Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Media Social Networks Your Rights Online

Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See 293

Posted by msmash from the unprecedented-power dept.
Minutes after a police shooting took place in the Falcon Heights suburbs of Minnesota, a Facebook Live video was published on the social juggernaut website. The death of Philando Castile, 32, was documented in harrowing detail thanks to the live streaming tool offered by the social media giant. The 10-minute video was streamed via smartphone by a woman identified in media reports as Diamond Reynolds. She narrates the video with a mix of eerie calm and anguish. The video was removed from Facebook due to, as company says, a "technical glitch." The video has since been restored, but with a "Warning -- Graphic Video," disclaimer. Motherboard notes that Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos, and that there's a pattern in these so called glitches -- as they happen very often time after a questionable content is streamed. This makes one wonder whether it is up to Facebook to decide which kind of controversial videos one should be able to watch The publication writes: As Facebook continues to build out its Live video platform, the world's most popular social network has become the de-facto choice for important, breaking, and controversial videos. Several times, Facebook has blocked political or newsworthy content only to later say that the removal was a "technical glitch" or an "error." Nearly two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, and two thirds of Facebook users say they use the site to get news. If Facebook is going to become the middleman that delivers the world's most popular news events to the masses, technical glitches and erroneous content removals could be devastating to information dissemination efforts. More importantly, Facebook has become the self-appointed gatekeeper for what is acceptable content to show the public, which is an incredibly important and powerful position to be in. By censoring anything, Facebook has created the expectation that there are rules for using its platform (most would agree that some rules are necessary). But because the public relies on the website so much, Facebook's rules and judgments have an outsized impact on public debate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See More

Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See

Comments Filter:

  • It is Their Site (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It is Their Site. So they make Their rules.
    Based on their business model.

    • Re:It is Their Site (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:15PM (#52464337)

      so comcast can do DPI and remove bad review on there ISP link right?

    • Re:It is Their Site (Score:5, Informative)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:42PM (#52464567)

      It is Their Site. So they make Their rules.
      Based on their business model.

      So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?

      In a free market system consumers are supposed to discuss and judge products and the companies that make them, that's not a bug, that's one of the basic mechanisms that makes free markets work.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by twdorris ( 29395 )

        So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?

        Sure you are. And he is doing just that. His statement that they can do whatever they want does not imply that you can't discuss it. That's just his position on the matter. Don't like it? Offer an alternative viewpoint.

      • So what? Because they're a business acting in their self-interest that makes it proper and ethical and we're not supposed to discuss or criticize them?

        In a free market system consumers are supposed to discuss and judge products and the companies that make them, that's not a bug, that's one of the basic mechanisms that makes free markets work.

        Except you know that's not how this goes. This turns into people talking about what someone running a web site should allowed or forced to do. The headline itself is already into irrational territory on this.

      • About 2/3 of the article summary is spent talking about how FB monitors and limits its content like it is something special. 100% of public forums or content sites do this. People just get tired of hearing this populist garbage about free speech which is just plain wrong.
    • Agreed. Furthermore, I would hope that facebook would NOT host videos glorifying the deaths of innocents (ISIS propaganda) but would host such videos that have or might have significance to society. It might be a difficult line to walk sometimes but I certainly would feel that obligation if it were my company hosting the material -"Conservative" that avoids facebook like the plague.

    • facebook has the right to make its own rule in its platform/site, but others have a right to point out (and disseminate with means available) the fact that facebook( ad seller/employer with vested commercial and political interests) is acting like a gatekeeper with hidden criteria on how it decides what to pass and not pass.

    • It is Their Site. So they make Their rules.
      Based on their business model.

      So how does it benefit Facebook's business model to be reading a discussion thread in which half the videos have been replaced by "Video removed for some mysterious reason"?

  • They're only permitting the naughty-bits of human bodies in settings "generally recognized as art." It's just so much more dangerous to society to see the image of a female nipple or other male/female naughty-bits than it is to see live-streamed images of graphic violence. (Notwithstanding the fact that we all have those same bits ourselves, simply covered by clothing.)

    I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.

  • Not a surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:00PM (#52464165)
    Facebook is a private company. Facebook users' data (i.e., the "people catalog" data) are the product it sells. Facebook can do whatever it wants, and allow whatever it wants to be shown on its site.
    • The problem is that Facebook also wants everyone to be consuming information through their interface.

      But it's a "problem" in the sense that people need to make themselves aware of that, and exercise their ability to do things like stop using Facebook. It's not one that requires a law or regulation or such (and I say that as a liberal who's not opposed to government action in cases where it makes sense - this isn't one of them). Sunlight is the disinfectant needed - that and some sense on the part of peopl

    • How much are you willing to bet that Facebook doesn't receive National Security Letters with a gag order instructing them to voluntarily remove dangerous content? Just because Facebook can legally censor, doesn't mean that the censorship Facebook is doing is in fact legal, and even if it were it doesn't mean we have to approve of it.

      Legality =/= Morality

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by nmb3000 ( 741169 )

      Facebook is a private company.

      No, they are not. [google.com] Even ignoring commonly recognized and respected social responsibilities, they are, at the very least, responsible to their shareholders (the public).

      Facebook can do whatever it wants, and allow whatever it wants to be shown on its site.

      Also not true. They must obey the law, same as anyone else.

      Reality is nuanced and multi-faceted, and sweeping generalizations are rarely insightful and usually don't add much to a discussion.

      The reason this matters has little to do with what Facebook is allowed to do, and much more to do with what they should do. For better or worse (hint:

  • And my wallet! If I'm too sad I cannot spend my money the way you want!

  • Private Company (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:01PM (#52464189)

    Newspapers can decline to cover whatever stories they wish. TV news can decline to show whatever footage they wish. Facebook is a private company, and can block whatever content it chooses to block.

    The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.

    • Re:Private Company (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tina Camargue ( 4640103 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:18PM (#52464365)
      Reminds me of the quote : The bigger the information media, the less courage and freedom they allow. Bigness means weakness. - Eric Sevareid [theysaidso.com] . Like it or not facebook is the biggest media out there.

    • The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.

      Before the internet, most people got their "news" from rags like the National Enquirer and New of the World--the top selling newspapers in America. Being stupid and being mis-informed isn't new and it isn't happening because of the internet or the world wide web or facebook or that new-fangled thang called electricity. Entertainment attracts more people than information does.

    • Newspapers can decline to cover whatever stories they wish. TV news can decline to show whatever footage they wish. Facebook is a private company, and can block whatever content it chooses to block.

      The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.

      In other words, if you want to avoid censorship, start by not posting something someone else's server?

    • The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.

      Those numbers were probably pulled out of the air and don't reflect reality. Consider that probably at least 1/3 of Americans don't do social media at all - not in any form including Facebook - and then out of the ones who do, some percentage of them will not get their news from it. I have friends, family and former classmates who don't do any kind of social media and refuse to ever do it. If you're a young person and everybody you know is under 30 that may not be true, but there are tons of people over

    • > The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.

      Because things were so much better when everyone got their news from conglomerates? Reliability of the source has been an issue for literally centuries. Back in the day, "Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain" was what Hearst shoved down everyone's throats. And today Rupert Murdoch loves to tell everyone that global warming is a myth and the Muslims are

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rebelwarlock ( 1319465 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:02PM (#52464191)
    Facebook is not the entire internet. Facebook is not even a significant percentage of the entire internet. It's also free to make up whatever the fuck it wants for rules. You're also free to choose whether or not to use it. Hell, you can use it and, brace yourselves now, also use other websites. I'll wait for your head to stop spinning.
    • You're right of course. But what really annoys me is people who complain about how dumb people are after they only use Facebook for their source of information. Facebook should be able to do whatever they want, and it follows that most people will be dumber for it so get used to living with dumb people and stop complaining about it.

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by medv4380 ( 1604309 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:27PM (#52464443)
      Facebook's US user-base is about 160 Million, and the US Population is about 300 Million. So over half of the US population is on Facebook, and once you remove children too young for it it becomes ever so much easier to account for those who don't have Facebook like myself. That should be considered to be most of the US internet, and I don't so much care for the usage outside for that given this topic is a US issue not a Europe, or Asia issue. Given the Size, and function of Facebook perhaps its time to consider weather or not it should fall under the FCC Broadcast Ownership Laws meant to stop a single entity from gaining this level of control over the general population. Sure their servers and private owner ship just like a newspaper. If it's so much "Just Like A Newspaper" then treat them like it legally.
      • Is that actual individual persons though? How many of those accounts are for corporate entities, never-mind fake profiles? I'd say that the half population estimate is probably high, though it's still a significant chunk of the population (too many, if you ask me).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SB5407 ( 4372273 )

      Facebook is not even a significant percentage of the entire internet

      That appears to be incorrect:
      "[Facebook] drives a quarter of all web traffic."
      -http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/facebook-is-eating-the-internet/391766/ [theatlantic.com]

      • News flash: The WorldWide Web is *NOT* the Internet.

        • Between WWW and Streaming video you've got 99.9999% of all internet traffic. Your SSH session or video game isn't even a single percentage of internet traffic. For all intents and purposes the internet is the WWW and streaming..

  • ... on Facebook, because it's their platform. (Score:3)

    by JoeDuncan ( 874519 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:03PM (#52464205)
    Seems there's a typo in the title, the above text was left out.

  • Back in Grandpa's Day (Score:3)

    by retroworks ( 652802 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:06PM (#52464223) Homepage Journal
    Newspaper editors never did this, right?

    • (sarcasim)

      Oh no, they didn't.... And don't forget we USED to have the "fairness doctrine" for media outlets too..

      (/sarcasim..)

  • Two Parts (Score:3)

    by Infiniti2000 ( 1720222 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:06PM (#52464227)

    There are two distinct parts to this topic:

    1. Is Facebook inappropriately censoring our videos?
    2. Is Facebook simply trying to cover their ass for a lawsuit?

    Note that FB has usage rights and they could censor stuff, and they do. They block terrorist propaganda, for example. The question here is should it be an all or nothing, or as-decided-by-FB? Regarding the lawsuits, note that in the U.S. there are number of protections on media reporting of minors (as an example). If FB allows such reporting unfiltered, can they be held accountable? I would hope not, but it depends on what the court would agree.

  • a while back there was an ap you could get for your phone that was just for this kind of thing.

    where did it vanish to??

  • Before we fall into minority hysteria over Facebook mind control, it's important to note that the control of news has been in upheaval since the rise of the internet. And if social media is bias, its biggest competitor--whoever's flashy headline reaches the top of search engine results--is even more so. The internet has given us the means to insulate our selves from detracting opinions at a level that rivals--or perhaps mirrors--the days of isolated, like-minded communities. It has also given us unprecedent

  • If they make a mistake and refuse to show something, there are many other options to post your stuff.

    If it is truly newsworthy, one of the others will publicize it, and Facebook will be the one that bears most of the consequences of their mistake.

    Story is not interesting, or worth commenting on (except to say that it is not worth commenting on). Never should have been greenlit

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      There's no evidence a "mistake" was made. Those outraged over another dead innocent are throwing anger at Facebook for a 'technical glitch" in a new feature. Facebook has indicated it was a "technical" error, and not a censorship error.

      But, in the conservative groups, like Slashdot, the row over the inaccessibility of the video gets covered more than the dead guy shown in it.
  • The problem is that too many people are using it and expecting it to conform to whatever they want it to be. It is their website, they can do what they want with it. Similarly if you created a video that you want people to see, you have the right to take it wherever you want. If one site doesn't want to show it the way you want it shown, take it somewhere else. People treat facebook as if it is the entire fucking web; they have this power only because people have given it to them (intentionally or not).

  • Developers (Score:5, Informative)

    by darkain ( 749283 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:20PM (#52464389) Homepage

    If you're a software engineer or a system administrator, you probably already know exactly what the technical glitches are. People are trying to throw a shitfit without understanding technology. "Facebook" isn't just a single server with a single purpose. Information has to be distributed from the content source to the content consumers. If an account normally has a reach of 5-10 viewers, it is easy to have them stream internally though a single server that is handling several streams at once. They are shoved on this particular data delivery path based on past low viewer counts... then all of a sudden they stream something that hits a 100k+ reach? Yes, the content then needs to be moved to high capacity and more dedicated servers. This isn't an instant process. The easiest explanation to the laymen is a "technical glitch", because how many people outside of technology even know what a server or routing digital data even is? This exact scenario DOES happen with other content too, but only when it involves something controversial does it become a conspiracy and censorship theory. A great example of other content that has had this exact issue was the selfie taken at the Grammys that had overf 1,000,000 shares. Yes, that took out an entire Twitter datacenter. Not just a server, the whole datacenter went offline for some time.

  • facebook isn't deciding anything. there are hundreds of places to post your videos, and it's virtually pennies to spin up your own web-site and host a few videos on your own infrestructure.

    second, it's been a long time since we've had public blood sports and hangings and executions. Does anyone want to see crimes live? No news media outlet has shown that kind of stuff in my lifetime. I have no desire to see it either.

    It's not censorship just because facebook takes it down. Censorship is about ensuring t

  • Regulate Facebook as a public utility (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:23PM (#52464405)

    It's the all-purpose solution to every complaint. Also, I'm sure Facebook supports this sort of regulation elsewhere. Why not apply it where it's needed most?

  • "...Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos..."

    And how the hell did anyone come up with this, as if YouTube suddenly disappeared overnight?

    Give me a break. The world does not revolve around one social media platform. I wish more Facebook narcissists would realize that.

    • I wish more Facebook narcissists would realize that.

      But people really do care about the inane shit I post, or is that shit post.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      And how the hell did anyone come up with this, as if YouTube suddenly disappeared overnight?

      Facebook: "Welcome to Facebook"
      YouTube: "The site youtube.com does not participate in your plan's zero rating program. Your account has 0 MB remaining. To continue to youtube.com, please enter your payment information."

  • Folks, have your license and registration ready (Score:4, Informative)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:45PM (#52464589)
    Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.

    I was pulled over one night for speeding, and happened to have my camera tripod on the passenger seat. The officer asked what it was, and I made the mistake of reaching over to grab it so he could get a better view. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the officer reach for his gun. They are extremely jumpy about any sudden movements with your hands. Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.

    As for Facebook, what probably happened is when you upload a video it gets put onto a single server that happens to host your FB wall. If the video goes viral, it needs to be moved to a higher capacity server or server farm, to better handle the load.

    • Re:Folks, have your license and registration ready (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @12:55PM (#52464669)

      How about we stop having panicky gunmen micromanage everyone's driving?

      • How about we stop having panicky gunmen micromanage everyone's driving?

        OK. Will you personally stop the people who shoot cops in the face when they're pulled over for having invalid tags, and for driving drunk or recklessly? You've got that all under control so that the police dealing with assholes all day long for a living won't have a single concern about getting killed because someone's driving on a highway at night with no lights on?

        Thanks for stepping up and preventing all of those assaults and murders. The cops will be hugely relieved that their lives are no longer a

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ljw1004 ( 764174 )

      Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car.

      Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.

      Those two things you've said are self-contradictory. If the police officer comes over, is the officer going to see you rummaging in your glovebox for your registration (and think you're reaching for a gun)? Or is the officer going to see you with your hands in sight at all times?

    • Re:Folks, have your license and registration ready (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xrikcus ( 207545 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:32PM (#52464921)

      Is that a reasonable assumption? For the first couple of years I lived in the US I don't think it was obvious to me that I should even stay in the car when pulled over. When if my wallet was in my bag in the back of the car? No reason to take it into the front just in case I'm pulled over, after all, especially when you come from a part of the world that has no requirement to carry identification in the car in the first place. Certainly back in the UK I wouldn't assume I couldn't leave the car. This peculiar interaction where the driver has to follow careful rules that are only practically spread through word of mouth and watching TV shows, just in case the cop gets nervous, isn't really optimal, and I don't think assuming that "everyone knows" is a reasonable view of the world..

    • Re:Folks, have your license and registration ready (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:46PM (#52465019)

      Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.

      1. Limit movements as much as possible when the cop is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your license, insurance card and registration out onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio.

      2. Make sure the officer can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, roll down your tinted windows.

      3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Sir, my insurance card is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my insurance card out of the center console now."

      4. No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any searches, refuse the 'may I look in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No officer, I do not consent to a search of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the officer is in the wrong, complain LATER.

      5. Remember that the officer usually just wants to walk away from the traffic stop alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the officer feeling safe, by showing your hands, moving slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. An officer who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.

      I remember a time when I got pulled over in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was I got pulled over). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my driver's license out while sitting in the car so I explained to the officer the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my wallet from my back pocket and my license from it. I showed him both hands before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his weapon in hand. I let him approach me to get the license. Where I think I deserved the ticket, he didn't write one. But I could have been easily been shot because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor cops, dead of night, car full of people, some 6'6" guy in a long coat reaching into his back pocket. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.

      • Folks, have your anal lube ready (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Put yourself in the Rapists's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.

        1. Limit movements as much as possible when the rapist is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your panties, bra, and pants off onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still and spread your legs open before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swb ( 14022 )

      Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.

      That's how you get shot. You turn on your hazard lights, you pull over and you put both hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2 and do NOTHING until the cop walks to your car.

      When he asks you for something, you tell him where it is and that you need to reach/move to get it and is he OK with that. You do it slowly and deliberately and one step at a time.

      You start digging around in your car before he's come to your window to talk to you? Of course you're hiding evidence, you're grabbing a weapon, you're d

    • Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car.

      No, don't do this.

      Context: I'm a concealed carry instructor, and what I'm going to say is from the training I received from the state police when I got certified as an instructor.

      Per the state police, here's what the cops want you to do when you're pulled over: Put your car in park, turn off the ignition and put your hands where they can see them. On the wheel, or on the dash -- or if you think the officer might have some particular reason to be worried, put them out the window. When the officer approac

    • Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.

      What country is this? I'm in South Africa, I get pulled over perhaps twice a month, sometimes four times a month (happened just yesterday), so in my lifetime I've been pulled over well over a hundred times.

      Sometimes I get out the car, a few times I got into an argument with the cop simply out of boredom. At night I don't turn the dome light on. I don't bother with keeping my hands on the wheel, I'm normally outside the car digging in my pockets (looking for my license) before the cop approaches. A few time

  • How is this any different (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Thursday July 07, 2016 @01:22PM (#52464845) Journal

    How is this any different from what the newspapers and or TV news used to do ? Editors and in some cases for TV the FCC always ruled over what could and would be published, and often it took a day or 2 before that happened. In the age of instant gratification people expect the news to be available seconds after it happened, or as it happens but that doesn't allow for any sort of verification or fact checking. The power of social media can be wonderful or terrible, it has shown great and horrible things, but without clarification we've seen what a misunderstanding can do to someone's life, and I think we can see that kind of instant publicity often drives what some people can and will do. In some cases it is better not give the bad guys what they want but to sensor some details to aid in criminal investigation and preserve the privacy and dignity of victims or families. I think there is certainly room for discussion and some rules need to be established for what can and will be seen. There are other ways to publish video content, e.g. YouTube and if Facebook becomes undependable or tyrannical then some other source of app will fill in the gap.

    Note : I don't use Facebook but manage to keep abreast of current events.

  • FACEBOOKISTAN (Score:3)

    by Jonah Hex ( 651948 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [smtodxeh]> on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:28PM (#52465337) Homepage Journal
    Just watched this last night, while I've heard of the issues with content moderators previously, this is the first time I've seen it all laid out including the censorship of legal political parties. Also to be found in the usual places if you'd like a download.

    Facebookistan Site [facebookistan.org]
    Watch on YouTube Facebookistan english version [youtube.com]

  • Several thoughts on all of this.... (Score:3)

    by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Thursday July 07, 2016 @02:40PM (#52465439) Journal

    First of all, the whole "technical glitch" claim when this new "live content" is suddenly pulled *could* be legitimate. I'm not saying Facebook has done much to deserve the benefit of the doubt based on its actions in the past.... but it's quite possible these live streams of very popular "breaking news story" type content are overloading the servers they're getting hosted on. Maybe FB has to pull stuff when it gets too many simultaneous views and move it elsewhere, to keep it from impacting performance of the rest of the site? I don't know what they have to juggle behind the scenes to keep everything working properly, but I imagine there's a lot of this manual intervention required. Even our MS Exchange mail hosting service has struggles with automatic load-balancers and regularly pins the blame on them when strange things start happening with devices not receiving mail.

    Second, I think there have to be some expectations set with "social media" as a whole. Just because social media sites are adding capabilities like live-streaming video doesn't make them a substitute for a commercial news station. At best, they have the same status as your run of the mill blogger. Certainly, some breaking news happens thanks to these sites distributing it first. But there's no guarantee the content will reliably stay online to reference it for others to view or read it, and it's liable to be presented with a strong bias attached.

    IMO, there's a weird symbiotic relationship between news media and social media going on. While social media is happy to grab up a lot of the "eyeballs" that would traditionally have watched television news or read printed news instead? The news media benefits, in turn, by selectively rebroadcasting some of the content, straight from social media sites, vs. incurring the expense of sending news teams to record that content themselves all the time. Even if we're talking only printed news -- they can literally break new stories based solely on what they saw happen or read about on social media.

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close