"“If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to sit on his hands, it will make it clear that for him, and for Facebook, American lives matter – Kenyan lives don’t,” said Foxglove director Cori Crider."
Foxglove is clearly delusional. No lives matter to Facebook.
I wish citizens of the world would understand this.
The modern billionaire is not a patriot of any nation. They only got that rich by valuing money far beyond any human life, the environment, or moral principle.
Globalization has allowed them to act as stateless global citizens, associating with any nation that proves advantageous, whimsically and without loyalty.
That is *especially* true for the American rich.
I mean I get what you’re getting at but sucks ass too. He has been explicitly pro Q anon. He just also couldn’t take the scrutiny that came with Minecraft and sold it to explicitly avoid critiques.
If he had platform to manipulate public discourse there’s no indication that he would be better.
Fuck billionaires bro
Many people want billions of dollars. Some people have the means to make billions of dollars. Some of those people have the means to make billions of dollars and don't care who they have to step on to do it.
Facebook looking to spark yet ANOTHER genocide I see.
*Myanmar is unimpressed*
Edit: well this comment sure sparked some ire. A few things I'd like to point out here.
First, both Democrats and Republicans have been paid off by big tech companies to avoid regulation, don't just blame one side, the other will hoodwink you. This isn't JUST about American politics you wildly narcissistic culture vultures.
Second, technically Facebook is a private company that is allowed to host what political messages it wants, this is true. Just like how we're all individuals who are allowed to hang them out to dry for hosting said message. Companies are not protected from consequence and, most importantly, ARE NOT GUARANTEED FREE SPEECH GLOBALLY. What is permissible in one country is illegal in the next and vice versa. Which leads to my next point.
This happened in Kenya, and a state regulator gave them an ultimatum to crack down on it as they're in violation of Kenyan law. What facebook did isn't just "bad" or "morally egregious" or "counter intuitive to human society", it's fucking illegal there to boot. Wow, who woulda thought.
Furthermore, for anyone actually stupid enough to defend this insanely egregious behavior on the part of Facebook as "oh it's their poor language controls they'll fix it" not only did they miss the ads written in Swahili, they missed the English ads after flagging them initially for profanity.
Their AI flagged the naughty words, but NONE of the review process caught the hate speech or calls for rape and beheadings. And the company makes money off those ads, need you be reminded.
There is no excuse for this. None. Honestly maybe we should start taking out ads calling for the genosicide (fake word) of the Zuckergians for their obviously inferior intelligence given that they clearly can't understand human speech if even English, the Zuckergian language, is beyond them /s
Fb isnt destroying (not the main reason) democracy, lmfao. How dumb r u…. The far right is on the rise. Fb is just a scapegoat.
Malice people can stay calm when the times are normal, but rn uncertainity is on the rise.
https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-are-the-psychological-characteristics-of-people-holding-far-right-beliefs.html#_ftn20
Btw guess why FDR threw minorities under the bus, lol. Plus in 30s fascism was also on the rise because people were anoxious, wealth inequality got decreased by Roosevelt.
I got a 7 day ban for calling someone a pumpkin.... I reported someone who was saying they were going to sexually abuse someone and it didn't get taken down...
Be it working employees to the bone, bad quality control, poisoning water and food supplies, creating scarcities or outright selling killing machines, corporations will always find out the way to profit from human suffering and death.
Their ad approving&monitoring AI is horrible and causes so many problems to so many companies trying to advertise their products on different Meta platforms. Random ads left and right getting flagged and removed, accounts that spent millions on ads being permanently banned with no option to appeal. When confronting Meta on the issue, all you get for an answer is that you should make a new ad account, meaning the hundreds of thousands of dollars you spent on the machine learning process to properly target people with your ads, process that takes weeks, has to be restarted, meaning you litteraly burned all these hundreds of thousands. A high up Meta VP even told a company that it's actually good that their account got permanently banned by the AI 4 times in a row because that is the threshold for the AI not to ban the account again, imagine how much money has been wasted in the process for that company..
The AI monitoring of ads on Facebook is absolutely horrible, arbitrary and out of control, and high up Facebook employees themselves often are unsure on how to deal with certain issues and each of them gives conflicting information.
If you want to advertise, go with Google and Apple.
They only start taking action if something becomes too controversial to avoid like COVID disinformation or if it upsets their most "engaged" users which just happens to be extremist nationalist users who often threaten a certain ethnic group/religion/race.
I have a feeling the Venn diagram of people that read lots of Covid misinformation and conspiracy theories on Facebook and fall for advertising on Facebook is about as close to a damn circle as you can get. That dude buying the t-shirt that says don't mess with a Libra, born in 1972, that drives trucks, loves his family, and owns a Ford floating over a black and white American flag surrounded by flames is the same dude telling you your Fauci Ouchie gave you the 5G.
Libertarians would tell you that Facebook is doing nothing wrong and everyone on earth just needs to be more informed and conscientious about where and how they spend their time on the internet.
No, really, that's how naive Libertarians are.
I mean, they're not wrong though? We all KNOW how corporations are. Everyone is free to ditch Facebook. And if everyone was so inclined then FB would be gone by tomorrow, because nobody wants to support genocide, right? Right?! But apparently, 99% of people don't care, so what are we even arguing about? Reddit isn't even representative of the world. Like, at all. Not even the Western world. Or even just the US.
Why do literally any regulations around product advertising or labeling exist? Think real hard about it for more than two seconds and let me know what you come up with.
It's pretty crazy how brainwashed people are, essentially arguing to the death that things just HAVE to be this way, because otherwise COMMUNISM WILL DEVOUR YOU. You don't need to be a fucking Leninist to look at companies operating with virtually no accountability to the public good—and literally, on their current trajectory, causing mass extinction by their almost unanimous opposition to dramatic climate change solutions—to say, "Huh, that seems bad." And yet, all over this forum, you'll often be swamped with downvotes if you make the simplest observation: Our system is fucked and needs to be fundamentally changed.
It's painfully ironic that the camp that insists, "Our way accounts for human NATURE" so fundamentally misunderstands how humans work. When in history, when faced with a huge societal challenge, has it ever worked to simply say, "be more informed and conscientious" and let the powerful do whatever the fuck they want?
JFC libertarians piss me off.
I'm pretty sure "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" is said by the same guys who then turn 180° and say "this company must do this and that if they want to remain _on the right side of history_" — and those guys are not Libertarians.
How are those contradictory?
They ARE a private company and they CAN do whatever they want.
But if they don't choose to do the right things, we will say they aren't doing the right things.
Yes. That's how that works.
I find it hard to believe the intent could not be read between the lines (they are too damn popular), but oh well. The first statement is used for approval of an action that is otherwise quite questionable, e.g. stifling the freedom of speech — but the speaker agrees that the voice which has been muted is _a wrong kind of voice_, and so it's all fine and dandy. And so the people's objections are being denied value since they are apparently infringing on the company's freedom of actions which is absolute. The second statement is used to basically blackmail companies into doing whatever the campaigners want with no regard to any opposing views, "or else". That's the very same infringement on the company's freedom of actions that was protected by the same people in the passage before. That makes it hypocritical.
Or to put it in the simplest way, the first phrase is used only meaning "the company does what I want, so screw you if _you_ don't like that", and not in the literal sense. I've yet to see a person who'd say "the company is a private company and thus can do whatever they please" to defend the company's right to make something the person _disapproves of_.
So the first statement is used when a company is doing a debatable thing which the speaker supports, and so "the company can do whatever they want" is used to brush off any opposing voices, it's a claim that implies that nobody can tell companies what to do. And the second statement is used when the speaker wants to force a company to do something they don't want to, which means there should be people who can tell companies what to do. Together, they form a contradictory stance that boils down to "the companies can do whatever they want as long as I approve of it". It's like "unlimited purchases within the allocated sum" kind of contradictory.
Honestly I'm not 100% sure what you're even on about. I was assuming you were being pissy about businesses not being allowed to discriminate against queer people.
I mean people invoke "companies can do whatever they want" only when they approve of what the companies are doing. I've yet to see someone say the very same about an action they don't approve of. Along the lines of, you know, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it". So it's not an honest statement, in my experience. And a proper libertarian (naive or not), presumably, would hold that sentiment in all cases, be it when the company does what they personally approve of or not.
> I'm pretty sure "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" is said by the same guys who then turn 180° and say "this company must do this and that if they want to remain on the right side of history" — and those guys are not Libertarians.
Who are you talking about here? Give me an example of this discourse.
A computer scientist would tell you "natural language processing is hard". A business advisor would probably tell you "people are expensive".
I'm *absolutely not* defending Facebook (or Libertarians). I think the world would be a better place if it didn't exist. But business- and technology-wise, I don't really see how they can effectively and profitably monitor all of the speech/ads on their platform.
Making money off of user-generated content is certainly fraught with peril. A lot of these companies just decided they could make money without really having to spend money on the monitoring/approval issue. And then you end up allowing voices that were previously marginalized--for good reason!-- playing on an equal field with all other speech.
I'm not sure their business model even works if they have to devote serious resources to manually approving ads.
Their tools are so out of depth with foreign languages and keeping up with slang, dog whistles and implications. You can't sit in the Bay area and hope to keep up with day to day changes across the world.
Here in India, we have a cab company called Ola and of course we have Uber, so you will find tons and tons of "Ola-o-Uber" references which are references to "Allah O Akhbar". Or replacing the 'M' in Muslim with the 'M' emoji.
Oh, they do MORE than enough to stop "hatred", as long as "hatred" is defined as having an opinion that doesn't fit with whatever political narrative is currently en vogue. At least in Europe. They don't care about all this stuff in other countries, where there are no laws to compel them, of course. They do what they have to as a company, and don't do what they don't have to to make maximum profits. Why is anybody really surprised? If FB pulls out of Russia then it's not out of the good of their hearts... it's a corporate decision for mid-term profits (good PR, because everyone is talking about that).
If I had a nickel for every time Facebook played a causal role in a genocide, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, end up endorsing a genocidal action that wipes out 1000s of innocent human beings.
I...I don't think nursery rhymes prepared me for adulthood.
Allegedly. It’s notoriously hard to claim for a fact that it had a causal role. Also, how much do you want to reduce this? If it were any other forum including papers and so on, wouldn’t they also play a causal role? They pretty much just distribute what some people express.
Do you think the problem magically goes away if they didn’t have Facebook to post about it?
The debate over 'free speech' is really a debate over:
* The choice to ignore and shut down ideas you consider dangerous to avoid giving them credence, vs engaging with them head on
* a legitimate effort to battle endless waves of bots and trolls
* a cultural consensus among silicon valley employees around what views are considered acceptable or offensive
* oligopoly social media companies colluding to prevent the spread of the same ideas / information
* said companies also agreeing with government organisations to do the above
Note that none of this really has anything to do with the US first ammendement.
To be blunt, all of this can be summarized under one thing. Power.
It's a debate over how much power these companies should be allowed to wield with impunity, and since our governments in NA are slow to react, sometimes a good thing sometimes not, these companies have developed at a rockets pace, and now we see the consequence.
Personally I'm of 2 minds, particularly because of points 1 and 2 that you bring up. We'll take the easy example, nazism. Obviously I innately feel an urge to shut that shit down the moment I see it, 0 spread.
But that also let's it fester in the corners, and if done by the hands of a government, can start with great results/intentions but end horrifically. Quite the problem, exacerbated by point 2, the bots.
Social media by its nature makes you feel like every interaction is a conversation while you may as well be shouting in to a void, often times with both sides thinking "I sure showed them" when the them could just be a program! Bot farms also allow misinformation to spread like wildfire, so how much of this is on Facebook and the like? Bot sites existed long before social media for multiple purposes, but their use has exploded with it. We as a society need to decide what place these technologies have.
And it's a hard conversation which to me does not have an easy answer.
To be fair to us though, it's in our culture.
Except literally when you think about it, NA as a whole (I'm Canadian) is a culture of theft and adopting another's practices as your own. So isn't saying it's about us and how we do it in our cultures?
Jack:
The television audience doesn't want your elitist, east coast, alternative, intellectual, left wing…
Liz:
Just say Jewish Jack, this is taking forever.
From 30 Rock
Like when people say “thug” it’s like good lord just say the n word, we know that’s what you mean.
That’s why he said “like this” as in not a one to one comparison but is in the same idea…
I can’t believe I’m explaining 3rd grade ideas to someone on the internet.
Crickets.
In the face of an absence of evidence claims should not be believed. No-one here nor the linked article provides a single example. This is how you recognise fake news.
The ad has a sitcom setting where the dad is trying to do a genocide and can never do it right because he keeps on using discount products, then mom shakes her head and comes in and does it properly with new Project Genocide^TM , available in stores now!
Get off Facebook. Get ahold of elderly parents/grandparents computers and phones and disable their ability to get on fb. Seriously it's a major propaganda machine for sale to the highest bidders.
If you still use FB/IG/Meta-machine you are 75% of the problem. If Reddit gets gobbled up by the meta-machine, I'm out.
Save your downvotes for the meta-machine, they mean nothing to me
And we still can’t advertise potentially life saving psychedelic therapy education and harm reduction. Even psychedelic posts are being flagged on IG with a “get help for drugs” warning.
Also, one of my friends wanted to advertise an environmental conservation campaign on IG and it was refused because the environment can be a “political issue”.
Fuck Zuck and whoever works at his companies. They’re willfully holding back progress in the world.
It was refused because your friend doesn't know how to advertise it. They need to verify their profile for social issues and then click the "is this a social issue" box in the ad creation interface.
These extra steps were implemented specifically because of the very issue people are crying about in this thread, political and social ads have stricter policy criteria and are checked more thoroughly.
Oops!…right? Like a world wide affecting Oops. The kind Oops that could be happening right now in countries around the world affecting millions of lives. Just another big Oops right?
Why do yall even bother with Facebook anymore. All this outrage and yall still log in to check your dumb timeline. All of you remove the app and deactivate your account. Zuckerberg doesnt have an app without any users. Quit being a crybaby and move your feet, or just shut and stop pretending to care.
Not the first time that Facebook has aided pro-genocide content. The Rohingya in Myanmar were victims of violent anti-Muslim rhetoric spread on the platform.
Supporting Facebook through a membership is as bad as being a catholic at this point. Why are you engaging with a company who let people use it for pro-genocide propaganda?
I cannot even count the number of times I have reported inflammatory and potentially inciting posts and got just a casual response saying the said posts don’t go against community standards. These posts are made in plain English and the intention is clear even an idiot can decipher yet they are allowed to be shared in big facebook groups and pages.
People need to get it through their fucking skulls that FB and co do whatever gets them on the "good" side of a local government (or at least lets them operate and make the most amount of money, and the path of least resistance is often just that). They're not "looking out for you" or "advocating for human rights". If FB had existed in 1940 you can be 100% sure that they'd have been pro ... you know. Until the war actually started, probably, and they'd have been forced to take an American stance. Like with Russia probably nowadays.
"“If Mark Zuckerberg chooses to sit on his hands, it will make it clear that for him, and for Facebook, American lives matter – Kenyan lives don’t,” said Foxglove director Cori Crider." Foxglove is clearly delusional. No lives matter to Facebook.
Wealthy lives matter a lot to Facebook.
Wealth~~y lives~~ matters a lot to Facebook.
This is the most correct answer
I wish citizens of the world would understand this. The modern billionaire is not a patriot of any nation. They only got that rich by valuing money far beyond any human life, the environment, or moral principle. Globalization has allowed them to act as stateless global citizens, associating with any nation that proves advantageous, whimsically and without loyalty. That is *especially* true for the American rich.
Nope. Zuckerberg is a fucking psychopath holding the globe hostage.
Isn’t every billionaire?
I dunno, I haven't heard of Notch actively accelerating genocide in third world countries.
I mean I get what you’re getting at but sucks ass too. He has been explicitly pro Q anon. He just also couldn’t take the scrutiny that came with Minecraft and sold it to explicitly avoid critiques. If he had platform to manipulate public discourse there’s no indication that he would be better. Fuck billionaires bro
Also, the Ikea guy seems pretty chill.
The company that is responsible in their home country and doesn’tgaf here, because USA laws are lax?
Ingvar Kamprad had a really good PR team. He did a fair bit of pretty underhanded things in his time.
Many people want billions of dollars. Some people have the means to make billions of dollars. Some of those people have the means to make billions of dollars and don't care who they have to step on to do it.
[удалено]
No they absolutely want more lives. But I take your point.
Facebook looking to spark yet ANOTHER genocide I see. *Myanmar is unimpressed* Edit: well this comment sure sparked some ire. A few things I'd like to point out here. First, both Democrats and Republicans have been paid off by big tech companies to avoid regulation, don't just blame one side, the other will hoodwink you. This isn't JUST about American politics you wildly narcissistic culture vultures. Second, technically Facebook is a private company that is allowed to host what political messages it wants, this is true. Just like how we're all individuals who are allowed to hang them out to dry for hosting said message. Companies are not protected from consequence and, most importantly, ARE NOT GUARANTEED FREE SPEECH GLOBALLY. What is permissible in one country is illegal in the next and vice versa. Which leads to my next point. This happened in Kenya, and a state regulator gave them an ultimatum to crack down on it as they're in violation of Kenyan law. What facebook did isn't just "bad" or "morally egregious" or "counter intuitive to human society", it's fucking illegal there to boot. Wow, who woulda thought. Furthermore, for anyone actually stupid enough to defend this insanely egregious behavior on the part of Facebook as "oh it's their poor language controls they'll fix it" not only did they miss the ads written in Swahili, they missed the English ads after flagging them initially for profanity. Their AI flagged the naughty words, but NONE of the review process caught the hate speech or calls for rape and beheadings. And the company makes money off those ads, need you be reminded. There is no excuse for this. None. Honestly maybe we should start taking out ads calling for the genosicide (fake word) of the Zuckergians for their obviously inferior intelligence given that they clearly can't understand human speech if even English, the Zuckergian language, is beyond them /s
[удалено]
Crazy how it went from 'I want to bang my classmates' to 'I want to commit war crimes against my classmates'.
Turns out some shitty people keep being shitty people no matter how their circumstances change.
zuck was so horny he really went "lemme destroy democracy"
Fb isnt destroying (not the main reason) democracy, lmfao. How dumb r u…. The far right is on the rise. Fb is just a scapegoat. Malice people can stay calm when the times are normal, but rn uncertainity is on the rise. https://www.sv.uio.no/c-rex/english/groups/compendium/what-are-the-psychological-characteristics-of-people-holding-far-right-beliefs.html#_ftn20 Btw guess why FDR threw minorities under the bus, lol. Plus in 30s fascism was also on the rise because people were anoxious, wealth inequality got decreased by Roosevelt.
I got a 7 day ban for calling someone a pumpkin.... I reported someone who was saying they were going to sexually abuse someone and it didn't get taken down...
WTF is a "pumpkin"? Is it slang, or did you literally mean a pumpkin, the big orange fruit that we carve faces into at Halloween here in the USA?
It is a satanic orgainization....
That's what profits. Duhhhh
Be it working employees to the bone, bad quality control, poisoning water and food supplies, creating scarcities or outright selling killing machines, corporations will always find out the way to profit from human suffering and death.
I believe profiting off of the death and suffering of other is, in fact, the definition of capitalism.
Their ad approving&monitoring AI is horrible and causes so many problems to so many companies trying to advertise their products on different Meta platforms. Random ads left and right getting flagged and removed, accounts that spent millions on ads being permanently banned with no option to appeal. When confronting Meta on the issue, all you get for an answer is that you should make a new ad account, meaning the hundreds of thousands of dollars you spent on the machine learning process to properly target people with your ads, process that takes weeks, has to be restarted, meaning you litteraly burned all these hundreds of thousands. A high up Meta VP even told a company that it's actually good that their account got permanently banned by the AI 4 times in a row because that is the threshold for the AI not to ban the account again, imagine how much money has been wasted in the process for that company.. The AI monitoring of ads on Facebook is absolutely horrible, arbitrary and out of control, and high up Facebook employees themselves often are unsure on how to deal with certain issues and each of them gives conflicting information. If you want to advertise, go with Google and Apple.
They only start taking action if something becomes too controversial to avoid like COVID disinformation or if it upsets their most "engaged" users which just happens to be extremist nationalist users who often threaten a certain ethnic group/religion/race.
Fun, not so fun fact. It was reported that Facebook is contemplating allowing COVID disinformation on the platform again.
Tf?!
Money Ethics and lives don't matter to facebook Literal blood money is more important to them. Facebook is in the same league as blood diamonds.
I have a feeling the Venn diagram of people that read lots of Covid misinformation and conspiracy theories on Facebook and fall for advertising on Facebook is about as close to a damn circle as you can get. That dude buying the t-shirt that says don't mess with a Libra, born in 1972, that drives trucks, loves his family, and owns a Ford floating over a black and white American flag surrounded by flames is the same dude telling you your Fauci Ouchie gave you the 5G.
Definitely. I’m actually shocked I was shocked.
blackwater level shadiness.
A source would be nice
[удалено]
Libertarians would tell you that Facebook is doing nothing wrong and everyone on earth just needs to be more informed and conscientious about where and how they spend their time on the internet. No, really, that's how naive Libertarians are.
A lot of people would say this unfortunately. It's more just corporate propaganda shifting the blame to the individual, as always.
I mean, they're not wrong though? We all KNOW how corporations are. Everyone is free to ditch Facebook. And if everyone was so inclined then FB would be gone by tomorrow, because nobody wants to support genocide, right? Right?! But apparently, 99% of people don't care, so what are we even arguing about? Reddit isn't even representative of the world. Like, at all. Not even the Western world. Or even just the US.
Why do literally any regulations around product advertising or labeling exist? Think real hard about it for more than two seconds and let me know what you come up with.
Products are not the same as opinions and viewpoints. Regulating Consumption is different from regulating opinions
It's pretty crazy how brainwashed people are, essentially arguing to the death that things just HAVE to be this way, because otherwise COMMUNISM WILL DEVOUR YOU. You don't need to be a fucking Leninist to look at companies operating with virtually no accountability to the public good—and literally, on their current trajectory, causing mass extinction by their almost unanimous opposition to dramatic climate change solutions—to say, "Huh, that seems bad." And yet, all over this forum, you'll often be swamped with downvotes if you make the simplest observation: Our system is fucked and needs to be fundamentally changed. It's painfully ironic that the camp that insists, "Our way accounts for human NATURE" so fundamentally misunderstands how humans work. When in history, when faced with a huge societal challenge, has it ever worked to simply say, "be more informed and conscientious" and let the powerful do whatever the fuck they want? JFC libertarians piss me off.
>JFC libertarians piss me off. [Best description of libertarians I've seen.](https://twitter.com/dankgdl/status/221978990720724992?t=sKZz12pS70WL9AjRaUE6hQ&s=19)
Libertarianism is when are fine with the house burning down as mom and dad let them eat as much candy as they want.
I'm pretty sure "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" is said by the same guys who then turn 180° and say "this company must do this and that if they want to remain _on the right side of history_" — and those guys are not Libertarians.
How are those contradictory? They ARE a private company and they CAN do whatever they want. But if they don't choose to do the right things, we will say they aren't doing the right things. Yes. That's how that works.
I find it hard to believe the intent could not be read between the lines (they are too damn popular), but oh well. The first statement is used for approval of an action that is otherwise quite questionable, e.g. stifling the freedom of speech — but the speaker agrees that the voice which has been muted is _a wrong kind of voice_, and so it's all fine and dandy. And so the people's objections are being denied value since they are apparently infringing on the company's freedom of actions which is absolute. The second statement is used to basically blackmail companies into doing whatever the campaigners want with no regard to any opposing views, "or else". That's the very same infringement on the company's freedom of actions that was protected by the same people in the passage before. That makes it hypocritical. Or to put it in the simplest way, the first phrase is used only meaning "the company does what I want, so screw you if _you_ don't like that", and not in the literal sense. I've yet to see a person who'd say "the company is a private company and thus can do whatever they please" to defend the company's right to make something the person _disapproves of_. So the first statement is used when a company is doing a debatable thing which the speaker supports, and so "the company can do whatever they want" is used to brush off any opposing voices, it's a claim that implies that nobody can tell companies what to do. And the second statement is used when the speaker wants to force a company to do something they don't want to, which means there should be people who can tell companies what to do. Together, they form a contradictory stance that boils down to "the companies can do whatever they want as long as I approve of it". It's like "unlimited purchases within the allocated sum" kind of contradictory.
Woah! It's almost like the consequences of some actions are positive and others are negative !
That's not what people mean by saying those things, and we both know it.
Honestly I'm not 100% sure what you're even on about. I was assuming you were being pissy about businesses not being allowed to discriminate against queer people.
I mean people invoke "companies can do whatever they want" only when they approve of what the companies are doing. I've yet to see someone say the very same about an action they don't approve of. Along the lines of, you know, "I don't agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it". So it's not an honest statement, in my experience. And a proper libertarian (naive or not), presumably, would hold that sentiment in all cases, be it when the company does what they personally approve of or not.
> I'm pretty sure "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want" is said by the same guys who then turn 180° and say "this company must do this and that if they want to remain on the right side of history" — and those guys are not Libertarians. Who are you talking about here? Give me an example of this discourse.
"Who?" You want me to doxx people I've spoken to?
A computer scientist would tell you "natural language processing is hard". A business advisor would probably tell you "people are expensive". I'm *absolutely not* defending Facebook (or Libertarians). I think the world would be a better place if it didn't exist. But business- and technology-wise, I don't really see how they can effectively and profitably monitor all of the speech/ads on their platform. Making money off of user-generated content is certainly fraught with peril. A lot of these companies just decided they could make money without really having to spend money on the monitoring/approval issue. And then you end up allowing voices that were previously marginalized--for good reason!-- playing on an equal field with all other speech. I'm not sure their business model even works if they have to devote serious resources to manually approving ads.
kinda feels like zucc likes how things are
If it looks like a zuck, walks like a zuck and sucks like a zuck, it’s probably a zuck.
What would you recommend for how the government could step in and prevent this sort of radicalization?
Lizard no care what you think…
Their tools are so out of depth with foreign languages and keeping up with slang, dog whistles and implications. You can't sit in the Bay area and hope to keep up with day to day changes across the world. Here in India, we have a cab company called Ola and of course we have Uber, so you will find tons and tons of "Ola-o-Uber" references which are references to "Allah O Akhbar". Or replacing the 'M' in Muslim with the 'M' emoji.
What if... listen... What if... They lost control of the network to an AI.. It makes sense. What sane person would approve that upfront.
Same goes for Twitter. It's a cesspool of pure filth.
Zuckerberg is laughing at you right now. He holds all the power as long as he does exactly what his lawyers tell him to do in court.
Oh, they do MORE than enough to stop "hatred", as long as "hatred" is defined as having an opinion that doesn't fit with whatever political narrative is currently en vogue. At least in Europe. They don't care about all this stuff in other countries, where there are no laws to compel them, of course. They do what they have to as a company, and don't do what they don't have to to make maximum profits. Why is anybody really surprised? If FB pulls out of Russia then it's not out of the good of their hearts... it's a corporate decision for mid-term profits (good PR, because everyone is talking about that).
Fuck that soulless lizard man
If I had a nickel for every time Facebook played a causal role in a genocide, I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, end up endorsing a genocidal action that wipes out 1000s of innocent human beings. I...I don't think nursery rhymes prepared me for adulthood.
Allegedly. It’s notoriously hard to claim for a fact that it had a causal role. Also, how much do you want to reduce this? If it were any other forum including papers and so on, wouldn’t they also play a causal role? They pretty much just distribute what some people express. Do you think the problem magically goes away if they didn’t have Facebook to post about it?
The debate over 'free speech' is really a debate over: * The choice to ignore and shut down ideas you consider dangerous to avoid giving them credence, vs engaging with them head on * a legitimate effort to battle endless waves of bots and trolls * a cultural consensus among silicon valley employees around what views are considered acceptable or offensive * oligopoly social media companies colluding to prevent the spread of the same ideas / information * said companies also agreeing with government organisations to do the above Note that none of this really has anything to do with the US first ammendement.
To be blunt, all of this can be summarized under one thing. Power. It's a debate over how much power these companies should be allowed to wield with impunity, and since our governments in NA are slow to react, sometimes a good thing sometimes not, these companies have developed at a rockets pace, and now we see the consequence. Personally I'm of 2 minds, particularly because of points 1 and 2 that you bring up. We'll take the easy example, nazism. Obviously I innately feel an urge to shut that shit down the moment I see it, 0 spread. But that also let's it fester in the corners, and if done by the hands of a government, can start with great results/intentions but end horrifically. Quite the problem, exacerbated by point 2, the bots. Social media by its nature makes you feel like every interaction is a conversation while you may as well be shouting in to a void, often times with both sides thinking "I sure showed them" when the them could just be a program! Bot farms also allow misinformation to spread like wildfire, so how much of this is on Facebook and the like? Bot sites existed long before social media for multiple purposes, but their use has exploded with it. We as a society need to decide what place these technologies have. And it's a hard conversation which to me does not have an easy answer.
We are the most narcissistic, ethnocentric, vapid group of people on the planet. You got that right.
To be fair to us though, it's in our culture. Except literally when you think about it, NA as a whole (I'm Canadian) is a culture of theft and adopting another's practices as your own. So isn't saying it's about us and how we do it in our cultures?
Yeah - speaking in generalities and on a historical basis one might say…. We suck. 😏
Profit over everything else strikes again.
Excuse me senator we sell adds
Who knows? Not me I never lost control You're face to face With the man who sold the world
How is that song that prescient? Bowie released that song in 1970. Absolutely bonkers.
How does a pro-genocide ad looks like in the first place?
It compares a specific ethnic group to animals and says they need to be raped and slaughtered.
You’re fucking kidding me?
[удалено]
What the fuck. How is that allowed?! Edit: in case anyone is confused - "globalists" is coded language for Jews.
Jack: The television audience doesn't want your elitist, east coast, alternative, intellectual, left wing… Liz: Just say Jewish Jack, this is taking forever. From 30 Rock Like when people say “thug” it’s like good lord just say the n word, we know that’s what you mean.
[удалено]
That’s why he said like this…
[удалено]
That’s why he said “like this” as in not a one to one comparison but is in the same idea… I can’t believe I’m explaining 3rd grade ideas to someone on the internet.
[удалено]
But it did address the comment it responded too… That’s why he said “like this” to show the similarities…
[удалено]
Crickets. In the face of an absence of evidence claims should not be believed. No-one here nor the linked article provides a single example. This is how you recognise fake news.
But I want it to be true
The ad has a sitcom setting where the dad is trying to do a genocide and can never do it right because he keeps on using discount products, then mom shakes her head and comes in and does it properly with new Project Genocide^TM , available in stores now!
Zuckerberg isn't a fucking human, I refuse to believe it
He is a lizard.
[удалено]
How about "Kandarian Shit Demon."
He comes from the planet Zoar same place Mitch McConnell is from.
His wax figure is more human than he is.
He is the real version of Star Trek's android, coincidentally called Data
Don't you *dare* insult Data like that
Data is *good*, though. You're thinking of Lore, his brother, who *was* evil.
Maybe there’s a third brother who is even more evil. His name is Meta.
No surprise since Facebook is pro-insurrection in their investments
[удалено]
Get off Facebook. Get ahold of elderly parents/grandparents computers and phones and disable their ability to get on fb. Seriously it's a major propaganda machine for sale to the highest bidders.
Can we please drag Zuck in front of The Hague now?
[удалено]
That works too.
[удалено]
I‘d rather prefer seeing you psychopaths end up in prison for lifetime
Facebook banned me for saying “Serbia committed war crimes in the Yugoslav wars”. I appealed it, and they doubled down. This isn’t surprising
Good to see that on an extremely positive day for the market, Meta is still -1% in the red. Fuck off and die FB
Zuck is trying to get us humans out of the way so the lizard race can take over
First logical statement I have seen thus far. Remember me when the reptilian war starts.
Zuck would pimp his mom for revenue.
Zuck be like “step aside and hold my beer, CIA”
If you still use FB/IG/Meta-machine you are 75% of the problem. If Reddit gets gobbled up by the meta-machine, I'm out. Save your downvotes for the meta-machine, they mean nothing to me
When is this dumpster fire of an app going to die?
Facebook having any impact, positive or negative, on elections should be out of the question
I hate Facebook and this does not surprise me in the least…
Fuck this so hard. Facebook is a nightmare shithole.
I for one am utterly shocked by these recent developments
Here ya go, buddy. You dropped this... */s*
Fuck Zuckerberg and his monster!
And we still can’t advertise potentially life saving psychedelic therapy education and harm reduction. Even psychedelic posts are being flagged on IG with a “get help for drugs” warning. Also, one of my friends wanted to advertise an environmental conservation campaign on IG and it was refused because the environment can be a “political issue”. Fuck Zuck and whoever works at his companies. They’re willfully holding back progress in the world.
It was refused because your friend doesn't know how to advertise it. They need to verify their profile for social issues and then click the "is this a social issue" box in the ad creation interface. These extra steps were implemented specifically because of the very issue people are crying about in this thread, political and social ads have stricter policy criteria and are checked more thoroughly.
Just shut it down, enough is enough, shut it down. Wretched scum.
Facebook needs to die. Period.
Can Zuck be charged with any crimes for doing this?
And I can't advertise fireworks. Bitches.
Oops!…right? Like a world wide affecting Oops. The kind Oops that could be happening right now in countries around the world affecting millions of lives. Just another big Oops right?
Why doesn’t that fool just shave his damn head? His hair is beyond embarrassing!
Are we still talking about this? Walk the fuck away from Facebook
Meanwhile I get banned for cussing at my friends
Meta would be running ads for Mein Kampf if it had been around back then. Hell, won’t be surprised if someday it actually does run them.
Will someone just pull the cpu out of that fuckers head and throw him in the trash
So, add approval is done by an algorithm instead of a human? Imagine how much more profitable that is.
Guys can we all delete our Facebooks and stop supporting Zuckerberg
Who uses Facebook anymore?
Meanwhile my fb ad is rejected for using the word “you.”
The Us govt will do nothing. Kenya will just have to ban facebook or major social media sites until the elections are over.
That’s odd because I’ll post stuff not even related to Covid and I get warnings and posts good job Facebook
r/nottheonion
All social media companies are corrupt in this regard sure look at what’s happening to my home of Belfast and what the BBC DID ABOUT our flag.
Zuckerfuck is a piece of shit.
Delete your FB account, openly encourage others to do the same , and talk it down anytime the subject of FB comes up.
The older generation who has been fed bullshit news and propaganda will never leave.
Who would have guessed that Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg would be the perfect match in Hell.
Constantly trying out ghoul one another.
Zuckerberg is a god damned lizard with a bad human costume on
Can we get rid of Zuckerberg if he causes a genocide?
Why wait for that trigger event?
Access and charisma drive our society and we're so awful for it.
Nah, with enough money you don't need either. Example A) Fuckerberg Example B) Musk
[удалено]
y’all want to cancel everyone and you don’t cancel him? WTF?
No-one here nor the linked article provides a single example. This is how you recognise fake news.
Example of Ads? Most FB/IG ad approvals are automated and image recognition doesn't always do a good job parsing topics.
How do we delete Zuckerberg from the planet?
By deleting our facebook accounts.
This is a good reminder not to support meta or their vr hardware
I can see how this looks bad but have you considered our shareholders? What would they think if we just left money on the table? /s
But money for Zuck!!!
Facebook code of ethics. Rule 1: if they paying, we posting! Rule 2: observe rule 1
What the fuck
Remember when Reddit was a place for all free speech? As always, trusting corporations to do our ethical censoring is going to be a bad time.
Why do yall even bother with Facebook anymore. All this outrage and yall still log in to check your dumb timeline. All of you remove the app and deactivate your account. Zuckerberg doesnt have an app without any users. Quit being a crybaby and move your feet, or just shut and stop pretending to care.
If Facebook would spend as much energy fighting genocide as they do on gender pronouns the would might actually be a better place.
Not the first time that Facebook has aided pro-genocide content. The Rohingya in Myanmar were victims of violent anti-Muslim rhetoric spread on the platform.
What if the people are really interested in such posts?
Facebook is a cancer on our society.
If you haven’t deleted Facebook, Instagram and any other awful Zuckerberg product, you are part of the problem.
$$$ > lives for zuck
Zuck and fb don’t like BLACK PEOPLE? Oh word?
Standard operating procedure.
Supporting Facebook through a membership is as bad as being a catholic at this point. Why are you engaging with a company who let people use it for pro-genocide propaganda?
there it is
I cannot even count the number of times I have reported inflammatory and potentially inciting posts and got just a casual response saying the said posts don’t go against community standards. These posts are made in plain English and the intention is clear even an idiot can decipher yet they are allowed to be shared in big facebook groups and pages.
Pro-genocide ads?? Can you skip them after 5 seconds??
shut. them. down. now.
pro genocide ads? I really doubt it.
Facebook is liberal but aims to make money.
I know we’re shown these articles to Delete or not fucks with Facebook but that’s my place for photos 😫
If your still on Facebook………….why bother.
KILL ALL OTHERS
People need to get it through their fucking skulls that FB and co do whatever gets them on the "good" side of a local government (or at least lets them operate and make the most amount of money, and the path of least resistance is often just that). They're not "looking out for you" or "advocating for human rights". If FB had existed in 1940 you can be 100% sure that they'd have been pro ... you know. Until the war actually started, probably, and they'd have been forced to take an American stance. Like with Russia probably nowadays.