171–180 of 211 posts
So what happened to Facebook's "real names" policy? If they got serious about that, fake accounts would be less of a problem.
Love the use of the term "inauthentic". They cannot say "fake" anymore.
It's also a clever little bit of legal CYA. Coordinated inauthentic behavior' = fake accounts amplifying things. Actual extremists posting on main and organizing on FB? A-OK as long as they exercise a bare minimum of discretion and avoid discussing specific illegal activities.
Coordinated inauthentic behavior describes exactly what it says on the tin. They try to limit coordinated inauthentic behavior even if the content is true and even if the users are "real" people (e.g. workers who are paid to click/promote/create content).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is rotten from the core because it is rotten at the head . It is a very sad state of affairs that the one company that would have been able to be a force for good in all this ended up being run by someone who is so morally disconnected. At this point in time it will take an act of God to fix it, the lock-in is very strong and their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them serves to ce…
> their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them... There is a key difference being being able to afford to buy anything, and actually being able to buy anything. The competing founders need to be willing to sell. If a competitor arises that is mission-driven, Facebook cannot buy them.
A direct threat to Facebook is unlikely to succeed. More likely is a competitor based in a niche where Facebook cannot enter for structural reasons that slowly out-competes Facebook on Facebook's turf.
One possible niche is the privacy-focused community. Facebook can't flip all of those users, ever. If something privacy-focused emerges that has low-maintenance utility for the broader world, Facebook's days are numbered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is rotten from the core because it is rotten at the head . It is a very sad state of affairs that the one company that would have been able to be a force for good in all this ended up being run by someone who is so morally disconnected. At this point in time it will take an act of God to fix it, the lock-in is very strong and their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them serves to ce…
> their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them... There is a key difference being being able to afford to buy anything, and actually being able to buy anything. The competing founders need to be willing to sell. If a competitor arises that is mission-driven, Facebook cannot buy them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook is rotten from the core because it is rotten at the head . It is a very sad state of affairs that the one company that would have been able to be a force for good in all this ended up being run by someone who is so morally disconnected. At this point in time it will take an act of God to fix it, the lock-in is very strong and their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them serves to ce…
> their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them... There is a key difference being being able to afford to buy anything, and actually being able to buy anything. The competing founders need to be willing to sell. If a competitor arises that is mission-driven, Facebook cannot buy them.
Bonus points if you can do it with your spouse and children by your side.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. "Just tell people that racism is bad" Somehow this seems to make the problem worse not better, because if you're one of the outsiders you just get added to their mental list of conspirators. And if you've commented under your real name you're at risk of reprisals. Effective debunking is hard. Oh,…
>> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. > "Just tell people that racism is bad" What do you think "inciting ethnic hatred" means? Telling people that ethnic hatred is good? So that the only possible reply is that actually ethnic hatred is bad? No it involves conspiracy theories about an ethnic group, accusations against them, in short,…
There is no statement of fact so definitive that it can overcome a vast barrage of inflammatory conspiracy theory. If that's done in front of a crowd looking for a simple solution to their problems, they'll pay no attention to refutation of "short, empirical statements".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their ability to buy up anything that even begins to compete with them... There is a key difference being being able to afford to buy anything, and actually being able to buy anything. The competing founders need to be willing to sell. If a competitor arises that is mission-driven, Facebook cannot buy them.
I'd like to see you stare that Billion Dollars in the eye and say 'no thank you, these are my principles'. Bonus points if you can do it with your spouse and children by your side.
I get frustrated over these pairs. What are Facebook supposed to do? They could spend billions moderating every comment and like, but they'd piss off every politicians world wide and the users would all cry censorship (and that's if they get it perfectly correct). They could pick a side, but the same would apply with slightly fewer pissed off people. They could do nothing and save billions and piss off less people. A…
You're right, moderation at Facebook's scale isn't feasible. It's the scale itself that's the problem. They've focused so much on "making the world more open and connected " that they never stopped to think how that could be weaponized.
How about stopping the idiotic tool blaming and blaming the bad actors?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> If someone incites hatred against ethnic groups on facebook you can respond and reach the readers of the original post. > "Just tell people that racism is bad" What do you think "inciting ethnic hatred" means? Telling people that ethnic hatred is good? So that the only possible reply is that actually ethnic hatred is bad? No it involves conspiracy theories about an ethnic group, accusations against them, in short,…
They can be contradicted, but it's very hard to definitively refute them in a way that will convince somebody who wishes to believe it. Even people without a stake in it will often conclude, "I heard X, I heard Y, sounds to me like it could go either way." If anything, they're taken in by how short and empirical those statements are: it makes them seem more true because after all, if it were false I'd see the evidenc…
Still an improvement compared to "I heard X", which is the default with radio and books.
Is it just me, or does it seem like, with both social media and “tech” in general, that the ‘regulation axe’ is grinding - and that it is only a matter of time that these algorithms core to these companies’ business models ‘suffer’ from likely blunt, harsh regulatory instruments that will broadly stop this kind of influence and manipulation. By doing so, it will also significantly harm these business models (and valu…
What those grandstanding demagogue idiots want is about as relevant as all of the other non Section 320 parts of the CDA that got thrown out by the courts.