This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
These are mostly chronologically ordered, but I have in some cases tried to cluster comments by topic so if there is something you are looking for (or trying to avoid), this might be helpful.
Particular thanks/congratulations this month to @Rov_Scam, who double-tapped two weeks and the Main Motte category this month, carrying nearly 20% of the total report. Some of you may recall that one of the ways I whittle down the list is, if you have multiple QC nominations in a single month, each comment included in the final report weighs against including an additional comment in the report. Nevertheless, the primary driver of the AAQC report is community feedback, and of the dozen or so comments @Rov_Scam had nominated, every comment included here was in the top ten posts of the month.
Quality Contributions to the Main Motte
Contributions for the week of October 27, 2025
Contributions for the week of November 3, 2025
@clo:
Contributions for the week of November 10, 2025
Contributions for the week of November 17, 2025
Contributions for the week of November 24, 2025
- "So I finally finished The Years of Rice and Salt by KSR by recommendation of @self_made_human and my 15-year-old self."
This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
This thread is for anyone working on personal projects to share their progress, and hold themselves somewhat accountable to a group of peers.
Post your project, your progress from last week, and what you hope to accomplish this week.
If you want to be pinged with a reminder asking about your project, let me know, and I'll harass you each week until you cancel the service
I decided to post it here because it got long, and also because I use either real-world identity or a very transparent one on the book review sites. Unfortunately, we are now living in the times when people are getting murdered for saying unpopular things, domestic terrorists openly put bounties on people, and I see a significant part of the industry this book concerns and I belong to being completely fine with that - of course as long as "bad people" are getting hurt. I suspect many of them might classify me as "bad people". I don't really expect my stupid book review to really be seen by enough crazies for anything to happen, but there's no reason to take the additional risk. Pseudonymous publication is safer. I could also not publish it at all, but if I already bothered to write it, I might as well let others read it.
I am not sure how to describe this book. On one hand, it is a fascinating account of what happened in Facebook from a person who was right in the middle (or rather at the top, as the global public policy director, working directly with the CEO and COO) of it and is certainly worth reading if you want to be educated on what was/is going on (it ends in 2017 when the author had been fired). On the other hand, the sheer blindness of the author to her own role in the events and her limits is impressive. Facebook is now trying to retaliate against Sarah Wynn-Williams (that's the author) for violating various NDAs, which she most likely did, but given their response to it is so far "we don't do that anymore", one could infer at least some of the juicy stuff is actually true. The trick would be to know which parts. All of it, some of it, a little of it? One of her coworkers says "definitely not all of it". Others agree. Wynn-Williams herself in the interview to Business Insider declared that the question of factual accuracy is not the one that matters and witnesses contradicting her claims are "a distraction". Which in my book means "some of it" is the best we are getting.
To get it out of the way, the cases of workplace harassment she describes are horrible. I do not know how accurate the descriptions are - we heard only one side there, so I can not assess any aspect of the veracity of the claims - but if they describe real events at least to some degree, it is absolutely unacceptable and should not have happened to anybody. I was a bit put off by the cavalier attitude with which she approached the Kavanaugh affair in the epilogue, treating the fact the somebody could even stand besides Kavanaugh during the hearing as the ultimate sign of moral degradation (surely everybody knew the verdict before hearing any testimonies, and it was supposed to be just mere formality?). Thus I suspect the matters aren't so black and white and she is not the most reliable narrator. But even with that, what she described per se is totally horrible. That's all I have to say about that.
Moving on to the other parts of the book: if we look at what had been happening, the author literally inserted herself as the main person to drive and shape Facebook's international growth and engagement with top international politicians. If introducing 21st century informational technology into societies that aren't ready for it is dangerous and prone to disasters, she is the person who enabled, engineered and performed the deed. Probably because she was sure with her at the top, it will be alright (spoiler: it wasn't). And it's not some random "caught in the flow" thing - she literally came to Facebook to do just that, and she did. Pretty successfully, given the amount of praise she received from M.Z. and his subordinates. The essence of her complaint is that she did not have enough power to do it exactly like she wanted, and that's why it often turned out wrong. If only she were an all-powerful dictator (or at least, if all the power were given to people who think exactly like her) everything would have been much better. That was her conclusion at the end - wrong people were censored, wrong people were not censored, an all that because they didn't listen to her.
The parts where she describes how she stayed for a long time in Facebook because she otherwise wouldn't have healthcare are quite hard to believe. First of all, there's COBRA, and she is married, and there are ways to buy health insurance without being employed by Facebook. Sure, it's expensive, but I have trouble believing a person who was at the top of Facebook since such early days and speaking to people like Zuckerberg and Sandberg all the time didn't have at least some money going to them. Surely, maybe not fabulously rich like M.Z. himself, but at least solid middle-class level? Even if she were hopelessly naive and saintly unbothered by money concerns, she could not find an hour during all these years to talk to a lawyer and a financial advisor who would explain here how to navigate such things? In Silicon Valley, where these matters are discussed in every second coffee table at every second coffee shop? And being on the top of FB, literally rubbing shoulders with heads of state and personally engaging their closest teams, and having NZ Embassy and Oxfam on her resume too, she had absolutely no prospect of other employment whatsoever, besides Facebook? Utterly unbelievable. What is entirely believable though is that the author found it hard to give up all that shmoozing with heads of states and fixing the world for the rest of us, and trade it for some boring office job where you don't even have a chance to see Xi Jinping once, and don't get to laugh about how insignificant the president of Guatemala is.
Complete lack of reflection and realization of author's own biases permeates the whole book. A lot of the second half is dedicated to the death of the democracy in the US, also known to some as the (first) election of Donald J. Trump. Of course, half of the country voted for him, but what to that? They were sure a bunch of evil people, or fools misled by evil people, and never would win any elections if not for their dirty tricks. The fact that the Clinton win had to be a prescribed, normal way of events is ingrained so deep that the latter campaign is never really mentioned in the book, maybe hardly once. All the evil tricks Trump campaign supposedly played with Facebook are described in detail, but how Clinton campaign used social media at all? And if they did not - why? What were they doing all that time? Why nobody from the right thinking people in Facebook reached out for them if they for some weird turn of events forgot about social media, despite the fact that Obama campaign used the social media very actively and had been publicly on record bragging about it?
These questions are not even asked, never mind answered, because these question only matter if there were a competition between two equal teams. The author never admits the thought. There is the normal turn of events - Democrats win, the power is in the hands of The Experts (TM), people vote for whoever they are told to and behave how they are told to behave, for their own good - and when it happens, there's nothing to discuss, it is as it always should be. Well, maybe let's talk about how to make it even better. Only the departures from the normal events - like people voting for the wrong candidate, clearly because they were deceived and are too stupid to realize that - deserve discussion. And to think there actually were evil people - including inside Facebook! - who thought it was a good thing! They actually talked about some policies they might like, something Trump may do that would be good - as if the Coming of The Antichrist is some kind of normal political event! Imagine the gall, the sheer audacity of not recognizing the suffering of all the right thinking people and not subjugating their own views to the demands of the moment! How do such people even exist? If one were religious, that would be a good moment for the protagonist to have a crisis of faith - but fortunately there's nothing like that in that universe.
This is the quality that is present in the whole text, every discussion of every question concerning any policy or decision. The author never argues for a certain outcome, as one would have in a debate, never presents any deliberate reasoning or substantiation. To do that would be to recognize there could exist multiple opinions on the matter, and people with wrong opinion may need to be convinced by way of logic and reason. That's not how it works, not in this book. There is a normal, obvious, correct and proper opinion or decision, and every normal, proper and decent person already knows it. It does not need to be argued or proven. It does not even need to be pointed out - like if you notice a baby around, you don't need to be told "don't eat the baby!" - you already know the babies are not to be eaten. So the author just describes her own shock and horror at realizing that people in front of her are monsters - if they do not actually follow the proper way. Rarely it goes beyond that - and almost never to actually have a proper argument. Because what's the point arguing with monsters anyway? How would you convince a person who wants to eat a baby that it is not good, and why you are talking to such a person at all?! This is how this book handles most of the controversies.
What the book described about Zuckerberg changed my opinion about him a bit. It looks like he indeed had been the autistic startup techie who just wanted the product to grow, and initially had no interest in wielding the emerging power for anything but improving the service. He seems to indeed have had that libertarian streak in him that many other tech founders had and lost (he lost it too, of course). Wynn-Williams and others successfully convinced him he has to play with world powers, and become a world power himself. That of course would change any person. But looks like the most of the problems with freedom of speech at FB originate from the likes of Wynn-Williams (quelle surprise!) rather than from M.Z. himself, at least initially. That said, as a corporation FB exhibited the typical psychopathic approach most of major corporations now exhibit - be woke on the outside, do anything to expand and profit on the inside, including making deals with most horrible individuals and regimes, if it pushes up the numbers, all while proclaiming high-minded ideals. This part of the book is one that is the most believable because I can observe it from the outside, both in FB and in many other companies. The company as a whole and top persons in particular are all colossal hypocrites - that part I totally believe. That, of course, does not exclude the director of global public policy too.
The author proclaims in multiple places that all the wrongs and evils Facebook did could actually have been avoided, if only. But the "if only" part is regrettably shallow. The author hints she knows what is the right thing to do, and possesses the recipes for fixing of all modern ails of social media - from teen addiction to genocide in Myanmar - but she never actually tells us, what exactly should have been done, and why she thinks it would have worked. It's not that her argument is bad - but here again, she doesn't even see the need to make a proper argument, mere proclamation "you should have done it differently!" is enough. It may be acceptable from a random layperson, but not from somebody who had been the top policy maker for Facebook and is actually writing a book about it! If you say it had to be made different, spend some time on proper argument of how and why it's better! If you think it'd make the book too long, you can drop some episodes like you being bitten by wasps or such, I am sure it was a profound experience for you but I am equally sure the reader could survive without it.
So, is this book worth reading? It was for me. I am by nature and nurture a skeptical reader, and an unreliable narrator is not something I am afraid of, if there's substance to chew on. This book has the substance. It would be a good book if it didn't also have the numerous flaws I described above, but such as it is - I end up with the same I started with - I do not know how to describe it, even though I do not regret having read it.
Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.