71–80 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up? Google is a far more threatening power over my day to day activities.
They all have an enormous effect on your life whether or not you use them. Yes, Google should be broken up too.
The millisecond I clicked on this article, the first sentence looks very strange: > Facebook Inc. will pay $130 million to establish an independent board charged with reviewing how the company moderates its content... First of all, isn't it ironic that the owner of the largest social networks in the world is attempting to fund a independent court / board for content with Facebook money? If they're not the only ones b…
> a independent court Facebook picks board members who then pick more board members. The sole financial backer is Facebook. At a whim, Mark Zuckerberg could ignore, re-constitute or disband the board. It's far from independent.
Alas I cannot, so I'll just continue to foo(); bar(); baz(); my way along.
Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.
My solution is do not use Facebook.
Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.
> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)
If you do what Twitter is now doing[1], "restrict rather than outright ban", you're back to having to serve as an arbiter.
[1]https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/15/20966897/twitter-politic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here. Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference" Surely You're NOT suggesting: "Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony…
> We require the dogmatic, bureaucratic oversight of speech to create harmony This is an open, legitimate debate. It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition. Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary. If the market presents a diversity of services, no one system of moderation gets a stranglehold on public discourse. Facebook, however, is dominant. As a result…
Here's the thought experiment validating what Im claiming about driving out dissenting views:
Where do the ideas that are pushed out of facebook go?
Do you think they just go away? Absolutely not.
The problems is zuck is culturally beholden to his droves of socially 'woke' employees. Nor does Zuck strike anyone asa persona strong enough to do anything other than 'tow the line' of that narrative.
Socially, hes a lap-dog.
Which is why this 'Supreme Court' is being established. Homeboy cant shoulder the weight (in the court of public-opinion) of the moral judgements being made, so hes throwing $130 million so someone else's name sits at the top of that list.
IMO the only thing this is doing is creating monsters + pushing the work of social integration down the line. Its a bad short-term strategy.
Atop the list of problems here is that facebook loses oversight/engagement w the most dangerous of outside thought-leaders. Inadvertently, putting themselves in the dark.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)
The problem is that leaves you open to e.g. Car companies putting out ads that promote their gas guzzling cars while banning climate change ads that might warn of the consequences of using such vehicles. If you do what Twitter is now doing[1], "restrict rather than outright ban", you're back to having to serve as an arbiter. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/15/20966897/twitter-politic...
My comment suggests no such banning. The ads simply couldn't be micro-targeted. They'd also need to be made public, so the public, journalists and other interest groups could review, vet and respond to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're denying the existence of a problem, not offering a solution Incorrect. Im saying the solution IS NOT the dogmatic oversight that facebook is pursuing here. Instead the solution is: "The droves of people using facebook are sufficiently large that an organic zeitgeist can emerge without interference" Surely You're NOT suggesting: "Yes we require the dogmatic, bureaucratic, oversight of speech to create harmony…
> We require the dogmatic, bureaucratic oversight of speech to create harmony This is an open, legitimate debate. It's complicated with Facebook due to its lack of competition. Companies moderating speech on their services is time tested and likely necessary. If the market presents a diversity of services, no one system of moderation gets a stranglehold on public discourse. Facebook, however, is dominant. As a result…
Not at FBs scale
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Ban non-geographically targeted political ads. Create a public repository of all political ads. Creating a puppet entity and calling it a court is dishonest and insulting. (The only proper solution, of course, is breaking up Facebook into, at the very least, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. Concentrated market power is the fundamental problem.)
I have no obligation to use any of these services, why do they need to be broken up? Google is a far more threatening power over my day to day activities.
In fairness, here in the UK at least, the print media are going nuts about Facebook and Google failing to stop fake news and politicians' lies. Coincidentally they're bashing their competitors for something they themselves do just as much, make of that what you will... That is one reason fb (and maybe Google too and twitter and whoever else) are donating: make an independent sock puppet, they can decide and you just…
Hey I am a Facebook employee and I am really confused by all the comments here. Really feels like a "Damned if you do/Damned if you don't" situation. Can anybody actually suggest a better alternative? Not saying there isn't one, I am just not seeing one being proposed.
Maybe this is something that you (=FB) should have given some thought before navigating yourself into that situation. Finding a solution for this is hardly anything that outsiders should have to do. Solve the mess yourself and better do it fast.