Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Facebook Businesses Social Networks United States Politics

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Zuckerberg's Real Campaign: Save Facebook

Comments Filter:
  • Is Damaging Society and Personal Relationships ACROSS THE GLOBE! (Cough, Cough, Bullshit) LET IT BURN! Go OUTSIDE and see your Friends FACE TO FACE!
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • 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,

      • 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.

      • 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.

        • > 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]

          • .

            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.

    • If Facebook is in danger of destruction, I want to know: how can we help? Help destroy it, that is. I am a moral person, after all.
  • 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.

    • ... 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?

    • Yeah, I don't take that point as a given either.

      and to save the most powerful platform in human history.

      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

  • by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot&jawtheshark,com> on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:09AM (#55821383) Homepage Journal
    Decided on a Facebook hiatus this month. Frankly, I don’t really feel I miss much and I posted frequently. Sometimes, you think “this is cool, I should share it”. That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes. I conclude that it really wasn’t that important then.
    • by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:15AM (#55821891)
      60 days facebook free. Deleted my account and will never look back.
      • 28 and counting ;-)
        • End of 2008 for me. 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.
          • 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.

          • by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

            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.

    • by gnick ( 1211984 )

      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.

    • by WallyL ( 4154209 )

      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...

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:11AM (#55821391)
    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.
    • by TimSSG ( 1068536 )

      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"

    • 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.

    • "Loners", by the way.

      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.
  • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

        • by arth1 ( 260657 )

          (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.

  • "... 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.

    • by Scarred Intellect ( 1648867 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:28AM (#55821515) Homepage Journal

      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.

      •     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.

      • by epine ( 68316 )

        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!".

        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

        • 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.

    • "... 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.

  • 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!

    • by RedK ( 112790 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:34AM (#55821591)

      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.

      • 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

        • by RedK ( 112790 )

          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

      • 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}

  • by timholman ( 71886 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:21AM (#55821471)

    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.

    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.

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:25AM (#55821491) Journal

    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.

    • >"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]

      • by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @12:02PM (#55822697)

        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'.

      • I have never been more proud of never having had a Facebook login

        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.

  • Just release more SJW all over social media. Just let them ban anything they don't like.
    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
    • 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.

  • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:28AM (#55821525)

    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)

    by DeplorableCodeMonkey ( 4828467 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:32AM (#55821573)

    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.

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      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

      • 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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • Hasn't it turned into MySpace? Only teens and olds posting pictures of their lunch? All the millennials seem to have departed for Reddit and Instagram.
  • "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.

    • "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.

  • by SirTreveyan ( 9270 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @09:52AM (#55821715)
    Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails [foxnews.com] the free expression [dailysignal.com] of conservative ideas [thehill.com]. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.
  • . . . to save the most powerful platform in human history.

      Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

  • Good! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:12AM (#55821877)
    Let him scramble and let him fail. Facebook never did anything really innovative anyway. It's like one giant, topicless bulletin board where everyone posts shit about their lives most people don't want to read anyway. Facebook ruined the concept of friendship and relegated it to something far less meaningful and rich. Instead the platform has been divisive, promotes hatred, and promotes revisionist history. I'm now 60 days free from that giant clusterfuck known as Facebook. Facebook is psychologically toxic!
  • by PineHall ( 206441 ) on Thursday December 28, 2017 @10:19AM (#55821925)

    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.

    • "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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

    • 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

    • by Whibla ( 210729 )

      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?

  • 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.
    • 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?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • He should read the story of what happened to Ma Bell when the government decided that she was too large.
  • 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

  • How many of those photos and videos of cats on Facebook are Russian while hiding their true identity and nationality? Are we being covertly influenced by Russian cats?

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...