71–80 of 246 posts
They saved you the work of deleting the account yourself. Say thanks and move on with your life =)
There are several reports about people logging in after a year and seeing the same message as the day they were banned from Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They exist because they're popular, you can't dictate what is popular among the masses without authoritarianism.
They exist because they’re profitable. They can become unprofitable through democratic legislation.
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.
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…
To be more exact: they do not want to spend money on competent policing. They probably have capability to employ ten times as many human moderators as they do now, thus reducing the blatant error rate (at least in the case of highly influential pages and people), but that would eat into their profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t have to dictate popularity: just create legal liability frameworks that make a solution like Mastodon more appealing than a solution like Facebook or Twitter
People can still be banned on Mastadon, it changes absolutely nothing. In a world where Mastadon becomes more popular than FB people will complain about being banned from the most popular node instead of the most popular http website.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They exist because they're popular, you can't dictate what is popular among the masses without authoritarianism.
Sure you can, just require interoperability with similar services and prevent them from straight up buying the competition and watch their "popularity" fade away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They exist because they're popular, you can't dictate what is popular among the masses without authoritarianism.
They exist because they’re popular and because the currently successful ones acquired or strangled all of their smaller meaningful competitors using investment capital and money from first mover advantages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's a short-sighted statement. On a personal level, I completely agree with you. Facebook is a giant waste of time for the typical user and a big +1 for your life if you ditch it. For many business, however, it's critical. My local Snap-on Tools dealer uses it to announce where his truck will be each day and what tools and equipment he's running on special. He hates Facebook but told me the other day that he condu…