831–840 of 890 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marx wasn't a scientist. He didn't follow the scientific method. He was a lazy pseudo-intellectual who cherry-picked particular pieces of history to support his preferred narrative.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with his work and influence. You could easily fix that with a bit of effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been a male (it's in my profile!) for all 22 years (yikes) I've been using facebook. I don't get that stuff.
There is definitely more to this. I’ve been on Facebook since it opened up to the public, and they know for a fact that I am a guy. I literally only use it to communicate with family. I logged in today on both desktop and iOS, and the only thing I saw were updates from friends/family that I personally know.The only AI things were from a nerdy friend that created/shared/disclosed of it being AI, the rest was real stuf…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely think we will look back at the algorithmic content feed as being on par with leaded gasoline or cigarettes in terms of societal harm. Maybe worse since it is engineered to be as addictive as possible down to an individual level. Then again maybe I'm being too optimistic that it will be fixed before it destroys us.
I think it's worse, cigarettes never threatened democracy the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved treat the company as a traditional publisher because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230
If there is an algorithm, the social media platform is exactly as responsible for the content as any publisher
If it is only a straight chronological feed of posts by actually followed accts, the social media platform gets Section 230 protections.
The social media platforms have gamed the law, gotten legitimate protections for/from what their users post, but then they manipulate it to their advantage more than any publisher.
>>the solution is real easy, section 230 should not apply if there's an recommendation algorithm involved
>>treat the company as a traditional publisher
>>because they are, they're editorialising by selecting the content
>>vs, say, the old style facebook wall (a raw feed from user's friends), which should qualify for section 230
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the voice of experience but if you're going to post a comment like this, could you please share some of that experience so we know at least some of what did happen? Otherwise it comes across as a drive-by swipe, which is a human reaction when you know that something on the internet is wrong, but which degrades the threads, partly because of the example it sets for others. The life of this community depen…
Fair and sorry about that Specifically what happened, and I think this is all public now is that prior to 2016 journalists and news organizations argued that Facebook was demoting news for various reasons. In reality it wasn't very engaging so it was automatically demoted. They promised to boost news more in early 2016, but largely as a result of worse engagement and negative experiences (arguing in comments) Faceboo…
My feed has devolved into AI generated propaganda with a scary amount of genuine support. Police brutality against minorities and other politically relevant groups; all fake but with hundreds of seemingly real replies cheering them on.
Maybe the replies are also fake to drive the narrative It is interesting where you go on (eg. echo chambers) but like 9gag for example is super racist and doesn't seem to be moderated. Like TruthSocial do real people actually use that? Crazy
First result is Trump's page, which I could access without a login.
There is the same ad "Featured Ad. Must See Video. This Video Will Soon Be Banned. Watch Before It's Deleted" repeated about a dozen times on the page, showing a woman wearing booty shorts approaching a private jet.
Looks very highbrow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my feed was filled images of children wearing bathing suits and in suggestive positions > I was taking screenshots for a while More than a little surprised this seemed like a good idea at the time, let alone that you did so for a while without thinking "There is no scenario this ends well"
It does sound bad, and yes I deleted them. I wanted to convince my friends at Meta of what I was seeing. They didn't believe me until I showed them.
> is this just something wacky with my algorithm? Yes. Your training data for algorithmically answering the question of “what will they engage habitually with next?” is ten years old. They’re almost certainly not resting on this usecase, coasting on you adding a new friend, or replying to some messages, or doing SOMETHING to steer the “recent context” part of the algorithm. Which you’re probably not doing, right? Any…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the creepiest aspects of this is that the 'thirsty content' is mainly mainly AI-generated pictures by spammers who know what they are doing, but also includes 'correlated' posts by normal users. Eg you have a 15-year-old daughter and post a picture of her smiling in school uniform on Instagram because it's her birthday or something. The algorithm takes that post and shows it to randomly selected men who often…
> The algorithm takes that post and shows it to randomly selected men who often interact with pictures of attractive female teenagers, even though none of your other posts get shared like this outside of your connections. What evidence suggests this? I don't use any Meta services and I absolutely hate them and consider them evil. I know they do awful, terrible things and if someone has evidence of this I will believe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The algorithm takes that post and shows it to randomly selected men who often interact with pictures of attractive female teenagers, even though none of your other posts get shared like this outside of your connections. What evidence suggests this? I don't use any Meta services and I absolutely hate them and consider them evil. I know they do awful, terrible things and if someone has evidence of this I will believe…
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/20/parents-o...
Meta is beyond evil, like waaaaay beyond evil. In a normal society (that ship has said for us a while ago) the company would be shut down and everyone running it at the top level would be in prison for life
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I unfollowed everyone except for a few family members. It really wants to give you the infinite scroll and started showing me some really bizarre stuff. So much AI slop, and random content. For about a week it kept showing me nursing mothers, no matter how many times I said "I don't want to see this" and blocking. I have no problem with women nursing, but these were done in a way to be sexually provocative. After tha…
I can recommend using Social Fixer addon [1] on your laptop. On my phone, I use Nobook [2] which isn't quite as effective. They both do a good job though of removing loads of the useless stuff on Facebook. 1. https://socialfixer.com/ 2. https://github.com/ycngmn/Nobook