[avoidit]

>> If that opt-in isn't enough, exactly how many levels do you want?

Since you can't seem to count to 2, how about:

1. You let us share your data with others in return for free service

2. You don't let us share your date in return for paid service

>> If you do choose to use a free service, whether it's Facebook or a public library

Well, a public library is tax funded and people outside the library employees have a big say in its inner workings. So you can't get your comparisons correct either.

>> Actively using something and also actively undermining its means of support ... well, I'll just leave that thought there.

Perhaps you should complete the thought, because I don't actively use the something

>> You seem to have some pretty unrealistic expectations of what individual employees can do at a 30K-person company, or about anyone taking the right action without deliberating first.

Really, as opposed to your very realistic expectations that everyone should just trust FB employees would have "done the right thing" had they not been caught red-handed? Oh right, because FB knows better what is best for everyone else.

>>Wouldn't it be nice if people who actually understand various parts of this can talk and work together?

This is truly bizarre. So if FB rolls over and dies tomorrow, does it mean innovation will come to a complete halt? Let us say you think, "oh, but it might take much longer". Does that automatically adversely affect people more than the damages that can be caused to society via rampant data collection? How can you be so sure? Oh wait, because you must be smarter than everyone else, as you got through the interview.

And finally, it is interesting all the things that you selectively left unsaid (exactly like other FB employees have been doing all the while).

- you don't have the courage (what an ironic handle) to discuss shadow profiles

- you never actually addressed the fact that no one from outside coerced the leak, which made your first comment more rhetorical than substantial

- you cleverly twisted the "collaboration" to be amongst FB employees when clearly the line following tells that you actually meant collaboration between FB employees and its users (dopamine hit for whom, that is? so you are now assuming others cannot read either?)

[dang]

We've banned this account for violating the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[bayonetz]

Bystander here. Why the ban? It’s snarky in places for sure but I’d say it’s a pretty solid set of points and counter points. It definitely “added something” to my experience reading this thread.

[notacoward]

I suggest that you also identify the primary account behind it and give them a reminder too, or else they'll just keep doing it over and over again until their targets run out of patience.

[notacoward]

> 2. You don't let us share your date in return for paid service

Personally, I think that might be a good option, but you can't claim to have made it explicit before so your "count to 2" insult is misplaced. I know that the only thing you've ever done since your account was created is bash Facebook (how nice that anyone can check that for themselves BTW), but even in that light such childishness is counterproductive.

> if FB rolls over and dies tomorrow, does it mean innovation will come to a complete halt

Total strawman. Nobody said or implied that. There's plenty of knowledge and innovation everywhere, but the amount that can come from Facebook only has to be non-zero to support my point. Several hundred developers who have collectively worked on almost every distributed system you've ever heard of might have an idea or two worth discussing. They might even have a perspective on scaling issues that's highly relevant to the problem at hand but not widely known outside of Facebook and maybe three other companies. Why do you try so hard to throw cold water on any such conversations?