“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”

Post by posterboy » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 8:21 AM UTC

xupybd wrote: post #24

hiddenkrypt wrote: post #13

> "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…

Post by tdkl » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 8:40 AM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #162

typeiierror wrote: post #37

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 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.

Post by SCdF » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 9:15 AM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #53

typeiierror wrote: post #37

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 I think it means absolutely nothing. I use Facebook so I can see how my friends are doing, not to find news articles to read (unless it's an article my friend just shared, and even then only maybe). I don't think many people use facebook to get their news and nowhere else.

Post by bobcostas55 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 10:22 AM UTC

amagumori wrote: post #119

beachy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Post by drvdevd » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 10:27 AM UTC

drvdevd wrote: post #188

jacobolus wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go read Tim Wu’s book The Master Switch . The details of these media/communications monopoly histories are fascinating. It’s hard to answer your counterfactual definitively, but probably, yes.

Thanks for this. Looks interesting.