Mark Zuckerberg's Real Campaign: Save Facebook (axios.com) 158
From an Axios report: Mark Zuckerberg started 2017 scoffing at the idea of Russia election manipulation on Facebook, and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency. Facebook's CEO ends 2017 a very changed man: scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists, and to save the most powerful platform in human history. A Facebook exec tells us: "This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."
Save that Thing we KNOW.... (Score:1)
Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fuck you, Zuckerburger.
Start by changing your stupid Hr department, who routinely discriminate against age, and keep black lists of people critical about HR SJW practices.
That's my real personal experience.
Re: (Score:1)
Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.
[citation needed]
Why do you think FB users hate it? They seem to have a pretty dedicated following. Most of the FB hate I see is from people who've decided that FB users are too stupid to set their own privacy limits. I have an account and find it useful and entertaining. It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content. I follow legitimate news source
Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... (Score:1)
Well, the "legitimate" sources are buried under zillion tons of pure crap. Why would I waste my time browsing through ad-riddled pages of FB when I can get better structured and better presented articles elsewhere?
In case you wonder, FB mobile webpage is purposefully slow as shit, to force you into their app with no adblock.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the "legitimate" sources are buried under zillion tons of pure crap.
The same could be said of news sources in general. If you look for crap, you'll find it, but good sources aren't hard to find. I follow CNN, CNN International, and BBC News. I trust them and have not seen a headline from any of them that I'd call "fake".
Why would I waste my time browsing through ad-riddled pages of FB when I can get better structured and better presented articles elsewhere?
I often see posts from my news sources that aren't featured on their main pages but are interesting to me. Note that these headlines in my FB feed are in addition to what I see on their sites, not a replacement.
Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.
...They seem to have a pretty dedicated following. ...It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content.....
Agreed. Facebook is what you make of it. People blame Facebook instead of evaluating their own behavior and interactions that make Facebook what it is.
Human nature/psychology is more likely to react to, respond, and share inane, extreme, and negative stuff than it is to intelligent, moderate, nuanced stuff, so naturally the former floats to the top of many Facebook users "experience." This phenomenon is not unique to Facebook though... Just look at the Slashdot commentary and note how often the negative, angry, and sometimes unabashed trolling comments generate the most responses [like the original post in this very discussion]. Humanity's fundamental fascination with conflict and cat pictures won't be cured by destroying Facebook. Killing Facebook would be like cutting off the head of a hydra, where two [or more] options would arise in its place fulfill people's desire for conflict and cat pictures, whether they are aware of their desires or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people are too stupid to realize they hate it.
There are all KINDS of things I think I enjoy. Which ones am I too dumb to realize I don't like? If I find out that I hate ice cream and orgasms I'll be crushed!
Facebook use was recently classified as a mental heath disorder.
https://games.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
Facebook is not a video game. Even if it was, use is not necessarily excessive use.
Re: (Score:3)
You only say that because you want to sell your games.
However my Facebook messages are mostly around the following.
a: What time are we around for a game of GURPS?
b: Actually I am not ready for a GURPS session, how about if we play munchkin.
a: That sounds good, I am free Saturday
b: Saturday works how about you c
c: Yea Saturday works
The real problem is that people seem to want to friend everyone, including toxic people for them. So other then friendly communication you are bombarded with political rambling,
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is not only unnecessary for that use case, it's hard to for me to see what value it brings that exceeds the cost of using Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that people seem to want to friend everyone, including toxic people for them. So other then friendly communication you are bombarded with political rambling, or baby pictures, or photos of all their travels.
Some (many?) certainly do. But just like reading no lower than 2 on Slashdot, I can unfollow friends on Facebook and no one gets booboo feelings. They are still friends, I just don't have to read their rants unless they address me.
However - I had to go Facebook for what I am working on. It really sucks, so my viewpoint is probably non-standard.
Are you *SURE* they won't get upset? (Score:2)
> But just like reading no lower than 2 on Slashdot, I can
> unfollow friends on Facebook and no one gets booboo feelings.
Are you *SURE* they won't get upset? https://modenook.com/facebook-... [modenook.com]
> In nearby Mountain City, Tennessee, a couple is dead because they
> unfriended the wrong person. A woman's father murdered the couple,
> leaving their infant alive in the mother's arms, because they unfriended his
> daughter on Facebook. You can read about that story here on The Tennessean.
https://www.a [aol.com]
Re: (Score:2)
.
Are you *SURE* they won't get upset?
I don't "unfriend" them, I just stop following them. This way I don't see anything they post.
How can we help? (Score:2)
Most powerful? No. Quickest? Yes (Score:1)
the most powerful platform in human history
I would say religions have been and still are far more powerful (yes religion is a "platform", just not a technological one). FB is just faster, but certainly not more powerful.
I agree with none of these platforms.
Re: (Score:1)
... religion is a "platform"..
I agree with none of these platforms.
you seem to love your ability not to "agree" irrelevantly about vague terms like "religion" and "platform" . if you were more rational and informed, you would define those terms and then state your disagreement specifically in a forum that was discussing them.
but to ask that from you would be unfair. huh?
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what Zuckerwhateverhisnameis actually believes, then a couple of Ayatollahs, several Muftis, a Bodhisatva or two, the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Orthodox church are waiting in a dark alley for him with baseball bats. After a re-education at their hands (and slippers, and censers), they'll throw his pain-wracked self into the Pit of Protestants, where numbers and insecurity will really ma
Re: (Score:2)
Each religious current can differ slightly, but they tend to agree on some general principles. And MOST religious currents tend to have some very well positionned influencers in governments, police and law enforcement
Decided on a Facebook hiatus... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I deleted my Facebook account five or six years ago, and I've been happy about that decision ever since.
Any organization (Kickstarter-based or not) that has Facebook as the only means of contacting them is an organization that I am not engaging with. No loss to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Recently used it through my partners account to see a particular group page for a recent Kickstarter I backed and was at first reconsidering joining again, but after only a short time I realised it was not a good idea.
FWIW, my father has a Facebook account that he only uses to follow a handful of Facebook groups and he has purposely not added any "friends". His hobby is bird-watching and some birding organizations he is involved with mainly use Facebook for announcements, so that's what pushed him there, but I think he has joined or liked a few other Facebook pages since. If you don't add friends to your account, then the Facebook feed is like a very customizable news aggregator.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes, you think “this is cool, I should share it”. That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes.
I keep a "temp.doc" open to jot down my witticisms before posting them to FB. Most of them never get copied out of that document because I decide they weren't that interesting after coming back for a second reflection. On /. I just post whatever nonsense pops into my head.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Decided on a slashdot hiatus this month. Frankly, I don't really feel I miss much and I RTFS frequently. Sometimes, you think "this is news for nerds, I should comment on it." That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes. I conclude that it really wasn't that important then.
Dammit...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I never really got the point of Reddit... I have an account, but the site just doesn't speak to me.
I'm with you there. Reddit drives me crazy. I can never follow the threads of discussion there.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of my friends abandoned email in favor of Facebook. It's a lot easier to use Facebook than to use a slow and synchronous medium rather than a fast and asynchronous one. Some of my relatives post things on Facebook that I wouldn't get in other ways.
The world would be a better place without FB (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The world would be a better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would result in less outrage politics, less radicalization of loaners, less keeping up with Jonses, less depressed people, less echo chambers, safer roads, better sleep. If deleting Facebook and Twitter was a pill, we would all be taking it instead of vitamins.
So, is less radicalization of bankers a good or a bad thing?
Tim S.
"less radicalization of loaners"
Re: (Score:2)
If someone want to speak like a miner, they will be replied to like a miner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The world would be a better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would result in less outrage politics, less radicalization of loaners, less keeping up with Jonses, less depressed people, less echo chambers, safer roads, better sleep. If deleting Facebook and Twitter was a pill, we would all be taking it instead of vitamins.
Thank you! The world will be an infinitely better place without Facebook and Twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice for once to not be the first person to say all this. Don't forget 'millennials-and-younger people learning ACTUAL social skills'.
Die, Facebook, die, die, die. And nothing of value was lost.
President (Score:2)
and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency
Until he figured out that he's one of the most hated people in the world, even among the heaviest of Facebook users.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Trump is hated only by a tiny, noisy, vacuous group of snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No. His dangerous foreign politics, his abuse of the Department of Justice, his behavior towards women, and the same fiscal planning that have bankrupted him 4 times applied to the US budget are sources of profound loathing.
Re:President (Score:5, Insightful)
Its hard not to read posts like the grand parents and think anything other than anti-zionism/anti-semitism and or rabid anti-Trump hysteria is behind it. The whole Jerusalem embassy thing is crazy to be upset over.
Its simply a recognition of facts.
1) Israel is a sovereign nation.
2) Israel physically controls Jerusalem
3) Israel says Jerusalem is its capital and has government offices etc there.
4) The PLO has zero chance of occupying and controlling Jerusalem now or in the forseable future.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Yes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; disagreeing with that is just maintaining a silly fiction.
5) Arafat and Abbas have been offered almost everything they want in the past and walked away; they don't want peace; their idea of negotiating is demanding everything while continuing to sow hatred and encourage terrorism toward Israel and its people.
6) The peace "process" won't be hurt by this. Current Israeli politics are no where near putting Jerusalem on the barging table again ( even if it has been there in the past ). We have been trying to help negotiate a peace for 40 years! The previous "process" was not working, you can't undermine a process that is already hopeless!
7) Half the Senators who went on the Sunday shows to criticize the move VOTED FOR IT. Literally NOTHING of substance has changed in the past 25 years as far PLO/Israeli peace situation except domestic political sentiment; Muslims have somehow been advanced in the victim hierarchy ahead of jews.
Maybe the GP is upset about the NATO comments Trump made. Hmm well lets see he got a commitment form our EU allies to actually hold up their end of the bargain and make the defense investments the treaty requires. Oh how terrible.
Maybe the GP is upset with Trump's China rhetoric. Hmm well its had little impact on US-China relations that I can see, maybe its engendered a little more cooperation regarding DPRK from them as an olive branch maybe they are just seeing the light on the hazards of letting the Kims keeping developing nukes. Who even knows? - I guarantee you nobody at the State Department; not Trump appointees or career diplomats.
Maybe the GP is upset about all the territory ISIS has lost?
Maybe the GP is upset about the fact that the Saudis are actually reforming their terror sponsoring ways?
Face it Trump FP policy has been at WORST a wash. At best he has actually made some minor progress advancing American's interests; something the last two administrations both failed at almost entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crimea - Is pretty clearly a Russian territory right now. I'd go a head and update your maps if you have not yet done so.
They conquered it and parts of Georgia fairly recently. There does not seem to be much chance of anyone 'freeing it' anytime soon.
I admittedly don't know what things are like there on the ground. My understanding is most people in Crimea want to be part of Russia. The Ukraine does not seem to have the wherewithal to re-take it anytime soon. I don't think they will be pulled into NATO
Crimea (Score:2)
The critical thing is that most of the people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of Russia.
We should never have made such a fuss about it. Because screaming about marginal cases weakens your ability to scream if Russia becomes truly aggressive. It also strengthens Putin politically.
There is a feeling that national borders are sacrosanct, even though they are often the result of arbitrary historical processes and have little to do with ethnic boundaries. Particularly where colonial powers were conc
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what the USA would be today if the southern states had been allowed to succeed.
That is really really hard because a lot of political events took place in the mean time that would have been markedly different without the "southerns."
I don't think the institution of slavery in north America had a lot of legs left in it. Keeping and operating a slave labor force ( of the brutal sort practiced in the US ) comes with it a lot of problems. Technology and changing mores were sure to bring about its natural end in the next 25 - 50 years the way I look at it. So that leaves us with a North
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery would indeed have died anyway. Without the Southern senators the North would have repealed all its pro-slavery legislation and actively campaigned to end it. Probably including a naval blockade.
But the civil war was never about slavery. It was about preventing the Southern states from leaving.
Much of the opposition to entering world war I came from the South. The North would have joined, but in a reduced capacity. But that said, the war was largely won by the time the US entered. For WW 2, the
Re: (Score:1)
"Treason charges"? WTF are you smoking?
Flynn was charges with lying to FBI investigators over a perfectly legal phone conversation that the FBI already had a recording of. It was a setup, start to finish - notice how Strzok didn't make any recordings of this interview despite FBI rules requiring that every interview be recorded?
He was stupid to talk to the FBI without an appointment and without a lawyer present. That's the worst crime he's committed so far.
"Treason", FFS, has a specific definition that h
Re: (Score:1)
Go to fivethirtyeight [fivethirtyeight.com] click on the approval ratings then net approval then compare to all presidents.
The only one that was even close by this time, and that was briefly, was President Clinton.
If you extend the trend forward, Reagan. Carter, Truman, and W Bush touched that level of disapproval eventually. Of those four, the last three stayed down in those ranges once they got there. (Reagan's blip was fairly brief from what I saw, presumably tied to Iran Contra, but I didn't double check.) Bush had the ec
Re: (Score:2)
(Reagan's blip was fairly brief from what I saw, presumably tied to Iran Contra, but I didn't double check.)
The drop in his second term, yes, was largely linked to the Iran-Contra affair.
The rapid rise during his first term was primarily due to getting shot, and the smaller rise at the end of his term due to his deterioration. Too many people can't keep sympathy separate from job approval.
bubble founder and his equally bubble critics (Score:2)
"... scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists"
facebook founder, users, employees, and critics, all seem to live in a bubble, spouting nonsense back and forth, about a non-incident, backed with no independently verifiable evidence, made up entirely of unverified allegations about, relatively minuscule ad spending by unidentified americans with, fuzzy at best, connections several nodes removed from anything real named kremlin.
sad.
Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics (Score:5, Interesting)
Accusations are today's proof of guilt.
Prima facie rules our collective perception.
I did a test on this in high school, because I recognized the phenomenon, though didn't know the word for it. I demanded my friend give me back my coat (his coat that he was wearing) in front of the teacher: "Hey, give me back my coat!". Despite my friend's claim that it was his coat, and without anything more from me, the teacher made him give me his coat. I explained later and returned his coat.
One test does not prove anything, but one needn't look far to see more examples.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
I'd say pretty evil shit. This is just the worst I could come up with off the top of my head in which they've admitted.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you just stirring the shit, or did you really do that?
Most teachers have read this ancient story about the boy who cried "Wolf!". The boy is initially trusted, but ends up becoming a leprous bum living on the outskirts of town.
"What kind of person would deliberately emu
Re: (Score:2)
Are you just stirring the shit, or did you really do that?..."What kind of person would deliberately emulate the boy who cried 'Wolf!'?"
I had a theory (people tend to believe the first thing (accusation) they hear)
I set up an experiment (falsely accuse a friend of stealing my coat in front of someone)
I ran the experiment.
I analyzed the results. (One result is not definitive, but does provide food for thought.)
It's called the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it.
As to the rest of your post: nonsensical trite that doesn't apply.
Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, it doesn't. I'm just stating and supporting the parent post's claim that for most people, the truth of it doesn't matter (at least that's how I interpreted it).
I'm sure Russians did work to influence our election. I'm also sure they've been doing this for longer than I've been alive, and that we do the same. And other nations and other elections, and all directions. It's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
"... scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists" facebook founder, users, employees, and critics, all seem to live in a bubble, spouting nonsense back and forth, about a non-incident, backed with no independently verifiable evidence, made up entirely of unverified allegations about, relatively minuscule ad spending by unidentified americans with, fuzzy at best, connections several nodes removed from anything real named kremlin.
sad.
Hmmm. Perhaps Zuckerberg is Presidential material.
Of course he would say that (Score:2)
Mark Zuckerberg started 2017 scoffing at the idea of Russia election manipulation on Facebook...
No transparent conflict of interest in that position... [/sarcasm] Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.
...and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency.
$diety save us!
Re:Of course he would say that (Score:5, Informative)
Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.
The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ? The fact is : the "Facebook election manipulation" thing ended being a big nothing burger. Once the actual meat came out, we found out that again, MSM was pushing a fake news narrative of "Facebook exploitation" that just didn't happen in the way they needed to in order to make Trump look bad. He again ended being right about the MSM only being out to attack him.
If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.
Both sides? (Score:1)
The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ?
"Both sides"? What side do Russians have in the US election? Last I checked they were neither democrats nor republicans. They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation [fec.gov] of federal election laws.
Which statute does that break exactly ?
There are plenty of articles [washingtonpost.com] on this very topic.
If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.
Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election. You are making a distinction without a dif
Re: (Score:3)
They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation of federal election laws.
Your link points to donations or contributions to campaigns. None of this involves ads on Facebook. AKA : you're a purveyor of Fake news now.
There are plenty of articles on this very topic.
WaPo. LmAo. No seriously, again, state the statutes, not a vague link to "Donations by foreign nationals are prohibited". None occurred here and thus those statutes are irrelevant to the discussion.
Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election.
Sure, but you're missing the point (which of course I expected of a biased individual out to "get Drumpf!"). They influenced BOTH SIDES. The goal was not to get a par
Re: (Score:2)
The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ?
{SJW}
Statute?? We don't need no stinking statute.
{/SJW}
Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm .... reading between the lines, I would guess that Zuckerberg's real concern is that engagement metrics are falling for Facebook users. I can't imagine that he gives a flip one way or the other about "fake news" or manipulation, as long as people use Facebook.
Just this morning, I unfollowed yet another friend who couldn't resist screaming at everyone with yet another political post. It's getting very, very tiring. Facebook has caused friends of mine to stop speaking (in person) to each other. It's a great platform for seeing family photos, but beyond that I no longer see much utility in using a platform that exists to promote and monetize "us vs. them" mindsets.
Facebook can't die quickly enough.
Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
I too am quickly getting tired of the political diatribes that just irk me, as I agree with them but just don't want to waste time in such a futile way.
What's needed is a platform where a post, or comment, can be tagged with any number of social network sourced flags, and you can filter out those flags.
Re: (Score:3)
FB is useful for two things, Photo sharing which you mention. It its sorta fun to see people react and comment to holiday photos and photos from sporting events etc. The other thing is event announcements and automated RSVP processing. Its a nice way to keep track of how many people are coming to your BBQ.
Re: (Score:3)
I think Mark is more concerned Congress might decided social media needs 'regulating.'
Re: Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" (Score:1)
Exactly this. Face has struggled to remain not myspace, but he may have found the clock is ticking and there is not alot they can do about it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Install "Social Fixer" and have it hide all political posts. https://socialfixer.com/ [socialfixer.com]
Saves my sanity every time I login to FB.
I'd say this is good news (Score:3)
That The Facebook needs saving is encouraging news... that seems to indicate its popularity and influence is waning.
Even if this is true, it's sad to realize the genie is out of the bottle on this type of social media platform, and something else will replace or compete with Zuck's digital progeny.
Here's to hoping we don't get a replacement that's actually worse, on the order of trading Saddam Hussein for ISIS.
Re: (Score:2)
>"That The Facebook needs saving is encouraging news... that seems to indicate its popularity and influence is waning."
I have never been more proud of never having had a Facebook login. I really hope Facebook falls and burns. Although it could do some good things, the bad is really bad. From bullying and harassment to invasion of privacy, fake news, tracking, and manipulation, it is probably the world's largest and most dangerous cesspool.
I must close with my absolute favorite South Park link:
https:// [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'd say this is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a facebook account, but I LOVE facebook. Facebook keeps all of 'them' in one place, for easy filtering. Modern version of AOL.
If Facebook shuts down, 'they' will be everywhere, figuratively jumping up and down going 'look at me, look at me!' Let them have their ghetto.
Definitions of 'signal' and 'noise' vary. Facebooks keeps the 'noise' largely in one place, along with all the people who think it's 'signal'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hope you've never been proud of it, because if you get your pride from not participating in something popular you must live a miserable life. Don't you have anything you've done that you can be proud of? You could be smug about it. That isn't great, but it's a lot better than being proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe "proud" is not the correct word. Perhaps "validated"?
Hire more SJW to hide news (Score:1)
Music, art, cartoons, blasphemy, comments about illegal migration, history, book reviews, movie reviews.
SJW will report all reviews, comments, links. Ban accounts. Remove the comments, links.
Social media will be so simple to use then as only a few trusted accounts will be allowed to comment.
Only having a few sites to link from will make news so much more simple to control too.
A perfect brand trusted by big go
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the SJW crowd has jumped the proverbial shark one time too many, and has done grave damage to their own side. Their outrage machine has started to settle bar fights with grenades, and they are catching most of the resultant shrapnel.
Go ahead, pull the other one (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook absolutely depends on bad behavior in order to maintain the amount of power it has. The only "campaign to save Facebook" that we can realistically expect is a PR campaign. Actual positive change would harm FB's shareholders.
I have an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading a story about a man who was Facebook mobbed by a woman who accused him of being a pedophile because her kids were in part of a selfie he took. She later apologized and admitted that she was an idiot. The best way to deal with a troll mob is really simple:
1. Lock the account of EVERYONE who shared it.
2. Force them to read a notice that they participated in a troll mob based on defamatory/abusive content.
3. Threaten them that if it happens again within 90 days, they'll be locked out for 30 days.
4. If it happens three times in a year they get a lifetime ban from all Facebook social networks and using Facebook Connect to login to third party services.
Re: (Score:2)
FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.
2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.
3) I don't know if you hav
Re: (Score:2)
FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.
If this only applies to things like the pedo slander/troll mob? No, not really. It needs to penalize malicious behavior.
2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.
And? They've actually gotten pretty good at ensuring that you've at least skimmed through the ToS. Do it in an engaging form, such as a short video with the click-through button only accessible at the end.
3) I don't know if you have noticed but FB share price and a lot of what they talk about at share holder meetings are "active users." That is what advertisers care about, and by extension investors. Kicking the worst trouble makers off the site who make it toxic is probably necessary, but that is going have to be reserved for a few serial offenders.
Agreed. There'd need to be a lot of stages involved and it probably should be run on a point system like driver's licenses sometimes are. You only get kicked off after you've proven
Pure garbage (Score:1)
Facebook is pure garbage. I've never created an account but I see lots of my friends waste huge piles of time on it. The best thing for Facebook would be to blank the filesystems of every server they have and use their massive amounts of equipment towards something more noble, like protein folding simulations which may actually cure disease.
Mark Zuckerberg is a useless tool who will hopefully be a footnote in history and nothing more.
Save it? From self implosion? (Score:2)
Hopefully (Score:2)
"This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."
Hopefully by going the MySpace way.
Re: (Score:2)
"This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."
Hopefully by going the MySpace way.
I can only hope that people wake up from this slumber called social media. It will be great to watch Zuckerberg's financial empire implode overnight. It was built on abusing people's privacy, manipulating news, and encouraging social rifts.
Facebook censorship must end... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Christian preacher doesn't hate you when he's saying those things, if anything it's more of a warning. And he's probably (well possibly anyway) not lying either when he says he believes ....
Hate speech is obvious by intent, alas the intent is not always obvious.
It strikes me that this is really the problem that facebook et. al. will have.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious according to who???
The problem with hate speech is that it can't be defined. It has the same definition as pornography years ago, "I cant explain it to you, but I know it when I see it!!!" That is where the problem lies. When drafting hate speech and hate crime laws, basic definitions fall to intent, not to actual content or execution of the act.
When BLM supporters call for all "whiteys" to be killed, I would classify that as hate speech. To me it reeks of hate. But you never see any one who spo
Really? (Score:2)
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.
Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fake News is a Hard Problem (Score:3)
Fake news spreads very fast. People will post things that they agree with (or find interesting) without thinking and checking to see if it is true. One harmless but false post that I recently seen on Facebook posted by a couple of my FB friends is that in 2018 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...12/12 will all occur on a Sunday. It is a fun fact if it was true, but with just a little bit of thinking it is easy to realize that it is false. Yet I have a couple of FB friends who posted it without thinking. Posting without thinking and checking is a problem Facebook can not solve.
By the time a human looks at the post and determines it is fake news, the post has been reposted hundreds of times. An algorithm can find some fake news posts but how many false positives would there be. People would also figure ways around (or game) the algorithm, so it would be an ongoing battle. And what determines fake new? Is it one misleading statement? Does a slanted story with only one side counts as fake news? Is an opinion that is misleading fake news? It is hard.
Then there is the issue of censorship. Is it right for Facebook to ban posts? Should Facebook mark posts as possible fake news and put it far down in its curated list of posts? I think something can be done, but it is not an easy problem to solve, and it will never be completely solved.
Re: (Score:2)
"and it will never be completely solved."
Exactly. Humans are too lazy to fact check on their own and will simply share things they WANT to be true.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True. I have a good friend I have known for 50 years. We went all through school together and were roommates in college. We had many great conversations trying to solve all the worlds problems. He reads a lot and considers himself to be well informed and intelligent. BUT when it comes to social media he will buy anything hook line and sinker and share it if it matches his world view. I have discussed it with him in person as I never respond to a social media post concerning politic or religion. His response
Re: (Score:2)
So what does one person's political orientation have to do with anything here? Both left and right have their share of unscientific people, just unscientific about different things. Unscientific right-wingers don't believe that AGW is going on and is serious, unscientific left-wingers don't believe genetic modification can be safe. (Anti-vaxxers can be found on both sides.)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is the issue of censorship. Is it right for Facebook to ban posts? Should Facebook mark posts as possible fake news and put it far down in its curated list of posts?
Facebook is not a government entity, so is not subject to such things as the 1st amendment, therefore censorship is available to it; that said, the answer to these specific questions depend very much on the type of community that Facebook wants to foster. It doesn't make the questions any easier, but does put them into context towards an answer.
Myself, I got tired of it all, so I quit visiting. I check about once a week to see if anything has changed...it hasn't. (not-so-interestingly, the people that real
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news spreads very fast. People will post things that they agree with (or find interesting) without thinking and checking to see if it is true. One harmless but false post that I recently seen on Facebook posted by a couple of my FB friends is that in 2018 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...12/12 will all occur on a Sunday. It is a fun fact if it was true...
Excuse me, but are you conflating fake news with jokes or memes?
Or are you suggesting that only by eliminating humour can we purge fake news from our feeds?
FB is click bait (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot, about 75% of the stuff I see are things like this: Apple will lose xxx share...click here for the details New campaign to take down xxxx politician, click for the details and on and on. Click bait, to get people to go to a website, in order to run up the click count, so the website can charge more for advertising.
Well I have never been on Facebook. I only use the regular world-wide web. ;-)
But it doesn't sound like there's much difference
Does one have more porn than the other?
Facebook is dying (Score:1)
Same death as USENET, myspace, and all other forum type systems. They eventually become so polluted with spam they are unbearable and useless. The only reason Facebook is still used by anyone is because old people are afraid of losing their contact list and pictures. Young people don't care about archival or contact lists and are willing to throw it away and start over any day so they jump around and try new social networks.
history (Score:2)
Sad and embarrassing. (Score:2)
The entire fake news thing is sad and embarrassing. It's people admitting that they cannot think critically, and will believe just about anything. They're crying "Do something! Do something!" when all they have really ever had to do is think critically for a few moments and the problem is solved.
Corruption is rampant and legal in this county. Our representatives are so openly owned that nobody even blinks an eye, its no longer news. So normal that nobody even bothers to fact check anymore. Politicians are a
Russian cats!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a breed of cats called Russian Blue. What are the others hiding?
Re: (Score:1)