311–320 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many times "Zuckerberg" is in the code verbatim
I imagine one time. Then everything else imports the `MZ_CONST` file which then references the `MK` or `ZBERG` variables.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> I get the sense that FB simply wants to pass off the liability to ad buyer Totally. It is Russia's responsibility not to accidentally or knowingly meddle with an election, not Facebook's. I guess there is one last question, what was Zuckerberg doing in a congressional hearing?
I'm assuming this is sarcasm but I can kind of see the case that Facebook is making here. For example, if a drunk person behind the wheel of a Ford does a tremendous amount of damaage, no one goes after Ford for not preventing it. Facebook is a tool. Is it Facebook's responsibility to make sure that everyone uses it ethically? I can understand putting in measures to make sure that everyone is using it legally and hav…
Facebook put in a "vetting" process and requires everyone to go through it to publish ads. On the other hand, anyone with enough cash can buy a Ford (even second hand from a 3rd party), get drunk, and drive through a few neighborhoods causing death and destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP explicitly called out that there is not just a legal issue of free speech, but also a cultural one. Your response, "but it's legal!" in short, does not address that at all. Lots of things are legal but maybe not what we want. I'd say a working culture where having the wrong political opinion can get you fired is definitely one of them.
Think that through then - what do you want the government do to in that situation? Start to police culture? How would that go? Are you sure that won't end in unintended consequences?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think that through then - what do you want the government do to in that situation? Start to police culture? How would that go? Are you sure that won't end in unintended consequences?
Who says I (or @coffeemug) is arguing for government action?
"In announcing new transparency efforts or tools to combat foreign influence, Facebook included a caveat. “These changes will not prevent abuse entirely. We’re up against smart, creative and well-funded adversaries who change their tactics as we spot abuse,” Leathern wrote. But we believe that they will help prevent future interference in elections on Facebook. And it is why they are so important.” But posing as 100…
and after having the "paid by Zuckerberg" confirmation that this was a malicious account, they didn't revoked approval of the other ads. Triple ouch.
I mean props to them for doing this to show it so blatantly, but is anyone really surprised? Nobody cares, and why should they from a business standpoint?
The only way to make something a priority is to make the consequences so harsh that you'll catch the attention of upper management.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not how this works. The constitution and amendments are the foundation. There are centuries of supreme court rulings and further legal precedent that determine the modern framework. Free speech does have certain restrictions, which you can easily read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
Actually, it is how it works. You are confusing case law with what k_sh actually claimed, which was specific exceptions. There do exist U.S. constitutional provisions with specific exceptions, such as the 5th Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not one of them. Indeed, it is famous for being neither specific nor having clear exceptions. Contrast with the Basic Law of Germany article 5, that has already come up in this di…
Real exceptions exist, regardless of whether they are written in the original amendment text or in rulings afterward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and after having the "paid by Zuckerberg" confirmation that this was a malicious account, they didn't revoked approval of the other ads. Triple ouch.
Tech company doesn't give a f#$% what it's advertising as long as it's getting paid. Film at 11. I mean props to them for doing this to show it so blatantly, but is anyone really surprised? Nobody cares, and why should they from a business standpoint? The only way to make something a priority is to make the consequences so harsh that you'll catch the attention of upper management.
Obviously, FB thinks someone cares, otherwise they wouldn't be selling a tale about their efforts to improve validation of campaign ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However, if a newspaper prints a story saying senator X said Y, and that claim was false, then the newspaper can be sued, regardless of where they got that information or which employee wrote the story. Given your analogy, the question is, is Facebook more like a car manufacturer or a newspaper?
If a newspaper runs an advertisement that turns out to be false (say, a fake claim about a thing for sale), is it the newspaper or the advertiser who's at fault?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US Constitution also codifies freedom of association so you can have free speech but you can’t force me to associate with you. In the US companies have freedom of association as long as they don’t violate a protected class ( race, religion, sex, age, national origin, etc...). Since you the government can’t force a company to associate with someone they disagree with, you can be fired for things you say.
As it should be. There is no shield in the first Amendment. Just because it is legal to say does not mean it should be said.
The shield is not there because there needs to be checks and balances on speech. While we do see unfortunate outcomes, review them. All those people had options.
People often cite the Mozilla event. It is not so often mentioned how a lot of people were going to leave.
Being a leader, in that example, carries with it some implications. People do not blindly follow in enough numbers to be a concern.
These are human dynamics. Legislating them, and or expecting people to deal en mass with others to the degree needed here is impractical.
There are risks and rewards in all aspects of life, very few sure things. We are nowhere near a state of society where it is possible to consider otherwise.
> VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include "Paid for by" disclosures for potential ads. Playing devil’s advocate here, but maybe Facebook doesn’t waste time on people who don’t actually buy ads? Would be a much more compelling argument if the were actually able to purchase and run ads, and would be curious to see if the actual act of payment triggered a real…
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wj9mny/facebooks-politic...