No, of course not. Everybody knows Facebook is better than G+. This conversation was never about Facebook -- until now -- so I don't know what you're doing claiming that "everyone was trying to tell me" from the start that Facebook was not that great. My point there was to say that despite
people grumping about Facebook, privacy this, they changed that, game notifications the next thing, the reality is, everybody goes on there way more than they admit and it keeps growing. Because it's simple and easy and it has your friends on it already, instead of your enemies, like G+.
In fact, we all pay with Google, Facebook -- all of them -- just like the old Soviet joke, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." This joke is something that Sergey Brin has brought to life! We all toil away in the content mills, producing posts and information and pictures and whatnot, and it is all diligently scraped to be resold to ad buyers and marketers. As has been noted many times before, if you are not paying for a service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. But more to the point, under technocommunism, you are slaving away for free in the collective farm.
I should think they would
have high employee satisfaction ratings when they supply free food, massages, and everything else on the job. And yet, people leave Google, and they leave Google because they can't make their cool thing at Google, like Uber Conference, you know? I covered them at TechCrunch on my blog. They won! And they are not
in Google. Google of course may buy them out...
As for your "Also screw your bull shite "Altruism is Christian" (everyone puts their own religion first" -- say, are you turning out to be one of those British secularist socialist haters of Americans? This is SOOOO common as to be mundane, and the Internet brings out the worst of it.
If you read what I wrote, you'd see I put this: "Altruism has its roots in the idea of Christianity and other religions that ask you to put others first." I certainly didn't say Christianity is the ONLY religion -- as you are implying -- but I put it first because hell YEAH you get to put your religion first. You certainly put your secular/socialist/paganist/whatever religion first with your faux meta take on the world that typifies the geek keyhole. I'll bet you're one of those geeks who doesn't believe in God, but who believes karma is a bitch -- without ever wondering who that master of the universe would be who could keep track of -- and dish out -- bad karma, if there were no God.
Christianity has a simple idea, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If Google engineers practiced this even in a secular kind of way, G+ wouldn't be a place of heckling and harassment of those not in your insular culture, but more of a normal place, the way Facebook is.
Er, historically violent? This lovely Confucian religion produced the culture of China, which went on to accept Maoism and communism where millions were massacred. Or will you tell us this is a departure from Confucianism? As for India -- Buddhism -- and things like bride-burning -- where do they come from? Every country has a background of religion that produces culture, and that culture's negative traits can be traced back to religion at times. There's no such thing as some "better, more perfect, less violent" religion -- it's a utopia in itself. It's an implication that somewhere, there is this "better human nature" that is produced by man's efforts alone. But that is a fallacy.
Perhaps you could cite your documented cases of paganistic altruism denounced by Christianity -- or at least, some Christian leader at some specific time. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not denouncing paganistic altruism. This is something you've made up in your head -- like my alleged following of Ayn Rand, or shopping at Wal-mart's, or driving an SUV, or whatever hate-marker you can dream up.
My problem with the fake altruism of open source is that it does not serve the public, it serves the vanity of coders, and it serves Big IT just to extract more revenue.
It really is the heighth of secularist piety to claim that people engage in altruism because "it feels good". That is not what altruism is. Altruism is in fact doing someone a kindness even when you don't feel like it, and it gives you no particular joy. You imply that it is merely some brain chemistry, some endorphin triggered by vanity and self-love -- which is in fact antithetical to real altruism.
BTW, I noticed that you failed to mention Islam. Most terrorist acts are committed by fundamentalist Islamists. But you didn't dare to mention that
religion in any sentence about violence, now, did you.
Where is the idea of Europe? It is gone. Google helped to kill it.