As others have noted, viewers aren't lusting for more ads, they're just sick of having to pay for YASS (Yet Another Streaming Service).

Now that's a stream that would hold my attention.

Except in this case, the tech being used was WhatsApp, a messaging app. People were sharing videos with one-another via a messaging app. Pretty sure that algorithms had little-to-nothing to do with this town's hysteria.

The app didn't do any of the beating or lynching -- it just brought more people into the knitting circle. As an aside: who the fuck uses buzzfeed as a primary news source? Shame on you.

This is a serious consideration! A family member of mine has several chronic medical conditions, and my confidence in the medical community's ability to pay attention to details plummets with every interaction. We're talking about giving doctors, who can't anticipate the interaction of several medications, access to gene therapy? Whatcouldpossiblygowrong, indeed!

seconded!

Most consumer-oriented 'innovation' these days revolves around generating a solution prior to identifying a problem. The software-startup market is plagued by this, but for some reason, our collective bullshit meter is turned off when evaluating the usefulness of software. Every time you turn around, there's another "Tinder for [x]" or "Uber for [y]" being touted as the latest and greatest.
We seem to respond differently to something tangible, though. Adoption is slow because most of us recognize that the current offerings of 'wearables' don't pose a significant enough improvement in our lives to justify purchasing them.

Before the usual retort of "You know this is Microsoft, right" rolls in, this question does deserve consideration.
Was this not tested against, at all?
Did they not attempt to circumvent this method with a photo? I write code for a living, and something that's continually running through my mind is "how can this fail or break?" I'm certain there are devs at Microsoft who are similarly afflicted.
So I guess the real question is: Was it tested, and everyone just hoped no one in meat-space would also think to try a photo, or was there some pointy-haired manager who decided that enough dev time had been spent, and it was time to turn the profit faucet on?

You're an idiot.
I wish they hadn't posted anonymously so I could give them points.

Can we just not post articles from Slate on Slashdot from here on out?

I really wish this wasn't posted anonymously.
However, there's truth to both sides. I try to minimize the training required of me for my employers by staying (mostly) up-to-date on a variety of technologies. That being said, if the decision makers aren't communicating in a way that trickles down to us grunts, there's not much chance that I'll be self-training in a direction that's useful to them.
Having the initiative to update one's knowledge set is only useful if there is some guidance coming from 'up on high.'

In this case, the potential victim does not have access to the photo to pre-emptively upload. Doesn't apply to the context of this discussion. :-/

When did equifax open up its Mexico office?

Company that sells stuff engages in shady behavior to maximize profits.

by Dale Carnegie.
Seriously.
There's a thousand fantastic resources available on how to be a better programmer. Accruing technical acumen has always been the easiest part of navigating my career. Knowing how to work with humans has always been tricky. I wish I would have read this book back in high school.