> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world
I wish that were true, but Facebook is actually for selling the world's eyeballs to advertisers.
“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
131–140 of 215 posts
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#132I'm posting mostly just to make the chorus louder. This was a well-thought out, articulate criticism of Facebook's policy. It's relevant to free-speech, art, censorship, the means of production, etc., and the fact that Facebook plays a role underscores their power, and why this matters. It a slippery slope when policy fails to achieve an appropriate, nuanced perspective.
There are some good arguments, but I think the post really boils down to "our community guidelines don't match Facebook's; here are good arguments why our guidelines are what they are; we really want to use Facebook; we think news sites (and only news sites) should have exemptions from the community guidelines."
Given the wide variety of news sites and media companies, I don't think Facebook will give blanket exemptions. But Facebook has been willing to make small changes to the guidelines ( e.g., breastfeeding), so perhaps we can look at this as an opening offer in a negotiation.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#133Sometimes 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…
It's a man-in-the-middle attack on culture.
Media has always been that. Why, during a military coup, is the first thing that is attacked are the TV stations? Control the message, control the culture.
It is fascinating to see the Internet (and in this case Facebook) displacing the multi-billion(trillion?) media estate. I remember the dot.com bubble where the media claimed that statements that the Internet would make them obsolete was crap. 20 years ahead of its time I guess.
The policy question is similar to the phone system one, is it in the people's best interest that their be a standard phone system? And if so, can you regulate it sufficiently to avoid abuses? Those were the questions surrounding the original Bell network in the US. What does a monopoly look like in the Internet world, and do we, can we, regulate it? Pretty important questions.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#134Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#135Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?
I think you meant to say "[...] like any other legal person?", perhaps?
:)
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
to be completely honest, having the time and energy to stay well-informed on current events from a variety of sources is a privilege. working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources. the reason i say this is not to tell you to "check your privilege", by the way. it's to make the argument that facebook's shaping of the zeitgeist primarily affects the impoverished an…
Looking beyond Facebook for news and reporting on diverse topics with balanced viewpoints is a "privilege"? On what can you possibly base this claim? This is why Internet.org and the walled garden got nuked. This is what we really mean when we talk about network neutrality. You type a URL into the address bar and press enter, and the page you requested loads. While certainly there are populations where internet acces…
> "working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources" is a bizarre claim I can't quite get my head around.
Consider the possibility that this difficulty lies not with the claim, but with your head.
The real value of money is that you can use it in place of time. The less of it you have, the more time you must spend on dealing with problems that you could make go away much more quickly and easily otherwise. The converse is also true.
That's why people say that it's a privilege to be able to gather a balanced view of the world. I would not say the same, because the rhetoric of privilege is inseparable from personal attack, and making people feel uneasy and defensive is inimical to worthwhile discourse. But when people use that lazy cliché in this context, that is what they mean.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#137Sometimes 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?
Why would a social networking platform prioritize wedding photos over news? Is the news less "social"? Aren't weddings news? You're begging the question here.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's what a thing was originally designed to be, and then there's what a thing currently is. They aren't always the same thing.
It's still mostly a social networking site, and to the extent "serious" content threatens the social networking aspect, Facebook has an interest in placing limits.
Lots of people have an interest in doing things that are bad for other people generally. That doesn't actually mean the rest of us should be okay with it.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Does morality matter? It sounds dumb, but in this context I'm actually not sure.
It's not dumb. When corporate executives make decisions, they're explicitly constrained by legality. Morality is negotiable. And relative.
Re: “Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
#140> "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…
> Wrong. Facebook is for making money. I know you're not wrong here, but at what point does social responsibility trump profit? Should it?
Do you really expect everyone to self-regulate in your favour? That's not how people work.