There's a TV series out named Squid Game.
Netflix describes its viewers as 'fans'; they say the show has 111 million fans.
Nonsensical language separates people from thought, especially thought of the critical kind.
I've heard some voices state that Squid Game is critique against capitalism much as Parasite, the film by Bong Joon-ho.
The first couple of minutes of the first episode of Squid Game are a flashback to what I assume is a narrator's past where he and some other kids play a game. The narrator wins a go and says 'I felt like I owned the world'.
'Your future is a world where men and women are equal,' the anti-hero says just after he's given a toy gun to a little girl as a birthday present, 'You need to get used to these things.'
This is the end-game of capitalism: weaponise to debase others to win, or you'll end up at the bottom; by the way, if you're at the bottom, you most likely will need to use armory to either defend yourself or get food to survive.
Later in the episode, the anti-hero plays another kid's game. He can win himself out of life-threatening debt—and having a kidney removed—if he just enters another type of life-and-death game.It all reminds me of the 1980s film The Running Man and, well, Macbeth; unlike the later, Squid Game starting from abject poverty.
To many peoples all over the world, 'Squid Game' is the better existence. These peoples don't have easy access to clean water and starve every day. Of course, there's no way to decide what's worse: constant starvation where the risk of death is constant or being fairly poor but risking instant death if you lose a game?A pickpocket is seen, by some, as more lowly than somebody who steals money electronically. Someone like Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, who go farther than stealing money.
A former Facebook employee has accused the company of putting profit over the public good, after coming forward as the whistleblower who leaked a cache of internal documents that have placed the tech firm in its worst crisis since the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Frances Haugen, 37, said the thousands of documents she had collected and shared with the Wall Street Journal and US law enforcement showed the company was lying to the public that it was making significant progress against hate, violence and misinformation.
“The thing I saw at Facebook over and over again was there were conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook. And Facebook, over and over again, chose to optimise for its own interests, like making more money,” she said.
In an interview with the news program 60 Minutes on Sunday, Haugen explained her decision to speak out about the internal workings of Facebook, saying she had become alarmed by what she perceived as company policies that prioritized profit over public safety.
“The version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world,” she said.
Haugen said she joined Facebook in 2019 as a product manager on its civic integrity team – which focused on issues related to elections worldwide - after spending more than a decade working in the tech industry, including at Pinterest and Google.
She said she agreed to take the job only if she could work to help the company combat misinformation, saying the issue was personal for her – she previously lost a relationship with a friend after they descended into online conspiracies.
But Haugen said she soon began to feel Facebook was unwilling to take the action needed to address these issues, even though it had the tools. She left the company in May this year.
“No one at Facebook is malevolent,” Haugen told 60 Minutes. She said Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, “has never set out to make a hateful platform”. But, she said, the effects of the company’s choices had been grave.
Facebook proved it could do more to address these problems when it changed content policies for several weeks surrounding the 2020 US elections, she said, adding the company deliberately gave a lower priority to political content on its news feed.
But the platform soon went back to old algorithms that valued engagement over all else, she claimed, a move that she said contributed to the 6 January riot at the Capitol. Facebook also disbanded the civic integrity team after the election.
“As soon as the election was over, they turned them back off or they changed the settings back to what they were before, to prioritize growth over safety. And that really feels like a betrayal of democracy to me,” she said.
Referring to the algorithm change, Haugen added: “Facebook has realised that if they change the algorithm to be safer, people will spend less time on the site, they’ll click on less ads, and [Facebook] will make less money.”
Haugen also discussed the most damaging document leak, which showed Facebook was aware of the damage its Instagram app was causing to teen mental health and wellbeing. One survey in the leaked research estimated that 30% of teenage girls felt Instagram made dissatisfaction with their body worse.
“And what’s super tragic is Facebook’s own research says, as these young women begin to consume this– this eating disorder content, they get more and more depressed. And it actually makes them use the app more. And so, they end up in this feedback cycle where they hate their bodies more and more,” she said.
So, what will you do for money?
