201–210 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what's good for the general public. I personally don't really care what facebook (or anyone else) believes is good for me . I'll be the judge of that, thank you very much. And if I want to eat chocolate all day, I'll do that, too.
Social networks aren't in the business of showing you what's "good for you." They're in the business of showing you what's good for them (e.g. things that will increase your engagement).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government is leaning on FB to do what the government wants. It's a slight of hand. FB is a government agent.
I do not think FB is a "government agent" from everything I've read. They operate within government rules and regulations, and they're certainly going to listen to the government, but listening is normal for any company. They can still do what they want.
Sure FB, you can do what you want. It'd just be a shame if it were determined you were a monopoly, sure would be a shame.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-s...
I actually verified this yesterday on my own FB acount. https://imgur.com/a/5tgkbFL Not sure if it's still happening, but you can test it if you make the post visible to only you and you wait ~5 minutes for that misinformation message to show up. Even if the fact checker had some kind of point, I don't know how labeling an authoritative source as "false information" helps anyone understand anything just because part…
I don't get why they can't add a regex to ok *.gov$ websites. > Nevertheless, the level of carelessness upon which this mechanism seems to have been built upon is an embarrassment. Same mechanism would flag and ban folks who argued that the lab leak hypothesis was a possibility and was worth investigating... Interesting how the media changed their narrative on this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And private DMs in certain cases as well. The argument doesn't hold water.
Messenger is being fact checked as well? I haven't seen or heard this.
I actually verified this yesterday on my own FB acount. https://imgur.com/a/5tgkbFL Not sure if it's still happening, but you can test it if you make the post visible to only you and you wait ~5 minutes for that misinformation message to show up. Even if the fact checker had some kind of point, I don't know how labeling an authoritative source as "false information" helps anyone understand anything just because part…
More than an embarrassment, it’s chilling.
Let's face it, Big Social Media's "disinformation" label is no more than "things that go against the mainstream narrative" these years.
I feel like this is a meta commentary that someone who posts articles like - ‘Too Big to Fail’: Russia-Gate One Year After VIPS Showed a Leak, Not a Hack - Siri plays dumb about documentary “Hillary's America” And posts anticlimate change articles.
The parent comment is only a one sentence opinion, and I'm unsure if any additional context is required to discuss it.
I get you're pointing out OP has some colourful post history, but what does that achieve?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook isn't the only source of information, and in fact, I'd argue, more misinformation exists because of facebook, not more control.
That doesn't matter though, because most people 'live' in this new space via Facebook, in the same way that a plurality of people 'live' in the physical world we inhabit via the nation of China (PRC being the most populous nation). Simply because of that, we cannot discount the over-influence of Facebook. Even more poignant, Facebook's dominance in this regard is much more disproportionate than China's dominance of t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there's anything that flat Earth theories prove then it would be that there is no objective truth that can be universally agreed upon. So sure we can suppose that there is an objective truth (ironically this point is also debated), but who do you trust to be its arbiter?
There is objective truth. The earth is objectively not flat. There are people who don't agree with that (or at least who say they don't), but the earth is objectively not flat, whether or not some people don't agree. Not only that, it's provably not flat. So those who don't agree, well... they prove the contrariness of human nature, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Certainly the architectural drawings of my house do not include a "bulge" in the basement due to heretical sphericalness.
All discussion of my basement floor being flat within about 1/2 inch need to be censored by big brother to save us all from free and independent thought.
The purpose of arguing about what should be censored is to distract from the argument of should there be censorship at all. Classic divide and conqueror strategy. Nobody ever gets asked if they should have concentration camps or not, they only argue about competing paint schemes and honorary mottos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get why they can't add a regex to ok *.gov$ websites. > Nevertheless, the level of carelessness upon which this mechanism seems to have been built upon is an embarrassment. Same mechanism would flag and ban folks who argued that the lab leak hypothesis was a possibility and was worth investigating... Interesting how the media changed their narrative on this one.
MySpamSite.com?queryParm=.gov
But is everyone that easily manipulated? More importantly, does everyone actually believe that they can be easily manipulated, or do they just think that everyone else is so easily manipulated, but somehow they're above the fray?
And at what point does the censorship to protect me from manipulation become manipulation itself?
Facebook is fighting a losing battle if they think they will survive a battle with their own users. This is way past censoring Alex Jones. You can't possibly censor every crackpot conspiracy theorist. Actually, we're probably all crackpot conspiracy theorists in some way. We probably all believe some conspiracy about 9/11 or the NSA or elections or vaccines or masks or aliens or royal families or whatever.
The rate of censoring is almost certainly accelerating faster than facebook's growth, and once you've been censored once, you're likely to radically curb your use of that platform. I can't imagine that FB doesn't have stats on how many people keep using FB after they've been censored just once.
FB only works when you and 99% of your social group are on there.
And the network effect works in reverse, too.
