241–250 of 719 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ooh! "Fake story", "mainstream US narratives", "discourse"! All the greatest hits. You forgot "alternative facts".
It has some of the earmarks of a something is up. You do not go from nobody to 60 min interviews that quick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…
> Tracking everything people do isn't a "business model"—it's a crime. Um, no it's not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.
I don't know if people become antivaxxer because of FB. Antivaxxers and science deniers didn't wait for FB to believe in their theories. It's like blaming the telephone because terrorists use it.
It's not "Hey want to deny science?". It's "Vaccines change your DNA", "Vaccines contain mercury", "The Vaccine is not FDA approved, could it be because it causes cancer"? Many, many people had no opinion on vaccines and were radicalized on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She’ll get a book deal, it’ll be okay. I’m certain she thought this through and has political connections that she made deals with. Remember, attacking social media is the same as when politicians sit around and debate Abortion. It’s mostly a non-issue (in the way Roe v Wade won’t ever be overturned, but will always be a discussion point to pretend like you are doing something without doing anything). Politicians won…
I don't really disagree with what you wrote, but it is pretty defeatist. > The business model straight works, and money talks. Yeah, well, so did slave labor for most of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries in America. People had to rise up and demand change that went against money. Until our collective greed abates or society comes unraveled, I guess we'll have to just sit around glued to our screens like the helpless…
With respect to our current situation, change won’t come because everyone will realize that social media promotes some of the darker patterns of human nature (narcissism, vanity, compulsion/compulsive/obsessive consumption of gossip/conflict, grandstanding, etc), it’ll change for more … practical/clinical reasons. We don’t want our data and our privacy encroached upon. There won’t be a shred of human enlightenment involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found your post hard to follow overall. For example, who does this apply to and why? > Pretty entitled to believe you’re the only perspective worth listening to.
I mean it's fairly well laid out of a topic. Which part specifically are you having trouble with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And for others, it radicalizes them to conspiracy theories. "Just don't use it" isn't nice advice when you're mom's become an antivaxxer because facebook kept telling her about it and made it seem like local common consensus.
Ok. Maybe your mom shouldn’t use it.
I hope that the conversation about this turns into a discussion about the business model of Facebook and most other social media sites that are designed around maximizing engagement for advertising revenue. I realize the difference between buying advertisements for extremely popular television (like the super bowl) and buying advertisements targeting specific demographics on facebook is very subtle. But there is a di…
It's not just product advertising, it's also political advertising which gets even creepier in my opinion. The two major outfits in 2016 (BlueLabs for Clinton, Cambridge Analytica for Trump) were spending hundreds of millions on these kind of targeted ad campaigns according to numerous disclosures. For example, I imagine Team Trump would target the white supremacist crowd (a relatively small % of the public) with one…
I find it weird for a whistleblower to be so "lib", as the kids say. She said she 'loves' Facebook, and wants to fix it, not harm it. I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choo…
> I don't want Facebook fixed and I do want Facebook harmed. I don't want the government to meddle with what types of things people can say online, I want them to ban the business model of stalking people online and selling intimate details of their lives. If the problem is Facebook choosing profits over public good, then cut off the profits. This is obvious. Bingo. Make stalking at scale the same as stalking by cree…
Could you point me to a law that codifies this as crime?
I have yet to see convincing proof of widespread or significant harm caused by tracking/retargeting. These arguments always seem to rely on hyperbole and redefining terms and norms.
No, I don’t work at FB. No, I don’t work in digital advertising.
Some of the whistleblowing stuff about FB's numbers being fake was interesting. Quite why the whistleblower is making statements about democracy is unclear to me.
It seems like democracy has been harmed far more by removing popular politicians from social media, and throwing them down the memory hole...democracy is inherently about differing opinions and conflict, that is how it works (when political pamphleteering started in the late 16th century, there wasn't lots of political analysis...it was salacious gossip about whether a certain well-known public figure was a secret Catholic or possibly having sex with the Devil). I see more politicians who believe their opponents are bad and should be silenced than actual concern for democracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spot on. I have a golden rule of social media discussions. If I can tell your politics by listening to your complaints about social media, you don't have anything interesting to add to the conversation. These are systemic issues. They exist because the systems exist in symbiosis. What you would like social media to do or say is not only besides the point, it's indicative (to me) that you don't even understand the nat…
> it's indicative (to me) that you don't even understand the nature of the problem And this is spot on. It what makes me alternatively have head-exploding frustration or pretty dark nihilism, and check out of politics beyond keeping tabs on what tech regulations might impact the industry. 99% of the "what's next" commentary from leaders and systems with power outside of the tech industry totally miss the point. They…
Apologies that I have no advice as far as what to do. My plan is to keep being the annoying person every now and then in the back of the room that says "It's broken. Here's why" without being too obnoxious or over-the-top. As I used to tell teams I managed, we can't always solve all of the problems we're given, but it's our responsibility to publish our problems to others in the hope that somebody else has a missing piece. A big part of the mess we've created so far has been people thinking they could understand the entire thing and just tweak it a little bit to get it to do what they want. We should not join that crowd.