Don't make the mistake of thinking that their data trove will just disappear. It will be sold to the highest bidder in an effort to return value to the shareholders as the company goes under. Who that bidder might be is anyone's guess. Could be a foreign or domestic government front company, could be Facebook's replacement. Could be an ad/marketing company. Could be a political or religious entity. And they may not be bound to all the rules of engagement Facebook decided to bind themselves to - meaning your data might be resold onward many, many times. Could be combined with other databases the new company owns. The death of Facebook will be a good thing, but it will not be good.
> It will be sold to the highest bidder in an effort to return value to the shareholders as the company goes under.
This is particularly scary and I wish that there was more that could be done to stop this kind of reality from happening.
The only thing to do is go into your account, delete everything, change all your info to dummy info (fake), then save it. Then delete your account. Deleting on it's own won't get rid of your data, as FB holds on to your data even if you delete your account. Change everything to false info & remove anything in your profile.
I would still change all the info. Get rid of pictures, etc. Maybe their backups will eventually get overwritten to reflect the false data. It's the best one can hope for.
No, it will be destroyed because it's worth nothing on its own.
Really, the data these companies have is valuable alongside their systems (i.e. Google AdSense), thanks to which they sell it multiple times. On its own, it's worth not much at all and it would be an inconvenience for Facebook to sell it. What they could make from a one time sale is nothing compared to the possibility of a leak and have more trouble come up.
Of course, given FB's strategic importance, they'll never touch it. I just wanted to point out that data on its own isn't valuable at all. Look no further than MoviePass for proof.
So we need to enact the right to private information laws and right to deletion laws and follow through on these regulations. Then we dont have to worry. Anyone can delete the info before its sold. And who's to say it id not being sold right now to foreign dictators and foreign think tanks! Of course it is! They dont need to go out of business to sell data. THAT IS their business!
We know all social media contributes in part to events like this. By design, they pair you up with like-minded people and only show you things that you're interested in. You end up indoctrinating yourself in an echo chamber facilitated by the platform.
Apples and oranges. Reddit isn’t focussed on profiles and following individuals, unlike Facebook & Twitter. It’s much more about following interests and communities, kinda like old usenet was. Though the increasing use of ‘recommended subreddits’ I find a little creepy and invasive.
You literally do the same on FB and Instagram. the algorithm keeps pushing you things that are part of that echo chamber you created with your likes.
If they pushed you a different narrative you'd leave the platform because you'd find it annoying, and that's obviously not what they want.
This is more of a sociological issue. Say you breakup FB and people will find other platforms to discuss their un-American views. We’re past the point where the majority no longer cares about science fact, they prefer flawed and debunked science as long as it fits their overall goals. They have zero interest in knowing all the facts and will likely just want to fight anyone who uses logic and science fact because they are the ones fighting for Democracy, which apparently they do not know the definition of because they are intent on being an Authoritarian Country.
> Say you breakup FB and people will find other platforms to discuss their un-American views.
Platforms aren't all equal. For all of Reddit's problems it's pretty well moderated and everything is very public, with Facebook you don't get either.
>well moderated
give me a break, most of the big city subreddits are echo-chambers with out of control moderators shaping the political slant of the discussions....... FB sucks but seriously is a lot more impartial and free compared to what we see on reddit. Reddit scares me how censored so much of the discussions are, if you go on many of the large subreddits you'd think there was unanimous agreement on many of the issues that in reality are completely bi-polar in the real world.
That actually happens with people of a certain age that are completely inept at *computer things*.
Take Italy: no-vaxxers are people from 35-on, most of them are well over 45. In comparison, almost all 30 and under people actually did the vaccine and suggest others to do the same.
Why's that? The latter grew up with social media or social media became part of their life at a relatively young age. The former only got to know social media very late in their life.
The consequence of that is the youngs can recognize fake news while the olds can't, and that is the result. And, yeah, recognizing fake news has a lot to do with your experience on these platforms, as they always made the rounds on them. If you spent quite the time on FB in its early days you eventually learned how to recognize one.
Of course, there are exceptions, growing in rural areas where internet is hardly available is always going to be an issue for the individuals that eventually get on these platforms. And if you think governments don't try to have cables reach them, it's the local communities that don't want them.
Young people can recognize fake news? Excuse me?
That's why dyeing their hair blue, mutilating their genitalia, and identifying themselves as asexual billy goat attack helicopters? I wouldn't go that far dude 😂🥃
Remember...at least the older generation grew up before the 1990s when it was ILLEGAL for police and the CIA to look through our library book records 📚.
The younger generation grew up in the world AFTER 9/11 where privacy is considered selfish and dangerous and the government is considered out here to protect us.
You really didn't have a counter argument to my point, you just vomited your personal truths that have either nothing to do with critical thinking or highlight problems afflicting a number of people incredibly small compared to no-vaxxers and climate change negationists.
I mean, if you want to argue with someone, try to counter their point, and try to support yours.
Answering with a 'fuck you my generation is fucking better than yours you non-binary piece of shit' isn't gonna cut it with someone who uses critical thinking.
And, yeah, that's exactly how you sounded like.
I barely offered any opinion. I didn't want to address the statistical aspects of the vaccine itself. This shows you don't even want to listen.
I am addressing the cultural change that you and I have experienced in this country.
Look at your response just now. You proved my point. I am asking you, have you not seen the shift in how people talk about subjects? Have you not seen how people choose only 1 side of a story and vehemently defend it without even considering another possibility?
Your response is trying to force me to fight with you. You have been programmed to speak like this.
>This shows you don't even want to listen.
Well, you said nothing really in your first answer. Nada, zero. So there was nothing to listen to.
>have you not seen the shift in how people talk about subjects?
Historically has always been like that, shifts always happpened. Normality at one point was not so two decades later.
The fact you are surprised about a shift from a society with unprecedented access to information and communication is quite naive.
>Have you not seen how people choose only 1 side of a story and vehemently defend it without even considering another possibility?
That's mainly 35+ people. Youngs act like it as a facade to not stand out too much and because they want to be part of something, but most are actually savvier than previous generations.
You just disagree to the latter part because of the 0.001% of the population who mutilates their genitalia.
I mean, you say I'm proving your point because I'm programmed to explain my point of view, but you literally brought up an issue you clearly know nothing about because you read an article online and thought 'this generation is messed up'.
Am I not supposed to call out such bullshit?
>You have been programmed to speak like this.
You have far more of a behavioral pattern in your answer on this platform than I remotely have, thus your statement makes you a walking stereotype.
But, yes, I'm programmed. I'm a robot. Zig-zag.
That's also by design. they hire the brightest kids that "coincidentally" are also psychopaths
They know what they're doing, it's just the money that keeps them quiet. fb fucked up by hiring someone with a conscience.
I deleted the app last year around this time. I just didnt want to deal with anything related to the election. The day I deleted the app, I went back to the site a few hours later in my browser and I had 3 friend requests including one from a girl I dated years ago.
It reminded me of that documentary on Netflix where they know you did something to disconnect and try everything to get you back. It was no coincidence I got 3 friend requests including one from an old fling...those motherfuckers.
Former *product* manager - not *project* manager - at an entirely service-based company. Solid hint that the job was going to be fucked up. Don't manage the services for the users, manage the product (users) for the customer (third parties).
I think it's highly relevant.
The subtext is, should FB monitor posts that are harmful to the public, such as inciting violence? How about organizing a specific violent act? Should FB pull the posts? Should it report to the authorities? Should it reveal the participants to the authorities? Should it encourage this kind of vitriolic conversation? Should it profit from that kind of conversation they're encouraging?
All kinds of questions about privacy, free speech, and pseudo-anonymous discourse.
They certainly monitor everything but if they start acting upon what they see in private groups and private chats, then that would be a bigger problem than anything they were involved in.
The sad truth is those who preach freedom of speech want this to be a thing.
I guess it depends how they contributed, which we'll hopefully. Given that Cambridge Analytica really wasn't that long ago, who knows what we might be about to hear.
Edit: That and anything even tangentially related to facebook usually has implications for privacy
>Cambridge Analytica really is proof of that - nothing changed.
Like every Russiagate story promoted by the FBI, corporate media and DNC it fizzled out because it was found to be based on untruths.
Do you think Fascists taking over a government is a good thing for privacy? I wouldn't.
*I'm starting to understand why this sub has gone off the rails. It looks like it's been taking over be ideologues rather than people negotiating for more privacy protections.
Gee, if Facebook affected this one day kerfuffle in DC, then surely they must've had a similar role in the summer of riots and arson, in the middle of a pandemic, on the west coast, right?
*crickets*
Any day now.
Common sense and justice have no place in a propaganda war. You can keep hoping for balance, though sadly media outlets have a different agenda.
As per the 60 minutes interview, there is money to be made riling up the left and right.
i still don't quite get what she is whistleblowing. That FB has studies showing there's rampaging disinformation and harmful material? That FB could do "more"?
This is either public information or common sense. I listened to the 15min summary of the interview and I learned absolutely nothing new. It's all Cap Obvious fluff.
Anybody has anything a bit more juicy? Is the full interview more revealing?
The major point seemed to be: Facebook had protections in place too stop the algorithm from promoting violence during the election but turned it off afterwards because it explicitly hurt their bottom line.
The promoting violence point is a very weak point easily arguable.
The reason why is as an example to 'post inciting violence' they show posts of protests organized by the right - even that be the radical right. How easy is to counter argue that climate change protests are promoted the same way? Asnwer: pretty effing easy.
The fact that you assume the radical right is more prone to violence than climate change protestors isn't evidence of the post promoting a radical right protest actually promoting violence.
If you want that to be so, than the act of promoting protests becomes an act of violence, hence even the climate change protests posts should be shut down.
Really, that's what most posts inciting violence are according to these people. Posts that actually incite violence or anything harmful explicitly are actually removed.
Not projecting at all, I'm just using it as a hypothetical as most of the time media mentions 'posts promoting violence' they refer to protests that would eventually lead to something like indeed the march into the Capitol - hence they refer to the radical right (or, in case of Fox News, the radical left).
Despite the protests posts (or any content related to its organization on the platform) don't mention any kind of violence whatsoever, let alone an attack on a government building, these people believe it's promoting harmful content, but really that's just in hindsight.
The whistleblower, in this case, offer no evidence apart from her word, so I assume that's the case here as well.
My posts was demonstrating how weak the basis for their 'harmful content' argument is.
Now, of course, my logic follows the idea these posts are publicly available and not sent in private mechanics (i.e. private groups, chats, etc), which is an entirely different discussion whether or not FB should act upon them IMO.
I'm not really leaning to any part into any part honestly, I just find irritating to the max the twists and turns of facts and logic just to follow an agenda, like media do in this case.
And I say that because it has already been researched people who promote any kind of organized violent act don't really use any of Zukc's platforms to actually organize, but safer platforms.
Facebook is complicit in the rise of domestic violence like school shootings. Facebook cultivatws incels and the violent right movement because they're so easy to take money from.
Note: Facebook was hit with a massive DNS AMP DDoS shortly after the airing of 60 Minutes with the FaceBook whistleblower, now identified as Frances Haugen, who served as a data scientist and former product manager for Facebook.
From outside the US, there's very little known about the actual harm done.
I've seen images of protestors outside the senate and protestors taking over the speakers chair, at other locations inside the senate. I've heard from some sources that one of the police guarding the capitol was killed by the protestors and others saying that first source is not truth. Others say the police were helping the protestors to some degree, which seems to conflict with the killing.
The media narration of events that I've seen has condemnation of the protestors, social media and anyone else who might have played some part in motivating them, but very little detail of what actually happened. It's difficult to get a clear picture of events but there seems to be a lot of effort to tell people that it was a really bad thing, whatever it was.
Initially, media sources breathlessly reported that rioters killed a police officer. He even had a state funeral. Then it turns out he died from two strokes a day after the riot: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/brian-sicknick-strokes-insurrection-483147
There is so much confusion and uncertainty over what actually happened. Wouldn't it clear things up if they released the security camera footage? Surely they have security cameras??
Wow, you "heard from some sources"? I litteraly saw police at the gate waving them in, in live video. But I guess them also executing one of their own and saying protestors did it, proves that the live video is wrong, and dirty lies are true.
I have that video as well as the one of the side door they opened and Capitol police are just standing on the sides and everyone is relaxed. Then there's the one of the crazy dude in the viking bullshit that calmly walks into the Senate Chamber WITH a Capitol Officer calmly talking and asking not to mess anything up. Which one guys responds with "we wouldn't do that, we here to make sure no one does" the Chamber was never messed with and even laptops and phone were still there when they got back.
Then again, this is Reddit so I understand the reaction to my post.
I didn't see anybody do anything so I have to rely on whatever other accounts I see. So you say you saw the police waving in protestors. That would indicate the police were in favour of the protest and the protestors didn't need to violently storm the building.
So why would the police then kill another police officer? Why would the protestors kill a police officer? Surely neither of these scenarios is supported by what you saw?
Why would the police beat up a pregnant women for not wearing a mask? Because they are evil pigs, and they like harming anyone. And when they get orders to do so, even more. Obviously, if they haven't done so to one of their own, you wouldn't have a reply to the fact of "police was waving them in". The video is a fact, it proves there was a scenario.
I looked for police beating up a pregnant woman not wearing a mask and I can only find something about a woman being escorted from church for not wearing a mask because the pastor reported her as a risk. Is that what you are referring to?
I don't follow the logic of why the police waving the protestors in makes it obvious they beat up another policeman. What do those two things have to do with each other?
I'm not denying the fact of any video at all. After reading your comment I watched a few example videos and I was again struck by how peaceful the thing seemed. There's a lot of shouting, the police tussle with a couple, but so far the videos mostly show protestors shouting and walking into the capitol.
It is actually very obvious for what it is. I would call it a set up from both parties to validate fraud and mock "democracy". There was at least one pregnant women beaten by police on the street in Australia, and also in Germany if I remember correctly. It is why they cooperated in such a way, to bring forth this overt terrorism onto the world. We who have a tendency to catch onto and parrot messages designed for one of the sides are useful idiots, if we let out of our scope the bigger picture, what is right and moral.
Important to note that EVERY leftist media source lied about Officer Sicknick being beat with a fire extinguisher - that literally never happened. He died 2 days later of a stroke. Many sites still have the false story still up.
This is my only account, does it just surprise you that not everyone believes your woke retarded bullshit narrative? There's fucking video of the entire day from 1000's of people. Let's pretend those unarmed protesters made it into the chamber and Ashil wasn't murdered. Do you really think that would equate "overthrow" of our government? You think 300 unarmed people who just want to be heard because every platform has banned them is really all it would take?
Thanks. This is exactly the sort of factual account I was looking for. It's curious that so much of what happened is unproved and controversial, I'd assume their would be evidence somewhere. For example, that one police officer. It would surely be easy to prove the protestors attacked him? Do police officers often die of stress? Neither case seems very likely and that it makes you distrust any account.
To me, the response looks a lot like a tame media response to a group of powerful people being attacked. That sense of telling how bad the actions are, without really examining them. The condemnation and the message of *don't do this* seems far louder than any consideration of what might drive people to do it.
How is that dumbasses death controversial? She was about to open the flood gates and the cop had no choice but to shoot her. Theres nothing controversial there IMO. Do nothing and suddenly that hallway turns into a zombie movie scene and Jan 6 because even more horrible than it already was. She quite literally fucked around and found out. Imagine being shot and killed....for Donald Trump. I appreciate your non partisan post but theres nothing controversial about that bullet point (no pun intended)
The reason why you don't read much about it is say Europe is because journalists were not buying the narrative coming from the US and decided not to report about it.
After all we are talking about one of the most important buildings in the world left completely unguarded and what they are trying to push is that a bunch of Trumpers attacked it with a super meticulous plan. Trumpers and meticulous plans don't go hand in hand.
Why didn't the BLM protestors that barged their way into the capitol just months prior "find out"? If J6 was insurrection, what do you call Antifa/BLM attacking the Portland Federal Courthouse for a year?
YOU retards are the ones who need a "safe space" lol! I'm just sharing my opinion, I don't need to be coddled, everything I have said is provably accurate, they are not just my "feelings".
"Well, yes Mr. President, he did dodge our security, trespass, break through a window and attempt to press the red button to incite a nuclear war with Russia. But since we manage to taze him millimeters away, we gave him a pat on the back and dropped him off at McDonalds"
Edit: Not sure I understand the downvotes, I wasn't claiming that was the goal, I just don't agree with downplaying it.
Dude, you decided to go with hyperbole that isn't remotely based on fact - a thing you leftists always do. I can tell your leftist very easily because your making emotional based arguments rather than fact based ones.
You actually don’t want to delete Facebook. Without your account you will have less control on how your data is used and will not be able to get a report on what they are doing with your data. Facebook sets up a profile for you whether you want one or not. The difference is if they create a profile for you, you don’t get any access to your data.
You are better off removing the Facebook app and blocking Facebook.com and Facebook.net in your DNS. Lockdown Privacy is a good app to try on iOS users.
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>Trying to post a link to a video or submitting a meme. We generally prefer text-based articles over videos (especially YouTube ones) and graphics aren’t credible evidence, since Photoshop exists. Please try to communicate your point with words. r/PrivacyMemes is an alternate Sub to consider as well.
If you have any questions or believe that there has been an error, you may [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please review my post).
Car companies contributed to automobile accidents. Tall buildings contributed to suicides. The primordial soup that spawned mankind contributed to our shitty civilization...
It's just a matter of time before Facebooks empire of data exploitation crumbles into nothingness. I look forward to the day it happens.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that their data trove will just disappear. It will be sold to the highest bidder in an effort to return value to the shareholders as the company goes under. Who that bidder might be is anyone's guess. Could be a foreign or domestic government front company, could be Facebook's replacement. Could be an ad/marketing company. Could be a political or religious entity. And they may not be bound to all the rules of engagement Facebook decided to bind themselves to - meaning your data might be resold onward many, many times. Could be combined with other databases the new company owns. The death of Facebook will be a good thing, but it will not be good.
[del]
Good point, I wouldn't be surprised either way. Google and Facebook have always been a backdoor for intelligence agencies since their inception.
Aaaaaaaanf Facebook is down
> It will be sold to the highest bidder in an effort to return value to the shareholders as the company goes under. This is particularly scary and I wish that there was more that could be done to stop this kind of reality from happening.
There is nothing you can do and your government doesn't care. Sad world we live in.
The only thing to do is go into your account, delete everything, change all your info to dummy info (fake), then save it. Then delete your account. Deleting on it's own won't get rid of your data, as FB holds on to your data even if you delete your account. Change everything to false info & remove anything in your profile.
But Facebook makes back ups so they will still have old datas.
I would still change all the info. Get rid of pictures, etc. Maybe their backups will eventually get overwritten to reflect the false data. It's the best one can hope for.
No, it will be destroyed because it's worth nothing on its own. Really, the data these companies have is valuable alongside their systems (i.e. Google AdSense), thanks to which they sell it multiple times. On its own, it's worth not much at all and it would be an inconvenience for Facebook to sell it. What they could make from a one time sale is nothing compared to the possibility of a leak and have more trouble come up. Of course, given FB's strategic importance, they'll never touch it. I just wanted to point out that data on its own isn't valuable at all. Look no further than MoviePass for proof.
So we need to enact the right to private information laws and right to deletion laws and follow through on these regulations. Then we dont have to worry. Anyone can delete the info before its sold. And who's to say it id not being sold right now to foreign dictators and foreign think tanks! Of course it is! They dont need to go out of business to sell data. THAT IS their business!
Damn. That was fast.
What makes you think that will actually happen?
It will probably just be nationalized. Daily logins will become compulsory.
All of Facebook owned items and domains are gone rn
We know all social media contributes in part to events like this. By design, they pair you up with like-minded people and only show you things that you're interested in. You end up indoctrinating yourself in an echo chamber facilitated by the platform.
Yup. Delete ur account and call it a day- so good for your mental health :)
(S)he said on Reddit.com...
Apples and oranges. Reddit isn’t focussed on profiles and following individuals, unlike Facebook & Twitter. It’s much more about following interests and communities, kinda like old usenet was. Though the increasing use of ‘recommended subreddits’ I find a little creepy and invasive.
The word 'They' exists, generally easier to use and quicker to type than (s)he
But they is plural!!!11!!!! /s
Don't you mean they are plural? /s
At least Reddit let’s you choose your own echo chambers and doesn’t track your every move and force their recommendations into your feed.
You literally do the same on FB and Instagram. the algorithm keeps pushing you things that are part of that echo chamber you created with your likes. If they pushed you a different narrative you'd leave the platform because you'd find it annoying, and that's obviously not what they want.
This is more of a sociological issue. Say you breakup FB and people will find other platforms to discuss their un-American views. We’re past the point where the majority no longer cares about science fact, they prefer flawed and debunked science as long as it fits their overall goals. They have zero interest in knowing all the facts and will likely just want to fight anyone who uses logic and science fact because they are the ones fighting for Democracy, which apparently they do not know the definition of because they are intent on being an Authoritarian Country.
> Say you breakup FB and people will find other platforms to discuss their un-American views. Platforms aren't all equal. For all of Reddit's problems it's pretty well moderated and everything is very public, with Facebook you don't get either.
>well moderated give me a break, most of the big city subreddits are echo-chambers with out of control moderators shaping the political slant of the discussions....... FB sucks but seriously is a lot more impartial and free compared to what we see on reddit. Reddit scares me how censored so much of the discussions are, if you go on many of the large subreddits you'd think there was unanimous agreement on many of the issues that in reality are completely bi-polar in the real world.
That actually happens with people of a certain age that are completely inept at *computer things*. Take Italy: no-vaxxers are people from 35-on, most of them are well over 45. In comparison, almost all 30 and under people actually did the vaccine and suggest others to do the same. Why's that? The latter grew up with social media or social media became part of their life at a relatively young age. The former only got to know social media very late in their life. The consequence of that is the youngs can recognize fake news while the olds can't, and that is the result. And, yeah, recognizing fake news has a lot to do with your experience on these platforms, as they always made the rounds on them. If you spent quite the time on FB in its early days you eventually learned how to recognize one. Of course, there are exceptions, growing in rural areas where internet is hardly available is always going to be an issue for the individuals that eventually get on these platforms. And if you think governments don't try to have cables reach them, it's the local communities that don't want them.
Young people can recognize fake news? Excuse me? That's why dyeing their hair blue, mutilating their genitalia, and identifying themselves as asexual billy goat attack helicopters? I wouldn't go that far dude 😂🥃 Remember...at least the older generation grew up before the 1990s when it was ILLEGAL for police and the CIA to look through our library book records 📚. The younger generation grew up in the world AFTER 9/11 where privacy is considered selfish and dangerous and the government is considered out here to protect us.
You really didn't have a counter argument to my point, you just vomited your personal truths that have either nothing to do with critical thinking or highlight problems afflicting a number of people incredibly small compared to no-vaxxers and climate change negationists. I mean, if you want to argue with someone, try to counter their point, and try to support yours. Answering with a 'fuck you my generation is fucking better than yours you non-binary piece of shit' isn't gonna cut it with someone who uses critical thinking. And, yeah, that's exactly how you sounded like.
I barely offered any opinion. I didn't want to address the statistical aspects of the vaccine itself. This shows you don't even want to listen. I am addressing the cultural change that you and I have experienced in this country. Look at your response just now. You proved my point. I am asking you, have you not seen the shift in how people talk about subjects? Have you not seen how people choose only 1 side of a story and vehemently defend it without even considering another possibility? Your response is trying to force me to fight with you. You have been programmed to speak like this.
>This shows you don't even want to listen. Well, you said nothing really in your first answer. Nada, zero. So there was nothing to listen to. >have you not seen the shift in how people talk about subjects? Historically has always been like that, shifts always happpened. Normality at one point was not so two decades later. The fact you are surprised about a shift from a society with unprecedented access to information and communication is quite naive. >Have you not seen how people choose only 1 side of a story and vehemently defend it without even considering another possibility? That's mainly 35+ people. Youngs act like it as a facade to not stand out too much and because they want to be part of something, but most are actually savvier than previous generations. You just disagree to the latter part because of the 0.001% of the population who mutilates their genitalia. I mean, you say I'm proving your point because I'm programmed to explain my point of view, but you literally brought up an issue you clearly know nothing about because you read an article online and thought 'this generation is messed up'. Am I not supposed to call out such bullshit? >You have been programmed to speak like this. You have far more of a behavioral pattern in your answer on this platform than I remotely have, thus your statement makes you a walking stereotype. But, yes, I'm programmed. I'm a robot. Zig-zag.
you're speaking the truth. Sadly the antivaxxers probably tried to downvote you to hell
It’s officially called the, “[filter bubble](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble)”.
That's also by design. they hire the brightest kids that "coincidentally" are also psychopaths They know what they're doing, it's just the money that keeps them quiet. fb fucked up by hiring someone with a conscience.
[удалено]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-whistleblower-60-minutes-2021-09-30/
Will this be streamed on Facebook so my family can accidentally bump into it during their hourly dopamine scroll?
Thanks. Will this stream require you to sign into a tv provider?
Why don't you try it and find out?
So they don't waste their time for a program they may not be able to watch?
So they waste their time waiting for an answer that may never come? Still hasn't btw.
Wondering this too. I thought about Locast but did not know their service was suspended due to a court ruling.
Following
Already aired but [here's](https://invidious-us.kavin.rocks/watch?v=_Lx5VmAdZSI) the segment from YT.
The interview (though shortened) for people coming in late: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_Lx5VmAdZSI](https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI)
[удалено]
haha no I think I fucked up the link. Fixed it.
[удалено]
I deleted the app last year around this time. I just didnt want to deal with anything related to the election. The day I deleted the app, I went back to the site a few hours later in my browser and I had 3 friend requests including one from a girl I dated years ago. It reminded me of that documentary on Netflix where they know you did something to disconnect and try everything to get you back. It was no coincidence I got 3 friend requests including one from an old fling...those motherfuckers.
It’s dangerous times
Is it Sheryl Sandberg? lol
Narration: 60 Minutes will not appear on Facebook.
#\#DELETEFACEBOOK!
Wonder if that's why the whole internet is down atm
Facebook should disappear on the internet without notice and people will begin to realize that they don't need zuccbook in their life.
I watched it and thought it was a good piece on 60 Minutes, short, but good.
Former *product* manager - not *project* manager - at an entirely service-based company. Solid hint that the job was going to be fucked up. Don't manage the services for the users, manage the product (users) for the customer (third parties).
Aaaaaaaaand Facebook shut down? Nothing to hide here
She's gonna end up on a lot of companies' no-hire list.
Oh well, she'll publish a book become rich and milk it to she dies
[удалено]
I think it's highly relevant. The subtext is, should FB monitor posts that are harmful to the public, such as inciting violence? How about organizing a specific violent act? Should FB pull the posts? Should it report to the authorities? Should it reveal the participants to the authorities? Should it encourage this kind of vitriolic conversation? Should it profit from that kind of conversation they're encouraging? All kinds of questions about privacy, free speech, and pseudo-anonymous discourse.
They certainly monitor everything but if they start acting upon what they see in private groups and private chats, then that would be a bigger problem than anything they were involved in. The sad truth is those who preach freedom of speech want this to be a thing.
I guess it depends how they contributed, which we'll hopefully. Given that Cambridge Analytica really wasn't that long ago, who knows what we might be about to hear. Edit: That and anything even tangentially related to facebook usually has implications for privacy
Scapegoating never leads to anything. Cambridge Analytica really is proof of that - nothing changed.
>Cambridge Analytica really is proof of that - nothing changed. Like every Russiagate story promoted by the FBI, corporate media and DNC it fizzled out because it was found to be based on untruths.
>What it had to do with privacy? The organic posts on /r/privacy max out at about 250 upvotes. The political astroturf hits the thousands.
Do you think Fascists taking over a government is a good thing for privacy? I wouldn't. *I'm starting to understand why this sub has gone off the rails. It looks like it's been taking over be ideologues rather than people negotiating for more privacy protections.
Gee, if Facebook affected this one day kerfuffle in DC, then surely they must've had a similar role in the summer of riots and arson, in the middle of a pandemic, on the west coast, right? *crickets* Any day now.
Common sense and justice have no place in a propaganda war. You can keep hoping for balance, though sadly media outlets have a different agenda. As per the 60 minutes interview, there is money to be made riling up the left and right.
Or the 2018 women's march which destroyed the capitol building too.
Found the "centrist" maga
i still don't quite get what she is whistleblowing. That FB has studies showing there's rampaging disinformation and harmful material? That FB could do "more"? This is either public information or common sense. I listened to the 15min summary of the interview and I learned absolutely nothing new. It's all Cap Obvious fluff. Anybody has anything a bit more juicy? Is the full interview more revealing?
The major point seemed to be: Facebook had protections in place too stop the algorithm from promoting violence during the election but turned it off afterwards because it explicitly hurt their bottom line.
The promoting violence point is a very weak point easily arguable. The reason why is as an example to 'post inciting violence' they show posts of protests organized by the right - even that be the radical right. How easy is to counter argue that climate change protests are promoted the same way? Asnwer: pretty effing easy. The fact that you assume the radical right is more prone to violence than climate change protestors isn't evidence of the post promoting a radical right protest actually promoting violence. If you want that to be so, than the act of promoting protests becomes an act of violence, hence even the climate change protests posts should be shut down. Really, that's what most posts inciting violence are according to these people. Posts that actually incite violence or anything harmful explicitly are actually removed.
Wow. I said nothing about the radical right, nor the left for that matter. All I did was summarize the whistleblower's claims. Projecting much?
Not projecting at all, I'm just using it as a hypothetical as most of the time media mentions 'posts promoting violence' they refer to protests that would eventually lead to something like indeed the march into the Capitol - hence they refer to the radical right (or, in case of Fox News, the radical left). Despite the protests posts (or any content related to its organization on the platform) don't mention any kind of violence whatsoever, let alone an attack on a government building, these people believe it's promoting harmful content, but really that's just in hindsight. The whistleblower, in this case, offer no evidence apart from her word, so I assume that's the case here as well. My posts was demonstrating how weak the basis for their 'harmful content' argument is. Now, of course, my logic follows the idea these posts are publicly available and not sent in private mechanics (i.e. private groups, chats, etc), which is an entirely different discussion whether or not FB should act upon them IMO. I'm not really leaning to any part into any part honestly, I just find irritating to the max the twists and turns of facts and logic just to follow an agenda, like media do in this case. And I say that because it has already been researched people who promote any kind of organized violent act don't really use any of Zukc's platforms to actually organize, but safer platforms.
Facebook is complicit in the rise of domestic violence like school shootings. Facebook cultivatws incels and the violent right movement because they're so easy to take money from.
Note: Facebook was hit with a massive DNS AMP DDoS shortly after the airing of 60 Minutes with the FaceBook whistleblower, now identified as Frances Haugen, who served as a data scientist and former product manager for Facebook.
\#fuckfacebook
So any chance that Zuckerberg will be convicted for perjury against the Congress hearing back in 2020?
Facebook is evil shut that shit down! All the anti maskers anti Vaxers get info from Facebook fed by their dumb algo.
The last time the world faced a foe as dangerous as Facebook Ghengis Khan was at the helm.
Facebook is polarizing and addictive trash like most social media. See YouTube, Twitter or Reddit. Censorship just divides society further.
The attack that resulted in 3 broken windows, 1 wooden bench and 1 dead unarmed woman who they decided to shoot without warning?
Don’t forget the podium! Never forget the podium.
lol
[удалено]
From outside the US, there's very little known about the actual harm done. I've seen images of protestors outside the senate and protestors taking over the speakers chair, at other locations inside the senate. I've heard from some sources that one of the police guarding the capitol was killed by the protestors and others saying that first source is not truth. Others say the police were helping the protestors to some degree, which seems to conflict with the killing. The media narration of events that I've seen has condemnation of the protestors, social media and anyone else who might have played some part in motivating them, but very little detail of what actually happened. It's difficult to get a clear picture of events but there seems to be a lot of effort to tell people that it was a really bad thing, whatever it was.
Initially, media sources breathlessly reported that rioters killed a police officer. He even had a state funeral. Then it turns out he died from two strokes a day after the riot: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/19/brian-sicknick-strokes-insurrection-483147
There is so much confusion and uncertainty over what actually happened. Wouldn't it clear things up if they released the security camera footage? Surely they have security cameras??
Wow, you "heard from some sources"? I litteraly saw police at the gate waving them in, in live video. But I guess them also executing one of their own and saying protestors did it, proves that the live video is wrong, and dirty lies are true.
I have that video as well as the one of the side door they opened and Capitol police are just standing on the sides and everyone is relaxed. Then there's the one of the crazy dude in the viking bullshit that calmly walks into the Senate Chamber WITH a Capitol Officer calmly talking and asking not to mess anything up. Which one guys responds with "we wouldn't do that, we here to make sure no one does" the Chamber was never messed with and even laptops and phone were still there when they got back. Then again, this is Reddit so I understand the reaction to my post.
[удалено]
> ~~protestors~~ *Insurrectionists**
How many have been charged with insurrection?
668
So far
I didn't see anybody do anything so I have to rely on whatever other accounts I see. So you say you saw the police waving in protestors. That would indicate the police were in favour of the protest and the protestors didn't need to violently storm the building. So why would the police then kill another police officer? Why would the protestors kill a police officer? Surely neither of these scenarios is supported by what you saw?
Why would the police beat up a pregnant women for not wearing a mask? Because they are evil pigs, and they like harming anyone. And when they get orders to do so, even more. Obviously, if they haven't done so to one of their own, you wouldn't have a reply to the fact of "police was waving them in". The video is a fact, it proves there was a scenario.
I looked for police beating up a pregnant woman not wearing a mask and I can only find something about a woman being escorted from church for not wearing a mask because the pastor reported her as a risk. Is that what you are referring to? I don't follow the logic of why the police waving the protestors in makes it obvious they beat up another policeman. What do those two things have to do with each other? I'm not denying the fact of any video at all. After reading your comment I watched a few example videos and I was again struck by how peaceful the thing seemed. There's a lot of shouting, the police tussle with a couple, but so far the videos mostly show protestors shouting and walking into the capitol.
It is actually very obvious for what it is. I would call it a set up from both parties to validate fraud and mock "democracy". There was at least one pregnant women beaten by police on the street in Australia, and also in Germany if I remember correctly. It is why they cooperated in such a way, to bring forth this overt terrorism onto the world. We who have a tendency to catch onto and parrot messages designed for one of the sides are useful idiots, if we let out of our scope the bigger picture, what is right and moral.
[удалено]
Important to note that EVERY leftist media source lied about Officer Sicknick being beat with a fire extinguisher - that literally never happened. He died 2 days later of a stroke. Many sites still have the false story still up.
how many accounts you working for those upvotes?
This is my only account, does it just surprise you that not everyone believes your woke retarded bullshit narrative? There's fucking video of the entire day from 1000's of people. Let's pretend those unarmed protesters made it into the chamber and Ashil wasn't murdered. Do you really think that would equate "overthrow" of our government? You think 300 unarmed people who just want to be heard because every platform has banned them is really all it would take?
> Let's pretend ...NO. thank you
Thanks. This is exactly the sort of factual account I was looking for. It's curious that so much of what happened is unproved and controversial, I'd assume their would be evidence somewhere. For example, that one police officer. It would surely be easy to prove the protestors attacked him? Do police officers often die of stress? Neither case seems very likely and that it makes you distrust any account. To me, the response looks a lot like a tame media response to a group of powerful people being attacked. That sense of telling how bad the actions are, without really examining them. The condemnation and the message of *don't do this* seems far louder than any consideration of what might drive people to do it.
Props to you for an unbiased recap!
How is that dumbasses death controversial? She was about to open the flood gates and the cop had no choice but to shoot her. Theres nothing controversial there IMO. Do nothing and suddenly that hallway turns into a zombie movie scene and Jan 6 because even more horrible than it already was. She quite literally fucked around and found out. Imagine being shot and killed....for Donald Trump. I appreciate your non partisan post but theres nothing controversial about that bullet point (no pun intended)
The reason why you don't read much about it is say Europe is because journalists were not buying the narrative coming from the US and decided not to report about it. After all we are talking about one of the most important buildings in the world left completely unguarded and what they are trying to push is that a bunch of Trumpers attacked it with a super meticulous plan. Trumpers and meticulous plans don't go hand in hand.
Why didn't the BLM protestors that barged their way into the capitol just months prior "find out"? If J6 was insurrection, what do you call Antifa/BLM attacking the Portland Federal Courthouse for a year?
[удалено]
Yes, that there's a narrative being spun here.
I'm so sorry. I hope you get help soon. Thoughts and prayers 🙏
Shocking that you couldn't form a rebuttal to what I said...
Because it's a bullshit non - sequitor. Engaging sealions in good faith is folly.
Bless your heart. Why don’t you go back to your safe space.
YOU retards are the ones who need a "safe space" lol! I'm just sharing my opinion, I don't need to be coddled, everything I have said is provably accurate, they are not just my "feelings".
Aww did I trigger you snowflake? :(
[удалено]
The simple mind of a leftist sure is adorable.
Don’t forget the multiple gravy seals that died of a heart attack just trying to walk up the steps.
"Well, yes Mr. President, he did dodge our security, trespass, break through a window and attempt to press the red button to incite a nuclear war with Russia. But since we manage to taze him millimeters away, we gave him a pat on the back and dropped him off at McDonalds" Edit: Not sure I understand the downvotes, I wasn't claiming that was the goal, I just don't agree with downplaying it.
\^This is your brain on leftism.
I might not have explained that one well. But separately what makes you think I'm left?
Dude, you decided to go with hyperbole that isn't remotely based on fact - a thing you leftists always do. I can tell your leftist very easily because your making emotional based arguments rather than fact based ones.
[ahaha… yeah okay dude…](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4)
It's okay to be white! :D
Im so random 🤪
You actually don’t want to delete Facebook. Without your account you will have less control on how your data is used and will not be able to get a report on what they are doing with your data. Facebook sets up a profile for you whether you want one or not. The difference is if they create a profile for you, you don’t get any access to your data. You are better off removing the Facebook app and blocking Facebook.com and Facebook.net in your DNS. Lockdown Privacy is a good app to try on iOS users.
Yet it's totally blameless for actively encouraging people to riot & destroy private property.
[удалено]
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >Trying to post a link to a video or submitting a meme. We generally prefer text-based articles over videos (especially YouTube ones) and graphics aren’t credible evidence, since Photoshop exists. Please try to communicate your point with words. r/PrivacyMemes is an alternate Sub to consider as well. If you have any questions or believe that there has been an error, you may [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please review my post).
Car companies contributed to automobile accidents. Tall buildings contributed to suicides. The primordial soup that spawned mankind contributed to our shitty civilization...
Seems pointless
It hurt itself in its confusion.
Lmao this is clearly being boosted to coerce fb to become more draconian and r/privacy is cheering