441–450 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But the government benefits from Facebook (and Google's) stalking ability. That doesn’t make it ok
Who said it did? What this does mean is that it's highly unlikely the government is going to do what the OP suggested. Facebook et. al. are the honeypots of dreams for governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.
I don't know if people become antivaxxer because of FB. Antivaxxers and science deniers didn't wait for FB to believe in their theories. It's like blaming the telephone because terrorists use it.
1. The existence of social media
2. The application of carefully optimized algorithms that prioritize problematic content
To be a fair comparison, I think you need to reframe the telephone example: If the telephone system specifically prioritized communication related to terrorism, it would be fair to blame the telephone system and call for changes to how it operates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is an incredibly disingenuous description of the situation. Facebook's own (non-public, now publicly leaked) research indicates that Facebook causes harm to teens mental health. The only "US narrative" here is the one backed up my the incredible amount of research supporting the growing issue of mental health in the US (and the world for that matter). This is disingenuous, that same data shows the majority of t…
This is news to me and frankly makes no sense. How does the data say that FB both improved mental health and harmed it? Can you share your source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooh! "Fake story", "mainstream US narratives", "discourse"! All the greatest hits. You forgot "alternative facts".
It has some of the earmarks of a something is up. You do not go from nobody to 60 min interviews that quick.
The two best ideas I've heard: - Require age verification by law and ban kids from using it. We ban kids from alcohol we should ban them from this. - Require ID verification by law but allow people to use a fake name. Fixes the bots issue and the kid depression issue. The market isn't going to get there by itself because of competition. If insta implements this then they lose market share to snap. So there's a strong…
And it's worked out well! I, for one, never so much as tasted alcohol until I was 21, because it would have been illegal for me to have done otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it means she's biased and we should evaluate if she has another motive because she's connected to the party now interviewing her who want to censor Americans. I wonder if she'll be a professor or an ambassador for her service.
Wait now, are her motives obvious like in your first comment, or ulterior like in your second. Make up your mind please.
The ulterior motive is obvious to me and others in this thread. But some, like you, seem to have difficulty seeing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Facebook’s ad network sells and places ads in front of a person because they are gay, pregnant, devout, or disabled, you don’t consider those to be “intimate details of their lives”?
That is a mischaracterization of what Facebook is doing. Facebook has a giant ontology of subjects. Based on their "stalking" of you, subjects in this ontology are connected to the user profile; i.e., the FB user's "interests". Ad buyers are buying access to the ontology, not the individual users. They're not given a list of users to sift through and choose the user. They choose the subjects and FB's ad network shows…
Honestly not sure that we learned too much 'new' from this: - People don't like it when others say (or provide a platform for) things they disagree with. - Teenagers are angsty and emotionally/physically insecure. But surely the above is something an unelected bureaucrat can fix if we only give them enough money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To the people downvoting me here: can you list some figures who have been protesting authoritarianism who are left-coded in contemporary American society? Martin Luther King.
He said contemporary American society. MLK died 53 years ago.
I'm not a historian, but I've understood "contemporary" as a term that refers to events that have occurred in the lifetimes of active historians. Given that a decent chunk of the US's population was alive in 1968 and hasn't even retired yet, it probably fits neatly into that category.