131–140 of 224 posts
It would be one thing if they didn't censor anything, but censoring anti-racism but not racism seems to show that FB is taking a pro-racism stance.
This long article doesnt address the most critical point. If employees have an ethical issue with working there, why don't they quit? This isn't a new dillemma. People working for tabacco companies have always been in the same boat.
Always super easy to say for someone else. Why haven't most of the people in the US government quit by now? In fact, insecurity about getting an equivalent job is a real thing. Not wanting to abandon a project you've worked on and expertise you've developed is a thing. Not wanting to abandon people you've worked with is a thing. Thinking you can do more good from within is a thing.
Even for those who consider quitting in protest, waiting until just after the next bonus/vesting day seems like a reasonable concession to other psychological or financial needs. Then that date rolls around, and all of that inertia is still there. Expecting others to make a hard decision that you've never been in a position to make yourself seems unrealistic and unhelpful.
[ETA: I don't mean to say this particular person has never been in that position. I don't know them. I've even forgotten their name. But I've seen this sentiment expressed many times and it always seems facile.]
> a post from President Donald Trump that seemingly called for violence against people protesting the police killing of George Floyd. This seems very unlikely, and there's no link or screenshot of the actual post to support the statement. Twitter has previously taken statements that laws will be enforced as 'calls to violence' so it wouldn't be surprising if the same thing is occurring here.
The steel-man argument is that the President's statements practically amount to an indirect call for violence. There's no other way for the state to enforce laws except to use the messy apparatus of the police, which may result in collateral damage/violence.
Which would mean that literally any discussion of government policy which could result in law enforcement is a call for violence. While I don't particularly disagree with this stance, and Libertarians in general would be overjoyed to see this shift in perspective, I don't expect to see social media companies ban all discussion of political policy.
e.g. "Deadbeat fathers should have to pay child support". If you fail to pay child support you will eventually be arrested. If you refuse to comply with arresting officers, they will use force against you. Therefore calling for child support is an indirect call for violence.
The media always blames Mark for every bad action that his company does, but what about all the other employees, aren't they just as guilty as him?
But the answers to these questions aren't clear and up for debate. What is harder to argue is whether the person directing everything and with a bird's eye view of the direction of the company is culpable for that company's misdeeds. I think this makes it more clear to blame Mark than "all the other employees."
I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chanc…
The other problem is that the business model of social media is based on generating "engagement" at all costs, so the platforms are built to encourage outrage as it generates lots of engagement, among other addictive behaviors (the infinite "algorithmic" feed for example). Social media was supposed to be a tool that serves people but its current business model encourages it to work against people. There were plenty o…
I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. The problem is not some content moderation policy, the problem is that social media has changed social conversations from small local interactions into monstrous virtual fight clubs between millions of people simultaneously, and where the most extreme opinions are rewarded with the most attention. Boring level headed opinions used to at least have a chanc…
> I feel like all of this debate is painfully missing the point. Your point also applies to news -- articles these days miss the point by design . You get more clicks by being provocative and hyperbolic. And yellow journalism isn't really new , but its comeback has been triumphant.
If I translate the first entries titles right now:
* Amazing confidences -> an actress
* Big controversy -> a female singer
* Corruption suspicion -> OK, a politician
* Accused of lying -> an actor's wife
* a few trivialities and filler items
* Finally calm -> a dead singer's wife
* Turkish activities -> OK, international news
* from the previous item on, it is only now that you have a regular mix of normally interesting/important news items. You had to click once or twice on the Next arrow to get there, everything or almost everything on what I'd call the front page was clickbait crap.
So, that's a feed, but the content comes from actual newspapers, and if I go to my local newspaper, half of the top content is also oftennational/international 'people' crap.
The media always blames Mark for every bad action that his company does, but what about all the other employees, aren't they just as guilty as him?
Is there a source for the video? I am only seeing an audio clip in this article and I can’t seem to find the video by googling “Max Wang facebook”.
I have been wondering why Facebook has become the only platform that tolerates right-wing speech. The other platforms took the convenient route and kicked out right-wing voices. Why exactly is Facebook risking both bad press and a revolt from its overwhelmingly progressive employees?
>“He [Zuckerberg] uses ‘diverse perspective’ as essentially a cover for right-wing thinking when the real problem is dangerous ideologies,” Brandi Collins-Dexter, a senior campaign director at Color of Change, told BuzzFeed News after reading excerpts of Zuckerberg’s comments. “If you are conflating conservatives with white nationalists, that seems like a far deeper problem because that’s what we’re talking about. We’re talking about hate groups and really specific dangerous ideologies and behavior.”
Other platforms has plenty of voices from all parts of the spectrum. The difference is that they might actually be making a more sincere attempt at moderating.
didn’t really buy it when the Russia bot thing happened but now I do 100%