111–120 of 609 posts
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
> most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB This is close to a straw man argument. Nobody claims users will abandon Facebook. The article posits, instead, strengthening headwinds. Headwinds in hiring (there is already a double-digit premium Facebook must pay for talent). From recurring whistleblowing, and its impact on morale and productivity. Headwinds in projects and partnerships, like Libre/Diem be…
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110124001004/http://www.nytime...
Note how similar this is to the reports on what Facebook moderators deal with.
The fact that, despite the immense incentive and numerous attempts, no one has ever succeeded at making not-shitty facebook strongly suggests it is an incredibly difficult thing to do. All the criticism in the world means nothing if no one can do better.
This whole circus is about as contrived as it gets, complete with the "think of the children" gimmick. The timing, the theatrics, the manufactured celebrity of a middle manager at Facebook who is doing the "right" kind of whistleblowing that the establishment likes. Facebook's predatory business model isn't unique or new. This is about raw power to censor.
Even if a majority could agree on a more heavy-handed approach to the tech giants (which it won’t), there’s been 0 discussion of the First Amendment implications of any proposed “solution.” For anyone who’s unsure or confused, the chances of the Roberts’ Court upholding content restrictions are zip. There will NEVER be a law that penalizes FB for promoting LEGAL SPEECH.
I don't really know much about US politics, but could this recent attack on Facebook be a political move and a power grab? Attack FB so they block certain groups / certain topics and promote what the regulators want? I listened to the whistle-blower's testimony and I didn't hear any reasonable solutions (in my opinion at least; I am a software developer myself). Also, it seems there might be some regulations imposed.…
Stratechery makes a pretty solid argument that the calls for regulating "fake news" in general and Facebook in particular is a Democratic reaction to getting outfoxed by Trump's use of social media in 2016: https://stratechery.com/2021/facebook-political-problems/
Personally I dont see persistent public outrage that can effectively diminish Facebook. The "threat" at the moment is the congress passing bill to somewhat stymie Facebook.
Facebook has the money to hire lobbyists. Any bill passed through Congress with Facebook as its target will (amazingly, surprisingly) serve mostly to entrench and enrich it. Whatever limitations are included will be miraculously avoided by Facebook and will completely destroy any nascent competitors. No I don't know how they'll do it. Lobbyists must be craftier than the average citizen, because although their actions…
I'm thinking that Chinese tech like TikTok/Bytedance is more used to policing content compared to their American counterpart. My observation is that TikTok is more prone to banning users rather than say FB.
No. That’s what people like us and all the main stream media hope for. But: most people I know don’t have the slightest clue that Insta and WhatsApp belong to the FB group. And even worse: most of them don’t give a shit about the reputation of FB. They just want to send messages and share pictures through those apps.
That was my reaction too, scoffing as I imagined the headline "Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is nearing a reputational point of no return" after the News of the World scandal in 2011 (or any of countless others). But the sentence that matters is this one: "Facebook risks losing its young, liberal staff". If Facebook can't attract/keep the best staff (especially hackers/devs/engineers), it can't stay at the top. E…
Facebook losing its young, liberal staff could be the best thing that has happened to the company in a long time, but that's not what's going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To go a bit further MSM's ad revenue is being hollowed out by Facebook et al. Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc. Similarly, if you were an advertising exec at pfizer, would you choose to pay millions of dollars to advertise your meds to a continuously shrinking audience on som…
>it seems like most of the critiques of social media coming from big / old media are just symptoms of having their revenue bled away I feel that so many people blindly hate Facebook that they overlook this point. The loudest critics of social media are the old vanguards of news who are upset that the new kid on the block took their ad money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glenn Greenwald wrote an article arguing that yes, it is a power grab. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-and-media-do-not-...
Glenn Greenwood in my opinion is not a neutral party here. In recent times he clearly has chosen sides.
Everyone should read Greenwald's article. He makes a good case.