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.
Can the rest of us not go to other web sites for this kind of content?
The rest of us can, but the question is to what extent the rest of us are or will in the future.
It's irrelevant if the most fantastic analysis of news and current affairs is readily available around the corner if people stop going there.
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?
Advertisers hate this approach, unfortunately. This means that if a site is primarily trying to make money, such an idealistic approach will fall to the wayside. Reddit is the most spectacular example of this, moderation by the administrators has in recent years stepped far away from the original approach of leaving up all legal content.
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…
can u expand on the comment. "this is why internet.org and the walled garden got nuked" please..
That was it. I wish Google would start with the red alerts already so webmaster may start getting their shit together.
HTTPS is oppressive to those who cannot afford computers powerful enough to run the cyphers on so many connections. Try browsing on a 66mhz bus pentium some time.
The slowest pentium can do about 2 megabytes per second of AES+SHA. The fastest is more like 10. That should be more than plenty when compared to how long it takes to render the same amount of data.
And how much does that computer cost? An Arm SoC is not much...
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…
No, the people making the policy decisions need to be better informed. It doesn't much matter if you suffer them and don't have the time to go campaigning your grievances. The sword cuts on both sides: the poor don't have political power because they don't have the luxury needed to wield it, not because they are uninformed of the state of affairs.
FWIW, I read that as: The poor people are the ones who elect the people making the decisions to those decision-making posts. In that sense, the voters are the ones who need to be informed on the issues _(and_ on where the candidates stand on the issues), in order to be able to vote for candidates who know and care about the same issues the voters do.
Its how some people get all those things. Not people who care enough to get their news directly from a number of sources, instead of via the Facebook filter.
Even if you don't get your information from Facebook, if enough people do, then Facebook can influence the outcomes of elections which directly affect your life. If you are a plumber who doesn't use Facebook, and Facebook promotes a bunch of content that foments anti-plumber sentiments, you may be attacked on the street by an angry mob of Facebook users. It is not possible to design your life so that you completely a…
"...just like the citizens of most countries cannot design their lives in a way that fully avoids the influence of the U.S. government."
Yeah. So in a way we all oughta have a vote in US elections. Right?
Can the rest of us not go to other web sites for this kind of content?
The rest of us can , but the question is to what extent the rest of us are or will in the future . It's irrelevant if the most fantastic analysis of news and current affairs is readily available around the corner if people stop going there.
I don't think you need to force-feed hard news to people. People who would read it will seek it out - the sorts of people who are content with what FB serves up are the kind of people who didn't read newspapers before the web and were content to get their news from daytime television.
> "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…
I don't know if I agree with the outrage at Facebook. They are out to make money. They can make more money if they avoid controversy and keep their site a place that brands like to be associated with. It results in corporate censorship for sure, but is it Facebook's responsibility to provide a censorship free platform? I fully agree with people taking note and becoming aware that Facebook is simply a business providi…
One can argue that due to almost monopolic FB position government can and should take a look at free speech problems there.
That was it. I wish Google would start with the red alerts already so webmaster may start getting their shit together.
I have five privacy tools on this browser: uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, NoScript, and a free VPN. It was quite tedious to go through each of them before I figured out it was an HTTPS issue.
It's your choice to use those tools to influence your experience browsing free content on the web provided by someone else's servers.