Being tone-deaf would imply they're unable to understand other people's issues. Facebook actively seeks to track all of us for their financial gain, against the wishes of many of us.
Obviously I can't say if this is universally true, but it is most certainly true for me. I have CarPlay, and I do my damnedest to control it with Siri. It always feels incredibly dangerous to use the touchscreen.
Because of the problems I have with Siri, I end up using the touchscreen much more than I'd prefer. My latest defensive habit is to queue up enough audio for the trip and not touch it again until I arrive.
> "We've gone back to where we were three years ago after a mistake, sorry."
Yep this is the right move, and as someone else says, this would be worthy of respect.
I think we've all just about had it with corporate bullshit -- and to be sure that says more about this moment in time than anything else.
Apple is consistently guilty of blowing smoke up our collective asses. It would be nice if they could give it a rest and simply be honest. But here we are.
> That code have conduct I linked tries to explain how evil is defined
You don't need to define evil for us. Small children know evil when they see it. People are quite capable of gleaning a person's or group of people's intent from their actions.
When you start needing to define what evil is, you've lost the debate entirely.
It's not completely unreasonable. Here's a quote from Warren v. District Of Columbia
> A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed.
> At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.
Australia [0] and England [1] are roughly similar (the only countries I googled; I don't have time to google more but I'd guess almost all countries are legally or practically the same).
In general in the US the courts are reluctant to second-guess police officers for decisions they might make in the moment. See also the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity that makes it much more difficult to prosecute police misconduct by saying if officers didn't know from a prior case that the exact specific thing they were about to do was illegal they can't be prosecuted. [2]
> Essentially, if you want to sue a police officer who you think violated your constitutional rights, you first have to convince the court that what happened to you was so outrageous that no reasonable person could have thought it was okay.
For example, according to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit it wasn't clear in 2001 that the govt's "enhanced interrogation" of US citizens, including the following, was torture [3]
> Denial of medical care for serious and potentially life-threatening ailments, including chest pain and difficulty breathing, as well as for treatment of the chronic, extreme pain caused by being forced to endure stress positions, resulting in severe and continuing mental and physical harm, pain, and profound disruption of the senses and personality.
Facebook is actively malicious.