[renegade-otter]

Point taken, but I feel like going into details at this stage is redundant. There have been probably hundreds of discussions on this site regarding this topic. Books have been written about Facebook's and Zuckerberg's absent moral compass. To wit, from three days ago:

https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/meta-ceo-mark-zuckerber...

"While Zuckerberg reportedly wanted to prevent "explicit" conversations with younger teens, a February 2024 meeting summary shows he believed Meta should be "less restrictive than proposed" and wanted to "allow adults to engage in racier conversation on topics like sex." He also rejected parental controls that would have let families disable the AI feature entirely. Nick Clegg, Meta's former head of global policy, questioned the approach in internal emails, asking if the company really wanted these products "known for" sexual interactions with teens, warning of "inevitable societal backlash."

[dang]

Let's assume you're right that going into details is redundant. In that case, however, so is the generic putdown.

Put differently: even if you don't owe megacorps that don't follow basic human decency better, you owe this community better if you're participating in it.

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

[Revolution1120]

Over a decade ago, when Facebook held a monopoly, having one's first sexual experience at age 12 or even earlier was an incredibly prestigious and fashionable thing. If Zuckerberg truly held this view, it wouldn't be surprising at all; it would even be considered perfectly reasonable. And those who want to censor these things aren't leftists, but genuine conservatives. Despite the efforts of Musk and other Silicon Valley figures to distort the definition of conservative through their propaganda, and even with many people having short memories, their lies are easily exposed. Unless "having sex at age 12" is a long-standing American traditional value, it's no closer to conservatism than the so-called Muslim immigrants. Looking back now, the propaganda advocating for sex at age 12 may very well have been a carefully orchestrated global pedophile ideology infiltration by elite pedophiles of Epstein's class. It wasn't limited to the Americas or Europe; it was also widespread and accepted in China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. After Epstein's death in 2019, has such propaganda decreased significantly? Is this a coincidence? It's very likely not a coincidence. This argument is worth exploring; following this line of thought might uncover even more valuable research on field of deep state. While Epstein was a billionaire, he wasn't exceptionally wealthy on paper and shouldn't have possessed such immense influence and control. Therefore, there's only one possibility is profound: Epstein was Satoshi Nakamoto!