I was a legacy user too, they finally got rid of me I guess
The update to version 8 forces a login to the app and I could not use my own storage to sync vaults, out of the blue it just happened, I wasn't a paying customer
The workaround? Create an account, export your vault(not in the older version, the export formats are limited), and off I went to Bitwarden
I wanted to share a note I wrote to everyone at our company.
---
Hey everyone: it's been quite a week, and I wanted to share some thoughts with all of you.
First, the SEV that took down all our services yesterday was the worst outage we've had in years. We've spent the past 24 hours debriefing how we can strengthen our systems against this kind of failure. This was also a reminder of how much our work matters to people. The deeper concern with an outage like this isn't how many people switch to competitive services or how much money we lose, but what it means for the people who rely on our services to communicate with loved ones, run their businesses, or support their communities.
Second, now that today's testimony is over, I wanted to reflect on the public debate we're in. I'm sure many of you have found the recent coverage hard to read because it just doesn't reflect the company we know. We care deeply about issues like safety, well-being and mental health. It's difficult to see coverage that misrepresents our work and our motives. At the most basic level, I think most of us just don't recognize the false picture of the company that is being painted.
Many of the claims don't make any sense. If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place? If we didn't care about fighting harmful content, then why would we employ so many more people dedicated to this than any other company in our space -- even ones larger than us? If we wanted to hide our results, why would we have established an industry-leading standard for transparency and reporting on what we're doing? And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are we seeing polarization increase in the US while it stays flat or declines in many countries with just as heavy use of social media around the world?
At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That's just not true. For example, one move that has been called into question is when we introduced the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change showed fewer viral videos and more content from friends and family -- which we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people's well-being. Is that something a company focused on profits over people would do?
The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical. We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don't want their ads next to harmful or angry content. And I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed. The moral, business and product incentives all point in the opposite direction.
But of everything published, I'm particularly focused on the questions raised about our work with kids. I've spent a lot of time reflecting on the kinds of experiences I want my kids and others to have online, and it's very important to me that everything we build is safe and good for kids.
The reality is that young people use technology. Think about how many school-age kids have phones. Rather than ignoring this, technology companies should build experiences that meet their needs while also keeping them safe. We're deeply committed to doing industry-leading work in this area. A good example of this work is Messenger Kids, which is widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives.
We've also worked on bringing this kind of age-appropriate experience with parental controls for Instagram too. But given all the questions about whether this would actually be better for kids, we've paused that project to take more time to engage with experts and make sure anything we do would be helpful.
Like many of you, I found it difficult to read the mischaracterization of the research into how Instagram affects young people. As we wrote in our Newsroom post explaining this: "The research actually demonstrated that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them when they are struggling with the kinds of hard moments and issues teenagers have always faced. In fact, in 11 of 12 areas on the slide referenced by the Journal -- including serious areas like loneliness, anxiety, sadness and eating issues -- more teenage girls who said they struggled with that issue also said Instagram made those difficult times better rather than worse."
But when it comes to young people's health or well-being, every negative experience matters. It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress who, instead of being comforted, has their experience made worse. We have worked for years on industry-leading efforts to help people in these moments and I'm proud of the work we've done. We constantly use our research to improve this work further.
Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should make all of the decisions on their own. That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now. I have testified in Congress multiple times and asked them to update these regulations. I've written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we think are most important related to elections, harmful content, privacy, and competition.
We're committed to doing the best work we can, but at some level the right body to assess tradeoffs between social equities is our democratically elected Congress. For example, what is the right age for teens to be able to use internet services? How should internet services verify people's ages? And how should companies balance teens' privacy while giving parents visibility into their activity?
If we're going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it's important to start with a full picture. We're committed to doing more research ourselves and making more research publicly available.
That said, I'm worried about the incentives that are being set here. We have an industry-leading research program so that we can identify important issues and work on them. It's disheartening to see that work taken out of context and used to construct a false narrative that we don't care. If we attack organizations making an effort to study their impact on the world, we're effectively sending the message that it's safer not to look at all, in case you find something that could be held against you. That's the conclusion other companies seem to have reached, and I think that leads to a place that would be far worse for society. Even though it might be easier for us to follow that path, we're going to keep doing research because it's the right thing to do.
I know it's frustrating to see the good work we do get mischaracterized, especially for those of you who are making important contributions across safety, integrity, research and product. But I believe that over the long term if we keep trying to do what's right and delivering experiences that improve people's lives, it will be better for our community and our business. I've asked leaders across the company to do deep dives on our work across many areas over the next few days so you can see everything that we're doing to get there.
When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world -- the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I'm proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day.
Did anyone edit or proof this beyond maybe spelling an grammar? It comes across as incredibly sophomoric and petty. Moreover it reads like the nervous retort of someone who isn’t used to being questioned or contradicted. This seems like exactly the wrong tone at the moment.
Honestly as a tech person, I’m concerned that he really makes the rest of us look like shit.
That's fairly amusing given in the thread above this someone is absolutely certain that he didn't write it and that it was written by PR, Comms and lawyers.
This is about as "us vs. them" as it gets, which is to say that it's about as political of a statement as it gets.
I don't think any of this fight is about the actual issue of social media's impact, but perhaps I was naive to ever even think that it was about those issues to begin with.
I absolutely detest the polarization happening right now. I will however say that I deleted Facebook and Instagram about a year ago because I found myself comparing myself to my female peers to the point I was insecure, feeling inadequate, and becoming materialistic despite my highly successful medical career, stable personal life and abundance of positive happenings in my life. I think it can definitely affect women especially but anyone is at risk. Once I deleted I have felt much more secure and less preoccupied with these issues.
"When I reflect on our work, I think about the real impact we have on the world -- the people who can now stay in touch with their loved ones, create opportunities to support themselves, and find community. This is why billions of people love our products. I'm proud of everything we do to keep building the best social products in the world and grateful to all of you for the work you do here every day."
this is cherry picking a bit much, but I guess it's not unexpected.
Something critical I've learned in philosophy classes is critical reading of statements like this one. Looking for clever logic, weasel words, and misdirection.
Some examples:
> If we wanted to ignore research, why would we create an industry-leading research program to understand these important issues in the first place?
Tobacco companies researched their own products also.
> ...widely recognized as better and safer than alternatives
Low-tar tobacco is widely recognized as better and safe than the alternatives.
> ... that many teens we heard from feel that using Instagram helps them ...
That doesn't mean that for many teens it hurts them. Just because narcissists love your product doesn't make it good.
> That's why we have advocated for updated internet regulations for several years now.
Updated just means "new version", not actually better. Lobbyists have NOT advocated for protections that would undermine profits, which is the very point this whistleblower is making.
"Hey multitude, how are you? I'm feeling some pressure and I wanted to say something to make me seem like a decent person for a change. Let's see if I get it right LOL.
First, we had a bad outage, but users are so addicted that they'll all return as soon as the monkey on their backs starts screaming. In fact, the little display on my desk says they are already back.
Second, now that I've stopped my red-faced rage fit about the testimony, I wanted to reflect on the public debate that makes me look bad, and by extension, makes you feel like a nest of weasels. Whenever we stop making money hand-over-fist for just a moment, we probably should make some kind of placating statement about issues like safety, well-being, and mental health. Then get right back to shoving ads in front of the zombies and mining personal data for billions!
Besides, many of the claims don't make any sense. If we were lying all the time, why would I repeatedly say "Oops, gosh I didn't mean to do that, it was an accident!" like a five-year-old child who doesn't understand consequences? Why would I, huh?
And if social media were as responsible for polarizing society as some people claim, then why are the factions so stable in the US? Year after year, we have really stable factions. That's a sign of a strong democracy.
At the heart (it's just an expression!) of these accusations is this idea that we love making money more than we love our zombie user-base. That's just not true. I mean, zombies are boring unless they somehow get over the security barriers.
The argument that we deliberately make people angry with our crap for profit is deeply hurtful. We make money from ads, and our advertisers consistently tell us they don't want to get caught and be associated with the garbage that they produce. Seems fair to me! Anyway, I don't know any tech company that sets out to build products that make people angry or depressed, apart from, you know, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and so on.
But of everything published, I'm particularly troubled about kids. The reality is that young people use technology, but not ~our~ technology. We're deeply committed to addicting the little beasts to Messenger Kids. That's guaranteed future revenue.
But given the sh!tstorm that whatsername has caused, we've paused that project until people get back to fussing about other things and take the heat off of us.
It is incredibly sad to think of a young person in a moment of distress. They need a false sense of support. Give 'em an account and let God sort 'em out, I say.
Similar to balancing other social issues, I don't believe private companies should do more than pretend to have values and ethics. It's all too complicated and it interferes with making moolah. Let Congress make the laws, and let corporations bribe elected officials the way the democracy requires. We have these institutions for a reason.
If we're going to have an informed conversation about the effects of social media on young people, it's important not to get hit with the blame. So I'll be on the horn to elected officials and wiring money to their off-shore bank accounts. (How about those Panama Papers? I know, right! Crazy!)
I know it's frustrating to see our profitable work receive sustained criticism from weirdos. But I believe that over the long term if we keep making huge profits, people will eventually buy shares and stop their whinging. In the meantime, I've asked leaders across the company to do deep purges of any New Age kooks who might go rogue.
When I reflect on our work, I think about the money and control. This is why billions of zombies are hooked. Keep up the good work, turn up the beats, and nevermind the screams outside."
Every last Friday in July it's Sysadmin Day - the day to thank all computer system administrators for their work:
For running systems and networks, backups - and nightly tinkering.
Taking Amazon SES to production can be a little tricky, I think I am talking to robots with templated messages. Maybe I don't have luck or didn't explain myself well enough.
I didn't have any trouble with getting them to enable production mode SES for my personal email domains. The only thing I can think of that might have helped me (besides making it clear I wasn't using this for marketing emails) was that my AWS account had been open and in good standing for quite a while before enabling SES.
If I had to guess it’s because the announcement of the new version drives a large amount of traffic to site and they want to entice people with a sale while the new features are still exciting.
It took me about 2 months to get up to speed with muscle memory. Something I hated during that period of time and it has been a rough 6 months or so now, I am loving it(perhaps I spent the money. At times I have to switch to the Macbook's keyboard, not much issue adjusting back and it would seem I typo more on a regular keyboard now compared when on ortholinear.
It doesn't take up much space on the desk a plus for me, however, my only wish is that it has wireless.
