611–620 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like it's the FBI's credibility that is shot - imagine Facebook had done nothing and it HAD been a Russian propaganda operation ?
By this logic nobody should ever publish anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A few years back it started showing me obvious political ragebait. I ignored it and then it started showing me pictures of women whose nipples were obviously showing through their clothing, which was an improvement, but still not the reason I signed up for Facebook. Same experience. Then, after ignoring that, I've started getting posts from mystery people who seem like they could be aquaintences (because hobbies) bu…
How about a choice for which social circle you'd like to view at one time. We could call it "Circles".
In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
So what? Pavel nicked the entire concept of Facebook from Zuckerberg.
In Pavel's interview with Tucker Carlson, he mentions how he (VK) met with Zuckerberg, and he told them new features they were planning. And Zuck nicked them all. Zuck is on a major PR campaign drive, I would not trust a word he says.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> before the Immaculate Assassination Attempt Can you explain what you mean be "Immaculate Assassination Attempt"?
I personally just say it never happened, the reactions from people are funnier when you say the photos of it are AI generated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it’s in the news because it’s being made newsworthy, not because it’s new. “A U.S. federal judge,” in 2023 “restricted some agencies and officials of the administration of President Joe Biden from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content” [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-blocks-us-officials-comm...
More to the point: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/scotus-tosses-cl... "On Wednesday, the Supreme Court tossed out claims that the Biden administration coerced social media platforms into censoring users by removing COVID-19 and election-related content."
- some people cannot think abstractly about speech, because it is skewed because of actions of Elon Musk, or Zuckerberg, or other individuals - it is certain that governments want to control the narrative, and it is not always done in our interests - sometime actions are done to help us, but [disinformation enters the room] - Everything at CEO level is "political" - centralization of social media and forums allowed f…
> I do not know if there is a clean, ethical way to "run the social media" Darn, I guess we will have to shut down social media since it cannot be run ethically. A tough loss for the world..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like it's the FBI's credibility that is shot - imagine Facebook had done nothing and it HAD been a Russian propaganda operation ?
> HAD been a Russian propaganda operation But it wasn’t. And everyone who looked the videos of Hunter smoking crack, and his text messages discussing Joe Biden involved in business dealings, and his relationship with his 24yo niece knew it wasn’t “Russian Disinformation”. It was obviously real, and hidden from everyone in order to influence the election. It was censorship at request of the government and election int…
I think anybody can tell this information wasn’t obtained fraudulently. It is notable though that the same press is currently sitting on hacked documents from Iran from the Trump campaign…