161–170 of 215 posts
> Furthermore, Facebook should distinguish between editors and other Facebook-users
Sigh ... so he's asking to be marked as one of the "elite" by FB while us plebs should be treated lessor?
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…
You'll be a hell of a lot healthier since the war photo is pointless(Exactly what's the point of reseeing the photo... to remind you war is bad?) but your friends count.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
We ultimately decided landlines needed to be subjected to pretty stringent regulatory requirements in return for their monopoly (before ultimately breaking them up). Hopefully the same will happen to Facebook if they retain market share in 20 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?
Because they lose revenue. In Facebook's case because advertisers have demonstrated time and again they won't spend money when their products are associated with controversial content. It doesn't matter how nuanced or obtuse the reason for the controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it can, but it does still make a weird line in the sand You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy, Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only reconstructive) but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?
But why do you get to question Facebook's idea of morality? If you don't like it, don't use the service. To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.
well, its literally a discussion on facebook's morality. Its a bit hard to talk about that without questioning it.
> To question someone's morality solely due to it being different than yours is, bluntly, a waste of time.
I'm not trying to change facebook here, I don't care /that/ much. I saw a discussion ("its facebook's morality") that I wanted to contribute to ("But its a weird sense of morality innit?"). Isn't that what discussions are for?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is true to a point, but you stretch it to an absolutism. As if, a lack of money by definition means a lack of time, which is most certainly false. In many ways, having more money increases demands on your time, and this can hold true up through even Larry Page levels of wealth.
Working-class and poor people; many often hold a much more balanced world-view than the wealthy or elite. And yes, many of them used the internet to access diverse viewpoints mixed with their life experience in order to help arrive at those viewpoints.
I think net worth is very loosely correlated with some of the things you seem to think net worth is strongly correlated with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We ultimately decided landlines needed to be subjected to pretty stringent regulatory requirements in return for their monopoly (before ultimately breaking them up). Hopefully the same will happen to Facebook if they retain market share in 20 years.
The government created the AT&T monopoly.
On the other hand, I don't think you can ignore Bell Labs or the fact they they did build some amazing infrastructure. Would the world have been better off on the whole with more competition in AT&T's heyday?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?
> I really don't get why sites don't think this way Because they lose revenue. In Facebook's case because advertisers have demonstrated time and again they won't spend money when their products are associated with controversial content. It doesn't matter how nuanced or obtuse the reason for the controversy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?
Or you could even let them tag content as inappropriate for those who only want to see fluffy bunnies and have an "give me an unfiltered view" option for everyone else.
I guess it's weird to me that some people can't just "filter" and move on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?
If you don't moderate what the users post your service becomes a child porn host in a surprisingly short ammount of time is the common fear, and I think its also what generally happens. Though behadings and general gore from shitposters is probably what triggers most censorship programs.