61–70 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parler, unlike Facebook, only existed to foment the kinds of rhetoric and ideologies that lead to the 6th.
How do you reconcile the whole “if you don’t like Facebook moderation go build your own” bit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't they freeze Trump only after the entire backlash? and last I checked, Trump was not on Parler was he? Infact, that was the big issue - Trump not moving to Parler or Gab while calling out Twitter. It's funny because if he did do the move earlier, he'd have hurt twitter where it counts - their stock price. But I guess the attention on Twitter was just too much to ignore.
> Didn't they freeze Trump only after the entire backlash? Yes. To be fair, Parler didn’t do much including after the backlash. But I’m not going to argue this is another advantage Facebook accrues due to its size.
So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler. I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it…
Facebook has better PR too.
Terrible. The storming of the capitol was probably the most frightening single event in American history in recent times. I just got off the phone with my friend who lives in China. He was in tears. He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy to walk inside the capitol building in DC. It's completely against the law. For those in the dark, the event caused seri…
> He didn't understand how someone could have such disregard for the value of human life and democracy... Maybe he hasn't heard about Tiananmen Square[1], since in China it never happened[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.
What makes Facebook worse, in my mind, is that people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment. At least on something like 4Chan you'd be anonymous, but nope, people will write the most grotesque comments, while everyone can see their real name, where they live and who they work for. Some people don't seem to care, and that's pretty scary.
Though that of course has down sides. There used to be periodic news stories about people frivolously calling the cops on facebook posts. (Somehow I don't see a lot of that lately, but I haven't been looking either.)
So is Google going to throw them out of the Play store? What's the argument for banning one social media and not another. Where do you draw the line that manages to keep Facebooks app available, while still being able to defend the removal of Parler. I know many will think I'm defending Parler, I'm not. I just don't see why Facebook is continuously given a free pass for all the horrible stuff on their platform. Is it…
Because people, not Hacker news people, but real people like Facebook. That's the reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well they didn't develop the platform specifically for spreading radical/violent content. They build a generic platform for spreading thoughts among friends, and racist/violent people used the generic platform to spread their thoughts.
Not quite. They tweaked the way it was run to keep people addicted.
Facebook was very much an actor in this, not some mere communication infrastructure. Facebook wasn't "warped" by malicious actors, it fanned the flames and by doing so nurtured their hatred and multiplied their reach, all to get the users as addicted as possible to this endless loop. (The same goes for Twitter and Google/Youtube too, of course)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parler, unlike Facebook, only existed to foment the kinds of rhetoric and ideologies that lead to the 6th.
How do you reconcile the whole “if you don’t like Facebook moderation go build your own” bit.
Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.
What I find troubling is that, a system to find/flag radical/violent content likely exists within the auspices of the NSA. Despite the massive infringement of privacy that these systems create, it seems that they still can't prevent people from being 'radicalized' by content from the platforms that is designed to do exactly that. Furthermore, they couldn't (or didn't) do anything to actually prevent people from storming the Capital. This begs the question, does this massive surveillance state need to exist if it does not do the thing it is purported to do (find and suppress violence, prevent terrorist attacks, etc).
If the owners of the platforms have any conscience, unfortunately, it seems that the responsibility will be up to them. It's murky territory for sure, and you have to strike a balance between far reaching censorship (i.e. infringing of 1A) and allowing disinformation, hate speech, and calls to violence to spread like wild-fire (i.e. how we got into this mess in the first place). I hate to say it, but the older I get, the more something like 'the great firewall' of China seems to make more sense.
Somebody from Facebook recently told me they developed the best system to flag radical/violent content in the world, I pointed out they first developed the best system to spread it.
What makes Facebook worse, in my mind, is that people don't seem to care that it's their real name associated with terrible radical, violent and angry comment. At least on something like 4Chan you'd be anonymous, but nope, people will write the most grotesque comments, while everyone can see their real name, where they live and who they work for. Some people don't seem to care, and that's pretty scary.
At least most historical revolutionaries had the self awareness to understand that trying to overthrow the state is super illegal, and maybe a bit of clandestine-ness is in their own best interest.