7 ms·

Oh, they're actually the bad guys, just folks haven't thought far enough ahead to realise it yet.

• plemer 1y ago
  OK, lay it on us.
  • arresin 1y ago
    It’s not unreasonable given the mountain of evidence of their past behaviour to just assume they are always the “bad guy”.
    • bigyabai 1y ago
      I would normally agree, but we're instantially talking about the company that made Pytorch and played an instrumental role in proliferating usable offline LLMs. If you can make that algebra add up to "bad guy" then be my guest.
      • pickledoyster 1y ago
        It seems like you're claiming that Pytorch + an open-weight LLM > everything on this wiki page, especially the anchored section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co...
        • bigyabai 1y ago
          I am. I genuinely don't understand how Meta's LLM contributions have anything to do with Myanmar. It's like telling an iPhone user that iCloud isn't trustworthy because of the Foxconn suicide nets. It's basically the definition of a non-sequitur.
  • b112 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • tombert 1y ago
      Well at least they're doing it For Great Justice then.
  • scott_w 1y ago
    Just read Careless People.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • TheRoque 1y ago
    Come on... Is it still necessary to remind everyone how evil meta is ? The only reason they released "open source" models was to annoy the competition. They latest stunts: https://futurism.com/meta-sketchy-training-ai-private-photos https://futurism.com/meta-sketchy-training-ai-private-photos
    • fragmede 1y ago
      don't call them open source when they're not. it's shared model.
      • TheRoque 1y ago
        It's just how they call them... Hence the quotes.
  • cess11 1y ago
    They're involved in genocide and enables near-global tyranny through their surveillance and manipulation. There are no excuses for working for or otherwise enabling them.
  • shakna 1y ago
    I wouldn't call mass piracy [0], for their own competitive gain, to be a "good" act. Especially when it seems they know they were doing the wrong thing - and that they know that the copyright complaints have grounds. > The problem is that people don’t realize that if we license one single book, we won’t be able to lean into fair use strategy. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libgen-meta-openai/682093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/libge...
• robocat 1y ago
  > bad guys You imply there are some good guys. What company?
  • rTX5CMRXIfFG 1y ago
    Depends. Does your definition of “good” mean “perfect”? If so, cynical remarks like “no one is good” would be totally correct.
  • bigiain 1y ago
    Google circa 2005? Twitter circa 2012? In 2025? Nobody, I don't think. Even Mozilla is turning into the bad guys these days.
    • HSO 1y ago
      DeepSeek et al. Obv
    • jsrozner 1y ago
      Google was bad the moment it chose its business model. See The Age of Surveillance Capitalism for details. Admittedly there was a nice period after it chose its model when it seemed good because it was building useful tools and hadn't yet accrued sufficient power / market share for its badness to manifest overtly as harm in the world.
    • alternatex 1y ago
      Signal, Mastodon
      • Zambyte 1y ago
        Bluesky, Kagi
        • bigiain 1y ago
          In my head at least, Bluesky are way closer to "the bad guys'. I don't trust them at all, pretty sure that in spite of what they say, they're going to do the same sort of rug pull that Google did with their "do no evil" assurances.
• lawn 1y ago
  This is an instance of bad guys fighting bad guys.