Facebook may well be exceptionally nasty and it’s leadership particularly deceitful, but the whole enterprise is the natural conclusion to an ad-powered social network. Ever greater surveillance, hyper targeting, and engagement baiting is what the basic incentives demand.

Facebook cannot change course. The best they can do is keep dishing out empty apologies, commit to inconsequential adjustments to its algorithms, and spend more money on positive PR and negative projection. The rot is at the core of its very being.
This is why we, consumers and citizens, must make the change for Facebook. Antitrust forcing a breakup of the business, and consumer revolt driving #DeleteFacebook. Zuckerberg will never conclude that what he built has become such a net negative for the world on his own.
That’s why its so tragic that WhatsApp sold out to Facebook in particular. Finally a challenger that had a different model and different ethics. But few would say no to $19B, which is why we need antitrust enforcers to do it for them.

More from Tech

I think about this a lot, both in IT and civil infrastructure. It looks so trivial to “fix” from the outside. In fact, it is incredibly draining to do the entirely crushing work of real policy changes internally. It’s harder than drafting a blank page of how the world should be.


I’m at a sort of career crisis point. In my job before, three people could contain the entire complexity of a nation-wide company’s IT infrastructure in their head.

Once you move above that mark, it becomes exponentially, far and away beyond anything I dreamed, more difficult.

And I look at candidates and know-everything’s who think it’s all so easy. Or, people who think we could burn it down with no losses and start over.

God I wish I lived in that world of triviality. In moments, I find myself regretting leaving that place of self-directed autonomy.

For ten years I knew I could build something and see results that same day. Now I’m adjusting to building something in my mind in one day, and it taking a year to do the due-diligence and edge cases and documentation and familiarization and roll-out.

That’s the hard work. It’s not technical. It’s not becoming a rockstar to peers.
These people look at me and just see another self-important idiot in Security who thinks they understand the system others live. Who thinks “bad” designs were made for no reason.
Who wasn’t there.
Thought I'd put a thread together of some resources & people I consider really valuable & insightful for anyone considering or just starting out on their @SorareHQ journey. It's by no means comprehensive, this community is super helpful so no offence to anyone I've missed off...

1) Get yourself on the official Sorare Discord group
https://t.co/1CWeyglJhu, the forum is always full of interesting debate. Got a question? Put it on the relevant thread & it's usually answered in minutes. This is also a great place to engage directly with the @SorareHQ team.

2) Bury your head in @HGLeitch's @SorareData & get to grips with all the collated information you have to hand FOR FREE! IMO it's vital for price-checking, scouting & S05 team building plus they are hosts to the forward thinking SO11 and SorareData Cups 🏆

3) Get on YouTube 📺, subscribe to @Qu_Tang_Clan's channel https://t.co/1ZxMsQR1kq & engross yourself in hours of Sorare tutorials & videos. There's a good crowd that log in to the live Gameweek shows where you get to see Quinny scratching his head/ beard over team selection.

4) Make sure to follow & give a listen to the @Sorare_Podcast on the streaming service of your choice 🔊, weekly shows are always insightful with great guests. Worth listening to the old episodes too as there's loads of information you'll take from them.

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x