined for the rest of your life regardless of your age without any further effort on your part and a substantial cushion against lean economic times. It is enough to simply gift that top 1% income for life to one child while keeping it for yourself or a top 5% upper middle lifestyle for two children while doing so.
The idea that you should seek out billions through morally compromised means so you can gain the power to do better things is the same flawed ends justify the means thinking that corrupts our politicians and advocates one-by-one. That is exactly how you end up with the morally bankrupt and sold out to the highest bidder democracy and world that we have now. Moreover, it is how you end up with all the corrupt bidders who believe they are doing right when they take the power from the hands of the many and assume the role of reshaping the world to their own personal vision.
Not to mention just a few days ago Facebook was claiming they'd have to start reconsidering their policy of buying out competitors and leaving them alone to run their operations.
However much he'd already taken home, this man paid $850 million USD to let us know they were lying about having done so in the first place and to highlight for those boycotting Facebook that Facebook owned alternatives are still Facebook. Regardless of whether you judge him or what your verdict might be we should still take the message itself for what its worth. Don't allow those who would distract us from the message do so by killing the messenger.
Definitely a moral lukewarm middle target but at least you are honest. lol
If only this were the case at every org but it isn't.
Yes, although grades and academic performance tend to poorly capture ability in many areas of STEM and particularly T. Grades tend to reflect your ability to utilize material you've been taught in the applications in which you've been taught to apply it.
High achievement in technology tends to come from your ability to abstract concepts from other solutions and either build new tools from them and/or apply them in ways you haven't seen them before. Academic success indicates you have lots of tools in your garage so to speak, which doesn't preclude talent but also doesn't always correlate. Personally, I'd rather invest in someone who solved the challenge of making a part to my specifications with a couple custom shaped pieces of wood, a drill, a clamp, and a standard screwdriver than someone who can pass a test by turning out that part with a lathe after being taught a set of techniques in a classroom which were designed to culminate in that test. You know the former has the creativity which sets apart the best and you can always train him on and provide the superior tools from there.
By this logic nobody is ever entitled to walk away from the wrong path once they've taken a step along it.
He sold his soul and his users, he isn't denying it, at some point his conscience got the better of him and he walked away. Hopefully he did so as a better version of himself than the one who started down that road. That is all life and growth is, sometimes the wrong path is about billions, sometimes it is dimes at a lemonade stand.
Do you know how many times I've stood at the threshold of a slight compromise to my integrity that would bring me wealth and walked away... just to watch someone else take the opportunity I left open and do the damage anyway? It isn't easy. It also isn't easy to avoid judging those who went over the cliff from the moral high ground despite knowing how easily you could have tripped yourself. Sometimes the greatest merit is found in what you choose not to do and sadly wealth does not so readily follow that kind of merit. After all, how would you distinguish it from those who use integrity to mask the fact they are afraid to dive off the cliff?