141–150 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still mostly a social networking site, and to the extent "serious" content threatens the social networking aspect, Facebook has an interest in placing limits.
Lots of people have an interest in doing things that are bad for other people generally. That doesn't actually mean the rest of us should be okay with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I don't see where anyone is discarding integrity. It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy. One that you can define so broadly that you never have to suffer the PR backlash that will eventually result when someone takes advantage of these freedoms and does something abhorrent. >Not all content is appropriate for all sites. But I thought tha…
>It takes integrity to defend a principle in lieu of doing the expedient thing of instilling a "zero tolerance" policy. If you start from the position that kind of content belongs on FB, then sure. But not of you don't. And I don't. >But I thought that all content is appropriate for all sites. Don't all people fit into size 36 jeans, like cheesecake, ride unicycles, and love to go hiking? I quite like your negate the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking beyond Facebook for news and reporting on diverse topics with balanced viewpoints is a "privilege"? On what can you possibly base this claim? This is why Internet.org and the walled garden got nuked. This is what we really mean when we talk about network neutrality. You type a URL into the address bar and press enter, and the page you requested loads. While certainly there are populations where internet acces…
> "working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources" is a bizarre claim I can't quite get my head around. Consider the possibility that this difficulty lies not with the claim, but with your head. The real value of money is that you can use it in place of time. The less of it you have, the more time you must spend on dealing with problems that you could make go away…
Is this a generational point of view? I don't think that the word "privilege" is "inseperable from personal attack. To me, this very much fits into the definition of a privilege as "a benefit enjoyed by a person, beyond the advantages of most". Access to and time to read a broad variety of news sources is very much a benefit enjoyed by some people, beyond the advantages of most. I don't see how there's any personal attack implicit in that...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its how some people get all those things. Not people who care enough to get their news directly from a number of sources, instead of via the Facebook filter.
to be completely honest, having the time and energy to stay well-informed on current events from a variety of sources is a privilege. working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources. the reason i say this is not to tell you to "check your privilege", by the way. it's to make the argument that facebook's shaping of the zeitgeist primarily affects the impoverished an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "working-class and poor people have neither the time nor mental energy to peruse a variety of sources" is a bizarre claim I can't quite get my head around. Consider the possibility that this difficulty lies not with the claim, but with your head. The real value of money is that you can use it in place of time. The less of it you have, the more time you must spend on dealing with problems that you could make go away…
> the rhetoric of privilege is inseparable from personal attack Is this a generational point of view? I don't think that the word "privilege" is "inseperable from personal attack. To me, this very much fits into the definition of a privilege as "a benefit enjoyed by a person, beyond the advantages of most". Access to and time to read a broad variety of news sources is very much a benefit enjoyed by some people, beyon…
I speak to communicate with people - that's communicate with, not talk to, and if you're unclear on the distinction, any dictionary with etymological information will serve you.
Talking about other people's opinions, behaviors, and beliefs in terms of privilege makes communicating with them harder instead of easier. So it's not worth my while to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There always another radio, newspaper, church. There's really only one Facebook, and it's now how you get essentially all of those things.
Its how some people get all those things. Not people who care enough to get their news directly from a number of sources, instead of via the Facebook filter.
It is not possible to design your life so that you completely avoid the influence of an entity as large and powerful as Facebook, just like the citizens of most countries cannot design their lives in a way that fully avoids the influence of the U.S. government.
Does not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?
You can be naked for the following reasons: Breastfeeding, Satire, Comedy, Artistic (but only photos of art), educational, and surgery (but only reconstructive)
but being naked because you didn't exactly have time to grab clothes while fleeing from being burnt up, is too far on the nudity scale?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a man-in-the-middle attack on culture.
Media has always been that. Why, during a military coup, is the first thing that is attacked are the TV stations? Control the message, control the culture. It is fascinating to see the Internet (and in this case Facebook) displacing the multi-billion(trillion?) media estate. I remember the dot.com bubble where the media claimed that statements that the Internet would make them obsolete was crap. 20 years ahead of its…