51–60 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, can you move this account over to this identity provider, please? No, I can't prove I own the account, but… Hello? Hello?
Yes, it's a footgun. Don't even start using FB as an identity provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FB is not a phone, it's a website that you don't have to visit.
A website containing the only copy in the world of a lot of information that Facebook has no real right to monopolise.
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
3 and 4 are easy - have a manual review of automatically flagged content. You get clear reasons, better resolution of false positives, and it’s not simple to game. And, in another plus, it can feed back into the AI training.
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems overly glib. Facebook’s monopoly status means it’s necessary for many people. As per the post, if this person were a small business owner, or simply not well-connected elsewhere, this could be both financially and personally devastating. As it is, he’s only protected because he has other access to business and personal pages. One company shouldn’t have this sort of arbitrary power over people’s lives.
I find the idea of Facebook being "necessary" for anyone quite spectacularly laughable. This isn't, air or water. You can live without it, and many people happily do. Facebook is about as essential as essential oils.
I think FB has a fundamental issue here, which is that: 1) they don't feel they can NOT police content 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually 3) any AI they train to police content, is not going to be able to state clearly why a given post/account was banned, and anyway... 4) if you state objective, clear rules that are automated, it will be pretty easy to game them (e.g. using euphemisms or code word…
Or, perhaps, these problems are reasons why large, centralized social networks shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, perhaps, these problems are reasons why large, centralized social networks shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
They exist because they're popular, you can't dictate what is popular among the masses without authoritarianism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is used as an identity provider. Are users allowed to continue that service when their accounts are disabled?
They can use other identity providers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, perhaps, these problems are reasons why large, centralized social networks shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
They exist because they're popular, you can't dictate what is popular among the masses without authoritarianism.