| > I see. So, let us back up a little to your first statement. Why is the risk of excluding developing economies a problem (for the developing economy), again? This is the question you should have opened with :) I never said it was a problem for the developing country. I was talking purely about the economics of Facebook. If they (Facebook) want to expend their demographic then they would need be affordable in each economic environment. Whether you (the respective county) want them there or not is another matter entirely. Frankly I’d be happier if Facebook failed in my own country rather than expanded their global presence into yours as well; but that wasn’t the topic being discussed at that time. > It is not an edge case if it leads to making assumptions which are clearly bad for our future. Technically it still would be when using the correct definition of edge case ;) > Because Facebook isn't getting any real punishment, people are only going to say "Nothing happened to Facebook. Why should the other companies worry about lying to governments/ lying to customers/ privacy issues/ data collection / retargeting / lookalike audience" etc. I agree that’s a problem but, once again, you’re arguing a completely different topic. > I am not sure why you feel that way. Frankly put: because I’m not biased. You feel like you’ve had an injustice so you’re lashing out at everyone. I totally get that. I’ve been really privileged to grow up in the U.K. but I’ve also spent a lot of time in developing countries so I’ve seen both sides of the argument. > Specifically, what I am saying is that I don't like people starting off with statements such as "you then run the risk of excluding developing economies" as if that is automatically a bad thing for the developing economies. That literally wasn’t what was said though. The context was never about what was good or bad for those counties; economically, socially, not by any other metric. The context of my original post and the entire chain of conversation that preceded it was a theoretic one about how Facebook might counter abuse on its platform. The context was always about Facebook specifically. This is why I have repeatedly said you’ve gone waaaaaay off topic. If you want to change the conversation to the evils of western corporations then please bare in mind that HN is ostensibly a tech and business forum so people will often talk about things from the perspective of tech giants even if they don’t actually support the operations of those corporations. Thus it would benefit everyone if you didn’t jump to conclusions, making personal accusations about the opinions of HN posters on entirely different subject matters just because they happen to make an impartial point on a company you have a personal vendetta against. |