141–150 of 342 posts
This sounded very high, and I was interested to know how they understood what the total (100%) figure was, given the presumed underground nature of the activity. Clicked on the link for the source. The statement is false. By all means hold these companies to account but sensationalism isn't going to help. Full disclosure: I have never had a Facebook account and couldn't care less whether Meta exists or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We just need to elect a wave of politicians that will hold the wealthy accountable. That's the single issue we should all be voting on at the moment. Once the lawless are brought to heel, and their wealth kicked out of politics forever, then we can actually start solving the other problems that face us.
And how do we do that? The reality is those of us in the know are stuck twiddling our thumbs until the party duopoly pisses off enough politically illiterate people. The only way to speed that up is communication and unity, two things our government is actively trying (and succeeding) to destroy. I can tell you right now I'm not convincing anyone here in Louisiana to change their minds on anything. The only real hope…
I am, and what I see is that there are people trying to fight this good fight and they need help.
Advocacy is by far the worst form of politics (talking about things), organizing is where real work happens and the act of politics takes place.
I recommend you actually go out in the real world and embrace your community.
One thing that I would recommend is to avoid weaving the actual lies with statements that are subject to judgement. For example, the first two rows are about the level of investment in protection tools, and are claimed as lies because of the ineffectiveness of these tools. Both sides can be true simultaneously. You can invest a lot and produce no results. When I read that, I thought they were grasping at straws. Then…
Ya, strongly agree. For those that don’t read the article, here are some of the more concerning ones imo - Mark said “We don't allow sexually explicit content on the service for people of any age.” But they had a 17-strike policy, and 79% of all child sex trafficking in 2020 occurred on Meta’s platforms. :(. Edit: the 79% claim is overstated. If you read the linked report[1], it is actually “65% of child sex traffick…
> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?
Well, in this case, lying to Congress is a crime, but techoversight is happy to call statements "lies" when there's no chance of upholding a "lying to Congress" charge. So their position that addressing the problem they see requires additional regulation is correct. This is the first example of a "lie" they give: “No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered and this is why we invest s…
You think such a weak claim is still a strain? That's the weakest possible factual interpretation.
But I don't think we should ignore "so much [...] to make sure" or "industry leading". If there was nobody prioritizing teen safety, or if that team had no power while teams targeting teens had power, then his statement was a lie. It's not just an opinion over whether the end result was shoddy.
The government fails is the problem and the only solution is more government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the financier's island files gave me a huge dose of this. i always got the feeling that laws don't really matter for truly rich people, now i'm convinced. which means that we need different methods than law to handle such people.
We just need to elect a wave of politicians that will hold the wealthy accountable. That's the single issue we should all be voting on at the moment. Once the lawless are brought to heel, and their wealth kicked out of politics forever, then we can actually start solving the other problems that face us.
You're absolutely, 100% right.
I do hope you stick to your word and refrain from voting for anyone who isn't going to do this, including in the "corporate dem vs. rep" scenario.
I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue but after reading some of the statements in the article I can't help but agree with Tech Oversight's conclusions. It's just anecdotal but recently, when mindlessly scrolling reels, (yes, bad enough already) I came across a reel that was unquestionably sexually explicit (in USA, I think policy varies on locale). I reported the account and reel because after clicking on t…
I'm not sure this is an excuse any more, particularly for companies with huge AI investments.
Maybe you don't have AI making final decisions, but for egregious cases like what you describe, it should be well within Meta's capabilities to prioritize human enforcement for them using AI.
Meta's own research found Instagram worsened body image for 1 in 3 teen girls [1]. They killed a deactivation study when results looked bad, with one employee comparing it to tobacco companies burying research [2]. They had a 17-strike policy for accounts involved in sexual solicitation [3]. And they ran growth strategies explicitly targeting kids under 13, segmenting youth into "Kid (6-10), Tween (10-13), and Teen 13+" [4].
[1] 2019 Instagram slide presentation, "Teen Mental Health Deep Dive"
[2] Meta internal deactivation study (unnamed employee quote from unsealed docs)
[3] Testimony of Vaishnavi Jayakumar, former Instagram Head of Safety and Well-being
[4] Meta Internal Evidence Exhibit 45
> > The only way to outlaw Meta’s dangerous and egregious behavior is to pass legislation, like the Kids Online Safety Act Really? Even if we ignore all the implication of censorship and surveillance state, lying to the congress is already a crime. It's already regulated. If he can get away with it why another act would be different?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you haven't engaged with two of the four examples in the comment you're responding to. I don't think developing just-so stories for why some rich and famous people were prosecuted and ignoring others to whom the stories don't apply will be helpful for your understanding.
Well one of them originally got a year and a half which is barely anything for the crimes.
Probably tricky to say much based on such a small sample size, regardless. There aren't that many rich and/or famous people in the first place, and an even smaller portion that engage in some sort of major crimes.