Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2) they are wayyyyy too big to police content manually To be more exact: they do not want to spend money on competent policing. They probably have capability to employ ten times as many human moderators as they do now, thus reducing the blatant error rate (at least in the case of highly influential pages and people), but that would eat into their profits.
I don't want strangers looking at the content I post to my friends. Full stop.
Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
121–130 of 246 posts
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#122Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give some examples?
Haha, are you serious? Instagram, WhatsApp, Snapchat... Instagram's Systrom explicitly said that he sold because otherwise Facebook would snuff him away.
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#124Something particularly concerning about this incident is buried further down in the article. Under the heading "Why Facebook Doesn't Ban Everyone", Lincoln explains how social network theory can identify individuals in networks that are influential. This isn't an exaggeration - basic graph heuristics (such as comparing in/out degree of an individual relative to other parts of the social graph) can easily identify suc…
That's interesting. The disgorzation produced by all the bans will probably impact votes for conservatives for a long time despite not censoring that many people indeed.
The people that claim voter suppression, are the biggest voter suppressors, using all the levers they control.
The people that claim to be in favor of free speech, are the most against free speech in practice.
The people that claim to be the most tolerant, are in fact the most intolerant by a wide margin.
The people that claim to not like war, keep finding an excuse to bomb and topple more countries.
The people that claim to care about civil rights, write a major crime bill that hammers civil rights.
The people that claim to care about journalism, actually persecute journalists more than any others ever have in US history.
The people that claim to care about human rights, demolish human rights with vast, illegal domestic espionage.
The people that claim to care about the working poor and the middle class, those with jobs and wages most susceptible to being undercut by cheap labor competition, flood the system with hyper regressive cheap labor to destroy the poor and middle class workers.
Next up in the coming years, a new war closer to home. It'll be called the war on domestic terrorism (or extremism, whatever branding works best), again by the people that claim to love human rights. And it'll be as fake as the war on drugs and the foreign war on terrorism, with one goal in mind: to wipe out as many civil liberties as possible (including and particularly going after encryption, privacy, speech/expression). Nothing can stop what they're about to do, unfortunately. And you can be certain that big tech is fully onboard, you can already see that in their behavior, just like they all lined up so nicely for PRISM et al.
You know what all of these people - big state, deep state, military industrial complex, big corporate, whatever you call them by, the whole lot of various power interests that are persistent in DC - hated the most about Trump (far more than his character or policies)? His chaos, how he made a mess of everything, made a mess of their system, made it impossible to make progress on their various goals, such as continuing the pursuit of things like banishing encryption. They made almost zero progress on that under Trump, very little got done. It's really difficult to get things done with that much chaos. Well, they've reset the board back to the way they like it, and are about to get back to making big gains again.
And when they say it's some powerless clown in a buffalo hat trying to pull a coup, they're actually the ones attempting a power coup - seizing more power, seizing an opportunity to install new levers in place to control people and curtail rights. Never waste a good crisis, as with 20 years ago and the Patriot Act.
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#125Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#126His posts included the following keywords or phrases: "capitalism", "socialism", "political and economic elites", "Christian Transhumanist Association", "New God Argument", "Gospel", "heirs in the glory of God", "God ensures the right spirit is associated with the right body during human-mediated procreation", "gun", "Bitcoin", "Trump." I'm also thinking that if the word "decentralization" mattered at all, it was because of its proximity to "revolution" on the political dimension.
I don't want to get into the argument about whether Facebook should be doing this or not. I do think the author is severely mistaken for assuming Facebook cares about his personal, fringe ideas on social media, considering the actual societal issues being navigated by the company right now.
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#127Something particularly concerning about this incident is buried further down in the article. Under the heading "Why Facebook Doesn't Ban Everyone", Lincoln explains how social network theory can identify individuals in networks that are influential. This isn't an exaggeration - basic graph heuristics (such as comparing in/out degree of an individual relative to other parts of the social graph) can easily identify suc…
I wrote a few months ago about this sort of danger: https://sneak.berlin/20200421/normalcy-bias/
These sorts of communication systems work, until the moment they don't, and we won't receive advance notice.
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming a user:moderator ratio of 10,000:1, they would need to hire 200,000 moderators to cover their 2 billion users. Then at that scale, they’d need to hire thousands of meta-moderators and meta-meta-moderators too.
To muse a bit: a city of 2 billion would need a lot more administrators than just 200 000. Ofc, Facebook does not provide nowhere near as many services as a city would, but ... it still seems to me that current user:moderator ratio is very obviously insufficient. In the early 2010s, this sorta worked, because the effects on real world politics were insignificant. Now everyone looks at their fingers and they have a ve…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Departmen...
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#129I'm so tired of seeing these posts. Facebook can do whatever it wants with your account and the data you've giving them. Facebook isn't some "free speech" place or a decentralized protocol.. It's a for-profit business optimized to make, guess what, profits.
Re: Facebook Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, just like how you can start your own website if you get banned from someone else's, it's servers all the way down. The people complaining about being banned don't care that they can create their own instance, they care about losing access to the popular instance.
The advantage of mastodon is that banning is not monolithic: so, if I have instances A, B, C, D: B can decide (through whatever process it uses for such things) they don’t like A’s content and ban it without affecting users on C and D. But, the problem it really solves is moderation: if I start an instance with 10 friends, moderation of posts on the instance is almost a non-issue that can be handled by a couple admin…
Yes, but this isn't really analogous to the complaint being presented. In the Mastadon world this article would have been titled "A Disabled My Account After I Criticized Them". The author is still free to use B, C, D etc, just like with http websites.
> Either way, the Mastodon model seems better because it allows policy to be specified at the “local” level rather than requiring a uniform policy across the network.
To be clear, I do think an ActivityPub-like architecture is preferable for social networking, but federation doesn't obviate the concept of popularity, it only seems that way now because the fediverse isn't popular, if it ever did become popular then we'd see the exact same complaints when people get banned from popular instances.