Facebook & Social Media
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
I thought we had this settled 120 years ago: when what is good for a corporation is bad for society. Antitrust laws need to be focused on social media (= fully distributed propaganda, with the worst being most profitable) at this time.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
a slightly slippery slope there, people have a right to have their own opinions...even if those opinions are distasteful or offensive to some people. where do you draw the line between distasteful speech and hate speech? if it offends you, does that make it hate speech, or does that just make you easily offended?
social media platforms can make a claim that all they do is provide a stage, with very little control over the actors that use it, and that attempting to control that access is censorship. is it facebook or twitters responsibility to make sure everyone accessing their platform is intelligent enough to make responsible decisions when exposed to other peoples statements?
it should be and is their responsibility to keep foreign agents and hate groups off of their platform, which they seem to fail miserably at, and to remove hate speech and dis/misinformation, which they seem to be slightly better at, but still not close to good enough...but they have almost 3 billion users worldwide...how do you police 3 billion people posting multiple times daily? according to reuters, there are 111 languages supported on facebook, and another 31 widely used that have no support...3 billion people posting in 142 languages every day...policing that kind of volume is a big job.
i'm more concerned about the psychological damage being done to users every day from information overload. people were never designed to deal with that kind of input, on a nonstop daily basis. even if they figured out how to stop all the hatespeech and propaganda, there is still irreparable damage being done to most of their users every day, just from participating in the thunderous avalanche of information
social media platforms can make a claim that all they do is provide a stage, with very little control over the actors that use it, and that attempting to control that access is censorship. is it facebook or twitters responsibility to make sure everyone accessing their platform is intelligent enough to make responsible decisions when exposed to other peoples statements?
it should be and is their responsibility to keep foreign agents and hate groups off of their platform, which they seem to fail miserably at, and to remove hate speech and dis/misinformation, which they seem to be slightly better at, but still not close to good enough...but they have almost 3 billion users worldwide...how do you police 3 billion people posting multiple times daily? according to reuters, there are 111 languages supported on facebook, and another 31 widely used that have no support...3 billion people posting in 142 languages every day...policing that kind of volume is a big job.
i'm more concerned about the psychological damage being done to users every day from information overload. people were never designed to deal with that kind of input, on a nonstop daily basis. even if they figured out how to stop all the hatespeech and propaganda, there is still irreparable damage being done to most of their users every day, just from participating in the thunderous avalanche of information
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
To the first paragraph, my response is “ While I despise what you say, I will defend your right to say it.”
Then I’ll exercise my right to call what he says utter divisive crap.
As for information overload, I think the bigger issue is disinformation overload. The social media bigs have admitted to/bragged about how the unfettered disinformation is making’em rich. There will be no solution without a dismantlement of these pirate corporations by resolute government.
With all the self-celebrating evil we have seen from the biggest entities, I want to see them broken on the wheel of civil suits.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
They don't have 3 billion users, they have 3 billion accounts. Facebook says 5% are fake, independent analysis puts it at 50% fake.
More than 50 percent of Facebook users are fake according to a report
"Facebook has been lying to the public about the scale of its problem with fake accounts, which likely exceed 50% of its network. Its official metrics—many of which it has stopped reporting quarterly—are self-contradictory and even farcical. The company has lost control of its own product." It is
britewire.com
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
IMO it comes down to a pretty simple thing of graffiti.
What people do online is essentially tagging a business with their 'free speech'. Not only does businesses have the right to clean up graffiti on their premises, but they can be fined if they leave it up. There are also fines for people doing the tagging.
The problem is that the incentives for posting online are all screwed up.
If you have propagandists paying trolls 25 cents for every post and everyone who is a legit person not getting anything the pushing of the lies are of course going to drown out any rational voices. The companies that make money with social media also making more money based on this fake engagement means that it actually hurts their pocket to fix these issues too.
I really like the idea to pay people for posting. That way if people are posting bullshit they can be fined from those earnings and there is some kind of incentive for people to not spread the lies.
https://www.rollitup.org/t/i-actually-think-this-guy-is-worth-listening-to.1032546/
That really is what I would think it is too (50%). FThey don't have 3 billion users, they have 3 billion accounts. Facebook says 5% are fake, independent analysis puts it at 50% fake.
More than 50 percent of Facebook users are fake according to a report
"Facebook has been lying to the public about the scale of its problem with fake accounts, which likely exceed 50% of its network. Its official metrics—many of which it has stopped reporting quarterly—are self-contradictory and even farcical. The company has lost control of its own product." It is
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
that works for me, i have no use at all for social media that goes past the level of this website...if you can call this social media. we do "socialize i guess, but this is pretty fucking far from facebook.
they are aware of the evil shit being spread on their platforms, and seem to be fine with it, as long as it's making them money...i'd have shut the fuckers down the day it became apparent that they're a tool for foreign powers to influence our society
injinji
Well-Known Member
I have two accounts that I remember. My regular one that I almost never use, and one I made up to enter a free seed drawing. Neither one is in my real name.They don't have 3 billion users, they have 3 billion accounts. Facebook says 5% are fake, independent analysis puts it at 50% fake.
More than 50 percent of Facebook users are fake according to a report
"Facebook has been lying to the public about the scale of its problem with fake accounts, which likely exceed 50% of its network. Its official metrics—many of which it has stopped reporting quarterly—are self-contradictory and even farcical. The company has lost control of its own product." It is
Hiddengems
Well-Known Member
First a fake whistleblower says the problem at Facebook is they need even more censorship. Then the name change shell Corp to escape coming antitrust cases.
It's called free speech. When people say dumb shit idiots believe it. The answer is never censorship, it's the light of truth.
Every great thing we have is due to fringe ideas. Most of what the fringe produces is utter crap. But elininating the fringe also gets rid of every breakthrough.
I don't have Facebook because social media isn't interesting to me. Lots of cats, and people thinking they're going to change the minds of others through spouting talking points. No real info.
It's called free speech. When people say dumb shit idiots believe it. The answer is never censorship, it's the light of truth.
Every great thing we have is due to fringe ideas. Most of what the fringe produces is utter crap. But elininating the fringe also gets rid of every breakthrough.
I don't have Facebook because social media isn't interesting to me. Lots of cats, and people thinking they're going to change the minds of others through spouting talking points. No real info.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
When you have a sizable rogue contingent who use free speech to tell subversive lies, how do you introduce truth, especially when it has been proven that providing a liars’ pulpit really excites the shareholders?
Censorship is a fighting word. But the folks making billions on dishonest pandering need to be broken. There is a difference between censorship and denying hateful lies free rein to produce instances of sedition.
What you suggest is as perversely attractive but ultimately horrible as a church telling its faithful that getting medical care is unholy.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
a fake whistle blower? fake?...ok...how is a company changing it's name supposed to help them avoid antitrust cases? or any other cases? names of corporations are registered, and any changes are registered, changing the name of your company doesn't hide it...
it's not called free speech, it's called propaganda and disinformation, and the answer to that is definitely censorship....
"everything we do" does not come from the "fringe" ..most of it comes from hard work by people who took the time and put in the effort to learn what they needed to know about their chosen fields. a lot of discoveries came from accidents, that doesn't make them "fringe"...most of the "fringe" on facebook are actually paid foreign agents assigned to keep the simple minded stirred up and pissed off...so, assignment completed i guess....
that is one of the most completely wrong posts i have ever seen...almost like a bad lefty troll is practicing....
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
The bolded is smooth-sounding horseshit. Horseshit makes a poor foundation for anything strong, durable or otherwise right. You built a turd castle. They dont do well with rain (arraign?) in the forecast.
Hiddengems
Well-Known Member
Bad ideas die their own death.
The problem is typical. "There is a problem, fix it now"
Not all problems have an immediate fix. Very often any fix that promises to work 100% of the time, right away, doesn't fix anything. They often make things worse.
When the speech calls for specific acts of physical violence, or seeks to gather people to perform an illegal act as a group, it's not free speech.
Hiddengems
Well-Known Member
Basic human rights were once a fringe idea held by heretics.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I submit to the forum an example of the logical fallacy called The Slippery Slope argument.
Slippery Slope
A slippery slope argument assumes that a certain course of action will necessarily lead to a chain of future events. The slippery slope fallacy takes a benign premise or starting point and suggests that it will lead to unlikely or ridiculous outcomes with no supporting evidence.
You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: "But you have to let me go to the party! If I don't go to the party, I'll be a loser with no friends. Next thing you know, I'll end up alone and jobless, living in your basement when I'm 30!"
@Hiddengems stupid little slippery slope fallacy is based upon a falsehood. Speech on Facebook is not protected free speech under the Constitution. Not if Facebook regulates it. Also, speech used to conspire to commit a crime is not protected. So, you are wrong about that. I'm not even stating an opinion I'm just stating the facts. . You are objectively wrong.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Another glittering stinker. A historian could probably destroy it, but my background is other.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Frances Haugan's allegations, were declared under penalty of perjury. Your statement about her was not. I don't believe you.
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
Tell that to the tens of millions who waited for the Reich and the Workers’ Paradise to die their own deaths. You seem selectively cruel,
Hiddengems
Well-Known Member
So trans rights weren't a fringe issue 20, hell 10 years ago?
Hiddengems
Well-Known Member
What free speech killed them? Or was it actual physical violence.
Speech is not violence.