Hmm... This makes me think of "Python" versus "Matlab".
The one is free and open-source; and the other is decidedly not.
And still, so far I have yet to be convinced of Python being on the same level (or better) than Matlab.
Ease of use really feels much less with Python to me; availability of packages is confusing; and documentation sporadic.
That makes me think there's some truth to the old saying of "you get what you pay for".
Regarding the lack of documentation, definitely true with most GPL/free software. Unfortunately there is a general lack of interest in people to invest time in writing documentation for (ever-changing) software, so if there is no monetary incentive, it doesn't get done. As for the quality of the software, it varies but GPL software are often better at what they do, because they have been designed with a working mind and are actively used by the developers -- built for a purpose, and not for sale.
In using Linux (Debian), I have found that most software do well what they are designed to do, and are stable, even if they have bugs. There is also an amazing variety of software, and the software themselves offer so much more user freedom (with a little technical know-how and tinkering).
It's not the most stable platform, and it's far from perfect for my needs, but it gets the job done just as well as Windows and Mac, if not better. And, as a big bonus, I am not enlaving myself to the whims and trends of corporations.
One thing that becomes very apparent from the get-go with using Linux is that each software follows its own design and principles. While they are efforts to unify certain software for specific Linux desktop environments (such a Gnome), it is a choice the individual developers of the software make, and many software follow their own, cross-platform designs.
Linux as an OS is also more function-driven than sales-feature driven, so I find it more dependable for work. And any Windows, specialist software, such as the Adobe Creative Suite, I run in VirtualBox using an old copy of Windows XP, and they work fast and efficient -- they have been quite satisfactory for my professional needs. But most of the software I use are GPL/free and built for Linux.
Although I'm not against open-source, or even (responsibly managed) closed-source software for certain applications. There are definite benefits to gain, however, with free and community maintained software. They're all valid development and project management choices -- the quality of their use depends on the project and its goals.
But I suspect that video is also deliberately misleading in some ways.
It talks from the point of view of "we" (e.g. "Facebook"), but I sincerely doubt the source is directly from Facebook.
Even if it is all true; they would never say that about themselves. Certainly not in that way.
It's a parody video, based on scientific research (see the video description). The information provided is accurate. The way it is presented is deliberately satirical -- as Facebook would never disclose this information, as you have rightly pointed out. But it would morally responsible to require this of them.
The use of the word "we" also suggests a personal approach; as if living human beings are looking at things.
As gets clear throughout the video though, it is a computer algorithm.
And it has to be. The amount of data is so staggeringly massive; people couldn't possibly cope dealing with it in person.
At the end of that computer, and all that data, is a human being, or a collective of people, who manage it for their purposes. Hence "we".
What they do is also not at all fool-proof. AI's do weird things.
Yes, but they wouldn't be doing it if there was nothing to gain out of it. There are errors, but the overall information they collect is sufficient for their purposes. And AI is a technology that is in constant development -- more now than ever before. It's actually quite frightening -- the little moral responsibility companies/people have in using it, and the amount of control they are asserting over people.
I'll have to agree with Hayao Miyazaki that in the way it is irresponsibly being used as a technology, it is "
an insult to life itself".
