What about young people who are new to the internet? Should we increase the cost of entry (or just flat out ban it) for them too for their lack of online reputation?
Those young people have absolutely no problem getting online and building enough presence to accomplish objectives. Maybe the questions you need to start asking are what makes you different from them or what are you doing that makes you seem downright sketch to all of these services. You are actively doing something that is making you appear untrustworthy or bucketing you in with the spammers. Figure out what that is and stop doing it.
1. Find a profitable niche
2. See if you could market to said niche in a way where you have an unfair advantage.
3. If yes to 2, market and sell the product before you have it to ensure demand
4. Build the product.
I would change this to. Find a project you would love to do (software, hardware, art; anything you love to be really good at). Make sure other people would like to see that project (ask your friends and see what others have done). Then create the project and blog about it, create tiktok/youtube videos. It can take a year or more . Also this project can be used to get you a job.
It is possible your project will fail; try to figure out why. Pick a new project and try again.
All these arguments about school times etc. My code would be eternally ridiculed if I mocked the Date object to artificially change the time, instead changing the time school started for certain months.
Changing school times cannot happen in isolation. That will also cause work times to shift to match their drop-off and pick-up times. So as work times for parents shift, so would opening hours for restaurants and shops and finally the society as a whole adjust their daily routines by an hour.
On the contrary, it's politicians and old media who came up with the "fake news" slogan and demanded FB and others start censoring opposing viewpoints. FB is all too happy to help spread falsehoods and inflammatory articles since they both drive engagement.
No,
"Ninety-five percent of Americans identified misinformation as a problem when they’re trying to access important information."
"According to the poll, 79% of Republicans and 73% of Democrats said social media companies have a great deal or quite a bit of responsibility for misinformation."
Talk about "fact checking" you just make a statement about what people think and provided no evidence to back it up. That's the main problem here. Also "old media"?
Thinking "misinformation is a problem" is not the same as thinking "politically biased corporations should censor what they deem to be misinformation in accordance with their own biases."
They only did it after being pressured by the same people that are now saying they should not have done it. It doesn't matter what they do at this point. They will come out as the bad guys regardless.
Seems to me that everyone agreed that Facebook had to do something about misinformation and that everyone is now outraged that they did. Where are the people defending the fact-checking they helped make reality? No, I think everyone just loves to hate on Facebook.
I never agreed that Facebook took a seat in the chair of fact checking. I’d rather, along with others, would’ve seen that Facebook got hammered with fines into obsolence for fueling the world with controversy and doing everything in their power to keep revenue on top of fact checking.
In regard if facebooks approach, it is laughable what Facebook is doing on their scale. It is barely enough with the amount of persons, and the way they enable people to share as much shit as possible.
So in short Facebook is doing way too little and doing it wrong too. But it does seem like the cheapest option for them to keep the lawmakers at bay.
I mean yes, when asking someone to clean a mess they did make, and they do it as spreading the mess around, to make it worse, then you still allowed to be mad at them about that mess.
Good idea. Please consider generating websites from the courses to allow people to "white label" this. Alternatively, offer iframes or an api - a kind of headless CMS. This would allow course creators to feel comfortable not being so locked in.
Yeah we experimented a bit with this idea but the overwhelming feedback we kept getting is that devs wanted help with distribution more than they wanted to host a course on their own site.
