31–40 of 244 posts
Social media sites always end up turning toxic. The problem is that they give a voice to all the mindless idiots of society. These people should never be given a voice. There is no justification for that. Voices should always be edited and filtered by higher powers. The common opinion is worth nothing, since we already know what it is, so why repeat it?
Social media sites always end up turning toxic. The problem is that they give a voice to all the mindless idiots of society. These people should never be given a voice. There is no justification for that. Voices should always be edited and filtered by higher powers. The common opinion is worth nothing, since we already know what it is, so why repeat it?
The people with power who try to screw over society for their own benefit always go with the same argument. I know best, so please give me all the power so I can use it to enrich myself.
> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…
It is, but not only for the reason you provide.
FB is "inclusive of all perspectives and view points", only when it matches its own US-culture-centered-policy (breast-feeding, nudity is just a very obvious hint).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One concrete step would be to accept that they easily bring war/peace in any country they are allowed to operate. The moral responsibility of such a huge platform where people interact needs to be very high. Pointing fingers or giving sugar coated answers is not acceptable. Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. See we both are arguing something…
Facebook's motto should be changed from 'connecting people' to 'connecting people to show only what they like'. Is this what you think Facebook should be? Or what you think is a more accurate description of what Facebook is? What would this look like in concrete steps? How do you manage bullying? Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? How do you d…
>What would this look like in concrete steps? Taking social responsibility. I dont know the steps because I dont run that business only affected by it.
>How do you manage bullying? >Knowingly spreading misinformation and disinformation? >What prevents Facebook from becoming one big flamewar? FB should be deciding on these. They can if they want to.
>How do you decide how to confront contradictions? By letting people talk instead of hiding them from each other.
>It's another thing all together to put in place the features that make this possible. Yeah of course and its big time they accepted they should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I simply dont know answers to all these questions!! And quite frankly their top executives have to be worried about that. Not us.
And they obviously are. Facebook has been trying to address these issues, and has made missteps on the way. They wouldn't have issued the statements they have if they weren't concerned about it. I'd be really surprised if they're happy with the current situation and are going to just stop working on it. Maybe they're not working fast enough or in the way you want them to. But it's helpful to recognize that they're hu…
Don't you think they are bit late in the US? :D
>The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years
But this time its much more hurting than before because we know more now and shouldnt let bad things happen because of a company's business decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they obviously are. Facebook has been trying to address these issues, and has made missteps on the way. They wouldn't have issued the statements they have if they weren't concerned about it. I'd be really surprised if they're happy with the current situation and are going to just stop working on it. Maybe they're not working fast enough or in the way you want them to. But it's helpful to recognize that they're hu…
> And they obviously are. Don't you think they are bit late in the US? :D >The issues of free speech and privacy and business and how they inter-relate are not solved issues, and things that we've grappled with as societies for at least a couple hundred years But this time its much more hurting than before because we know more now and shouldnt let bad things happen because of a company's business decisions.
> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…
Ignorance is killing democracy. And that’s not Facebook’s problem. It’s an educational problem. Our education system is failing to instill critical thinking into young people. So they go out in the world and become adults who are easily duped into this idea or that because they lack the skills and the mindset to evaluate opposing viewpoints. Sure the Internet has made things worse, and that’s a bit shocking for those…
> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…
> Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. Give me a break. It's not Facebook's job to tell the truth from the lies. They provide a social network, for profit. They are not a charity or a non profit. They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Now to anybody who thinks he can control the internet and what people read/think/d…
Well Facebook _is_ doing that as we speak, but they don't consider it controlling what people read - they're just giving their users what they think they want. For their bottom-line. Which is their business.
But there's no harm in pointing out that a for-profit entity isn't behaving in a socially responsible manner. Even if you or I don't use the platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. Give me a break. It's not Facebook's job to tell the truth from the lies. They provide a social network, for profit. They are not a charity or a non profit. They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Now to anybody who thinks he can control the internet and what people read/think/d…
Nobody is forced to use Facebook, but the fact is that for a vast number of people it represents the main source of news. Which, if this source can be easily gamed, is a problem. Since how do you “convince others that they are being misled” if the “alternative” media, plenty represented in their news feeds, discredit the traditional, trustworthy media first? There is a great Guardian Long Read about this very topic:…
Perhaps when major media get so many real stories about democracy wrong and the alt media get them right it's time to stop trusting the people getting things wrong and start trusting the people getting things right.
Fuck, even the NYT had to recommit itself to journalism their reporting this year was so bad.
'As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.'
When you publish articles saying that the support of a candidate is more important than reporting the truth... well... people stop trusting you as someone who tells the truth no matter how politically unpopular it is, and start thinking of you as the political hacks that they are, and openly admit to being.
'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.'
> We are not in the business of picking which issues the world should read about. We are in the business of connecting people and ideas — and matching people with the stories they find most meaningful. Our integrity depends on being inclusive of all perspectives and view points, and using ranking to connect people with the stories and sources they find the most meaningful and engaging. Simply incredible. They are ass…
> Facebook simply kills democracy for their own benefit. Give me a break. It's not Facebook's job to tell the truth from the lies. They provide a social network, for profit. They are not a charity or a non profit. They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Now to anybody who thinks he can control the internet and what people read/think/d…
Yep, that's what is said when saying "Facebook [...] kills democracy for their own benefit". They provide a discourse perceived as the public discourse for a profit.
Some people are considering that this exercise is a threat to democracy, and even though you seem to imply that you are more versed / cynical / aware ("Give me a break"), that's precisely the for profit part that ruffles some feathers.
> What kills democracy is people incapable of convincing others that they are being mislead/wrong without insulting them with all possible -ism .
Offering a platform for misleading news does not help and actually plays an active part in this.
> What kills democracy is people on both side being so extreme they just can't talk to each other anymore. Facebook isn't responsible for that.
Building a bubble is the prime example of how you can stop separated communities from talking to each other. You can say that the separation existed before Facebook, before other online communities, it does not make it any less salient that these bubbles exists and that it is in the monetary interest of Facebook to further them in order to sell better targeted ads. They whole business plan, their whole point of existing is depending on practices and behaviors that are currently a problem in our democracies.
This means that as of now, Facebook will fight for these problems when they fight for their business. Even if you don't use Facebook or other social networks on the Internet, this means that as an individual citizen your country / nation is being influenced by these products. Even if you choose to not use them, it is perfectly reasonable to go out of your way to tell people to stop using them and to fight their influence in your country.
So, people can perfectly continue to blame Facebook for these problems. No one says that they should be alone in being blamed on this, no need to exaggerate the critics to make them appear ridiculous. But acknowledging these problems is absolutely critical these days.