Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of its network effect. Removing facebook, in a way is removing members of our connection circles.
> removing members of our connection circles Does it really? Whatever happened to just a friendly weekly email?
Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
81–90 of 549 posts
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#82>“We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” said the confidential review. Why do we even have the collective fiction where corporate messaging around a sore topic is treated as trustworthy? Especially with companies that we know lie all the fucking time?
Why out of the largest tech companies, like Amazon, Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Twitter (well not large but similar to FB in terms of social network) only one has a reputation for constantly lying and misleading people on purpose in its self-interest? Is it because we pay more attention to FB or is it because FB is different in some way?
I mean I think they're all overgrown capitalist machines that thirst for their users' data, mindshare and money, and all of them have a heap of dirty secrets that either have or will leak out sooner or later. And none of their dirty secrets - like this 'revelation' that Facebook has a database of favorites - will be surprising.
Twitter has it too - Trump got away with stuff most people would be instantly banned for. They cite he is a person of high importance, but the real reason is that Trump and the ripple effect each of his tweets had were responsible for a big chunk of their annual revenue.
Remember a few years ago that Twitter was struggling financially or stagnating in terms of activity and users? I'm sure I remember a few articles about that. But since then, Trump and some other populist politicians and commentators have caused big waves on there, because each post starts a very big and long discussion involving thousands if not tens of thousands of people, all of them having 'hot takes' on things.
TL;DR they exempt people from the rules because they make them the most money.
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once made fun of Justin Bieber(said he acts like a baby) on IG, and got a warning. Some guy threatened to Hunt me and my family, kill us and do bad things to our bodies and IG said it didn’t violate any rules, when I reported it. My account can now not even post the word “chump” without warnings. Talk about backwards. It’s very safe to say there is no adult in the room at FB/IG when it comes to rule enforcement. I…
I don't want to do victim blaming or shaming here but why would you use any fb product knowing well about their awful business practices like these?
Sadly I’m happy I left Facebook but I will admit I’ve missed a lot of news and events in friends personal lives. A good friends mom, whom I was very fond of, passed away and I learned about it months later. Another friend had a fast growing tumor and I missed that news and never got a last phone call with him. Both of which I regret missing out on.
I’ll still maintain I’m happy with my departure, but it has its drawbacks unfortunately.
Double edged sword indeed.
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#84If these are known misleading public statements then can SEC prosecute them? I'd think these statements can affect the stock price and this is securities fraud.
The puffery doctrine is quite controversial in some academic circles. Though I'm not sure it's litigated much anymore as a practical matter? At least not when it comes to civil suits alleging securities fraud.
Edit- It seems it will be (at least part of) Elizabeth Holmes' defense: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-06/elizab...
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why out of the largest tech companies, like Amazon, Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Twitter (well not large but similar to FB in terms of social network) only one has a reputation for constantly lying and misleading people on purpose in its self-interest? Is it because we pay more attention to FB or is it because FB is different in some way?
I put all of the companies you name in pretty much the same basket, and avoid them as much as I can. I don't shop on Amazon, I don't use Netflix, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter. I don't use Apple products. I do use Android and Google Docs/Drive/Mail but my next phone will probably be an open one and I could drop the GSuite stuff without too much pain, mostly laziness that I haven't already.
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#86Well of course. Why wouldn't they? Money and friends aside, they have to do it for people who wield power like China's upper echelon or the NSA. If they say no, they will be shut down in those markets.
Facebook is already shut down in China, I’m not sure what you mean.
And Facebook is not actually shut down in China. It's partially blocked and working on a censorship project to reinstate itself there.
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#87>“We are not actually doing what we say we do publicly,” said the confidential review. Why do we even have the collective fiction where corporate messaging around a sore topic is treated as trustworthy? Especially with companies that we know lie all the fucking time?
For example, the company reporting this is the WSJ, owned by Murdoch. Why are the WSJ seen as respectable?
Why are any of the MSM seen as respectable? They're all objectively untrustworthy on basically everything except sport. They're all in it together, and the sooner we cut them out of our collective headspace the better our chance of survival.
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#88I don't understand the way their enforcement works. I've reported videos of people literally setting live animals on fire and been told there was no violation, but my wife called someone a "loser" and got a week long ban.
We (the kids and I) now lovingly call her "hate speech Mom".
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because of its network effect. Removing facebook, in a way is removing members of our connection circles.
> removing members of our connection circles Does it really? Whatever happened to just a friendly weekly email?
Re: Facebook has exempted high-profile users from some or all of its rules
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect it is automated. A computer can easily flag calling someone a loser. Not sure if FB has burning animals as a automated flag yet.
I had the option to have the post re-reviewed, which took two days. I mean it could just be theatre, but I assumed on the second round a human reviewed it. From the support response: > The post was reviewed, and though it doesn't go against one of our specific Community Standards, you did the right thing by letting us know about it. Setting squirrels on fire and watching the poor things scurry around I guess is cool…