81–90 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically only when the law says that something is illegal.
Taking a very narrow legal view, you're correct. Surely, however, we can make more sophisticated judgements than "legally it's OK, therefore morally it's OK".
It sounds dumb, but in this context I'm actually not sure.
I wonder what the solution to this is. From what I know about reviewing reports about content, it's basically a case of someone reporting the post, then the report being farmed to reviewers, then the reviewers can check the post and I optionally the context to either kill the post or leave it alone. That means your post is one of hundreds this person sees that day and their guidance is likely "no genitalia, no nipple…
One solution is to not remove anything until told to do so by law enforcement. If people don't like what's posted they can choose to not view it.
I know that there are companies in Europe that only do the verification of the reported content, and the employees cannot say that they work for facebook, but in a way they do.
> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels." Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users. > "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it." A…
The idea that you should discard your integrity in the pursuit of money, or even that that is to be expected, is quite damaging.
> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world Wait, what? Facebook is more like tobacco: addictive, very bad for you, and very profitable.
For instance Facebook allows me to communicate with friends and family I wouldn't otherwise be able to communicate with (at least not as efficiently). I can't see that being bad. As a matter of fact it's something I derive a great sense of satisfaction and wellbeing from.
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
> What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue? Couldn't a newspaper that uses algorithmic metrics (or any kind of metrics or surveying) end up making a similar editorial d…
When there were two reasonably good newspapers in virtually any city (or 3, or 9, or in some cases 30 or 40), there was a readily available local alternative to the editorial decisions of any one paper, though other factors (political machine, major advertiser, mob) might have similarly restricted what was covered.
But those days are gone -- many cities in the US have only one major daily, and it's often stopped trying. Local radio and television, as well as national broadcasts, are abysmal.
What I'm noticing today, at least in print media, is a staggeringly widespread mediocrity and lack of relevance. Actually, that goes beyond print to broadcast (radio and television), and many mainstream online sources.
The saving grace, at least for now, are competing, largely non-mainstream sources, which carry information that is less likely to be carried. Yes, some sites cater to eyeball-attracting, outrage-inducing bogosities, but others actually contain solid content.
My local paper has had little if any coverage of international trade pacts which treaten to rewrite major elements of laws across multiple countries, but I can find detailed information at, of all places, Buzzfeed. Or The Intercept. Or The Guardian. Or Pro Publica. Or your EFF article -- one of the best explainers I've found, and some colourful infographics to boot (they've been in heavy play, and largely my only content, at Google+, as Google are among the sadly far-too-many tech companies promoting the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA).
Something is badly wrong with media, though, and globally. It's not a whole lot that's not been warned about for a long, long time -- Eric Blair (George Orwell), Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), Neal Postman, Jerry Mander, I.F. Stone, and others cautioned about it. Oh, and Walter Lippman and Noam Chomsky. But is it ever getting flagrant.
I'd even be modestly satisfied with algorithmic placements, so long as they were different algorithms, possibly rotated, and with some sortition blended in for random perterbations.
Facebook's a problem, and a large problem, but not the only problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook hasn't been filtering their trending news for about a week now, and in that time some of the top stories have been - A man having sex with a chicken sandwich - A fake story about Fox News firing Ann Coulter - A fake article about the iphone 8, claiming tim cook said Siri is going to do your chores for you. So yeah maybe the people were kinda needed?
You can get away without people when you have a set list of sources like google news does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the freedom to leave his rule? This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one. But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.
> if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations, create one Is anyone working on this?
On a serious note, there were platforms that used to dominate discourse on the internet before Facebook. Usenet, ICQ, AOL, Myspace.
Now there are alternatives. Medium for blogging; Reddit and 4chan for discussion; Twitter for sharing breaking news, trolling celebrities, and complaining about customer service; LinkedIn for connections and keeping in touch; Pinterest for sharing photos and links; Snapchat for sharing photos and videos; et cetera. I have a few friends, particularly in the 25-and-below generation, who don't have a Facebook but are very active on Snapchat or when it was trendy, Vine.
Don't forget countries where Facebook is a minority player. Weibo, Renren, WeChat, VKontakte are examples of thriving social networks that could possibly grow beyond their borders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and that's the point of the article. So why are you trying to downplay it?
Because the point of the article is to shame Facebook. I'm making a different point.
What you wrote lend itself to several interpretations, most rehashed to death already.
What then is this point that is so grand ? How can we come to know the secret, I'm curious!
Unless it's -"Don't use Facebook", because we already know we can do that, and unfortunately it doesn't appear to actually solve the problem except under unreasonable assumptions, and then the next thing will likely have the same problems anyway until we as a society decide. Decide under what rules corporations must act when they become big enough that their (currently legal) censorship has as great effect as almost any states censorship would have. A censorship that for the most part is illegal in quite a few countries.
It will probably always be more lucrative to censor and invade users privacy, until we either create some rules and possibly laws, or get the entire society to display an emergent behaviour that strongly punishes that kind of behaviour.
Both of these need good writers that explain and inspire those that will either spearhead creating those rules, or educate the public to create a social norm strong enough. Snark however will get us nowhere, fast.
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
If we follow your logic, it seems like a valid response would essentially be a social network disconnected from a company with a profit motive. The closest thing we had to that was diaspora[0], although it doesn't seem very successful. [0] https://joindiaspora.com/
Sometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algori…
> What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos That Facebook is a social networking platform that some people incidentally use to try to relay news of general public concern, not an online public affairs platform with an incidental social networking function?