141–150 of 304 posts
A social media platform refused to let you advertise a competing social media platform. Is this really news? Isn't this just business as usual in corporate America?
https://joinmastodon.org/ Might as well see what FB is scared about
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Facebook's upper management is definitely not freaking out about Mastodon. However, from my own experience working at a large, somewhat ethically-challenged organisation (not fb), it would not surprise me in the least if they gently yet actively pushed down a competitor, provided it can be done discreetly.
Doubt it, not worth the liabillity risk.
I doubt anyone at Facebook is freaking out about Mastodon and setting out to censor all mention of it. It's probably just a keyword or link that tends to co-appear with other, actually rule-breaking content, and some automated system has learned to block it. Still, it does seem like the sort of thing that could get Facebook in trouble with a regulator if you squint at it.
Yes, Facebook's upper management is definitely not freaking out about Mastodon. However, from my own experience working at a large, somewhat ethically-challenged organisation (not fb), it would not surprise me in the least if they gently yet actively pushed down a competitor, provided it can be done discreetly.
Also note that Twitter has taken an interest in decentralized protocols with Bluesky project.
I was notified on Sept 4 at 6:40pm.
Clicking on a link in my post to joinmastodon.com notifies you that the link goes against their community standards.
Interesting how "because COVID" has become the thinly veiled excuse here. A similar manifestation of the "think of the children" trope that can be used to manipulate emotions and shut down dissent.
The message says it triggered spam filters. It's not related to COVID misinformation.
The only place COVID appears is in the warning that their manual review queues are longer than normal due to COVID.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds anti-competitive in the UK. Using dominant market power to censor.
That is a weird UK rule then. In the US the common issues are things like tying, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, loyalty discounts, bundling etc. Allowing competitors onto your own platform is an unusual requirement in UK I think - I haven't seen a case like that in US but don't follow closely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No data clearly indicates that there is no data. A statement of "I don't know' clearly indicates a lack of knowledge. A statemnt of "I have no opinion" clearly indicates that the speaker has not formed an opinion. In each case, a spurious generated response: 1. Is generally accepted as prima facie evidence of what it purports. 2. Must be specifically analysed and assessed. 3. Is itself subject to repetition and/or am…
Data that's had data censored from it is bad data.
Outlier exclusion is standard practice.
It's useful to note what is excluded. But you exclude bad data from the analysis.
Remember that what you're interested in is not the data but the ground truth that the data represent. This means that the full transmission chain must be reliable and its integrity assured: phenomenon, generated signal, transmission channel, receiver, sensor, interpretation, and recording.
Noise may enter at any point. And that noise has ... exceedingly little value.
Deliberately inserted noise is one of the most effective ways to thwart an accurate assessment of ground truths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Facebook's upper management is definitely not freaking out about Mastodon. However, from my own experience working at a large, somewhat ethically-challenged organisation (not fb), it would not surprise me in the least if they gently yet actively pushed down a competitor, provided it can be done discreetly.
Mastodon is a “competitor” to Facebook the way a grandma doing middle school tutoring in her backyard is a competitor to Harvard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds anti-competitive in the UK. Using dominant market power to censor.
That is a weird UK rule then. In the US the common issues are things like tying, predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, loyalty discounts, bundling etc. Allowing competitors onto your own platform is an unusual requirement in UK I think - I haven't seen a case like that in US but don't follow closely.
European law tends to favor maximizing competitors. American law tends to favor maximizing consumer value. At first glance, these can be considered equivalent, but they differ at the margins (which is why, for example, Amazon keeps getting hit with antitrust in France but not in the US).