Facebook Tests Prompts That Ask Users If They're Worried a Friend is 'Becoming an Extremist' (cnn.com) 172
Some Facebook users in the United States are being served a prompt that asks if they are worried that someone they know might be becoming an extremist. Others are being notified that they may have been exposed to extremist content. From a report: It is all part of a test the social media company is running that stems from its Redirect Initiative, which aims to combat violent extremism, Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesperson, told CNN. Screen shots of the alerts surfaced on social media Thursday. "This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or were exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk," Stone said. "We are partnering with NGOs and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future," Stone added. One of the alerts, a screen grab of which made the rounds on social media Thursday, asks users, "Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?" "We care about preventing extremism on Facebook," explained that alert, according to a screen grab posted on social media. "Others in your situation have received confidential support."
I'm worried (Score:4, Insightful)
About any friends still on Facebook
Re:I'm worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny...when watching the news on all channels, the folks show looting stores, committing arson, etc...didn't quite look like the types that white supremacists would allow in their little group.
If there's a ton of them out there...they sure stay hidden well.
Were they the ones that set up Chad/Chaz? No?
Limits of self-defense? (Score:3)
At first I thought he was a meta-troll pretending to be a racist in a form of self-parody, but after looking at his reply to you, I'm convinced you called it right the first time. (At least on the local evidence.)
Actually ties into some of my recent weird thoughts, possibly triggered by The Path (from a popular (?) course at Harvard).
I think we'd mostly agree that an individual person has a right to use violence, even lethal force, in self-defense. Most people have little problem extending that right to n
Re: (Score:2)
The "corporations are people" thing is commonly misunderstood.
The Supreme Court didn't rule that corporations are people. They simply wrote that they are in an opinion. But they were not creating any precedent, they were simply restating the plain text of the Dictionary Act, which is over 100 years old. What the Dictionary Act does is it defines what a bunch of words mean when Congress uses those words, unless the bill that Congress passes includes a definition of the word to be used specifically for that s
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly conforms with my understanding of the history, so I'm not quite clear what part you're trying to clarify. You mean personal self-defense is limited to natural persons? Or are you trying to separate common law rights from Constitutional rights?
However I also think you might be underestimating the ability of lawyers to creatively redefine terms for unanticipated contexts. Like the equivalence of money to free speech...
Perhaps a weird example of legal creativity, but my wife got me to watch the end of t
Re: I'm worried (Score:3)
snitches get stitches, fruit of the poisonous tree (Score:2)
snitches get stitches!! Also this may lead to fruit of the poisonous tree issues in court.
Re: snitches get stitches, fruit of the poisonous (Score:3)
Also this may lead to fruit of the poisonous tree issues in court.
No, there is no reason to think so.
Re: (Score:2)
snitches get stitches!!
It is this thinking that allows crime to flourish in certain neighborhoods. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine was a mistake and it wouldn't even apply here.
"Fruit of the poisonous tree" is an answer (Score:2)
The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine was a mistake ...
Not at all. The doctrine is the US courts' answer to the question, asked since at least Roman times, "who shall watch the watchers? [because they won't watch each other]".
It is the implementation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination (which, in turn, is largely to keep the authorities from torturing confessions out of suspects). By making the results of such actions useless for prosecution (and even counter-productive, leadin
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. I can't think of anything (Score:2)
that could go wrong here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. This will DEFINITELY not be used for pranks, doxxing, canceling etc. DEFINITELY not.
They did this in Germany last century (Score:2, Insightful)
Now it's The Narrative looking for unwanted non-Narrative-think.
Get off Facebook, people.
Re: (Score:3)
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Sign of a loner. Those who played with friends include SELECT before START.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Just last week I saw a Facebook van pull up to my neighbor's house and round them all up for a "work camp". Facebook goons stomped on the faded Trump 2020 lawn sign and drove off.
Re:They did this in Germany last century (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, it's just Facebook covering its arse. Terrorists keep posting their manifestos and live-streaming their mass murder sprees, and Facebook wants to be seen to be Doing Something. This is something, so they are doing it.
Next time it happens their spokesperson will carefully lay the blame with their friends who failed to report their extremism.
Re:They did this in Germany last century (Score:4)
More importantly for Facebook, it's "doing something" that won't solve the actual problem: their algorithms are tweaked to keep people looking at Facebook, and therefore ads, and it just so happens that as a side effect the way they do that ends up being by continuously showing someone increasingly extreme content.
The actual problem that Facebook and all these other sites that rely on "recommended content" has with generating extremists is that, as it watches what content gets you to stay on the site, it's able to better "bin" you into some extreme. (And it's not just a left/right thing, it'll work on anything that you care to become extreme about that people create content for. Favorite OS, favorite console, favorite sports team, whether the Earth is flat - whatever.) By seeing what content best poked the buttons of other people like you, it knows what content to show you to best poke your buttons.
The more insidious thing is that it also knows which content is least likely to keep you on the site, and filters that out. And that content tends to be the "moderating" content, stuff that's not that interesting because it's just facts or because it fairly covers a story.
And Facebook has no intention of ever changing this, because their goal is keeping you on the site, looking at ads. If it turns you into an extremist - well, that just means they're better able to target ads at you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't a regime yet. However, every step they take seems to bring them closer to that goal.
Re: (Score:2)
When the Regime is looking for unwanted people, the did shit like this.
Now it's The Narrative looking for unwanted non-Narrative-think.
Get off Facebook, people.
You mean that regime that kicked in doors, abducted and murdered people?
Facebook is providing links to support groups.
hire IBM to run it! (Score:2)
hire IBM to run it!
Re: (Score:3)
Keeping a list of political enemies? Oh that’s a classic stasi move. Usually they weren’t dumb enough to announce it though.
Re: (Score:2)
They also seem obsessed with little girls genitals. https://news.yahoo.com/florida... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They also seem obsessed with little girls genitals. https://news.yahoo.com/florida... [yahoo.com]
I think the only way out of the Gender in sports morass is to only have one of each sport team. No separation of the sexes. You have to be the best to make the best teams. If a Young lady can play a College lineman or QB, then she should. If girls can't compete, they just weren't good enough, Title 9 would be solved, because there is no sexual agenda or genital based creepiness.
Re: (Score:2)
How about zero of each sports team?
How about no. It is pure personal expression - sports teams made up of only the best Athletes, be it men or women or trans.
Convenient (Score:3)
This makes swatting really easy and convenient.
Delete your⦠(Score:2)
Why are you on facebook?
(Van Morrison)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pP... [youtube.com]
Also Poppy tells you what to do. Obey Poppy.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=k_... [youtube.com]
As the horse is galloping down the road... (Score:3)
Facebook is asking if the barn door needs to be closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a bad question to ask if someone needs to be warned about a maniac horse on the loose.
holy shite, a new holocaust is coming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was ever on FB (Score:2)
...I would *absolutely* answer yes EVERY TIME.
Doesn't matter who.
If I could bait the system into me being friends with famous people and politicians, and try to trigger it on them? ABSOLUTELY>
Good thing we're not a police state like China.
I have no worries. (Score:2)
Only certainities.
Facebook is... (Score:2)
Facebook is becoming an extremist.
I'm a false positive (Score:5, Interesting)
Due to some involvement in local politics 10 years ago, my friends list has ballooned to over 2400 people. Majority of these folks, I really just don't know them. I don't want to know them either. So I thought I'd conduct a grand social experiment myself. What would happen if I suddenly switched sides?
I started posting pro-trump stuff. Qanon, anti-vaxx stuff. I posted things about 9/11 was an inside job. What's amazing is how many people that barely know me start becoming amateur psychologists. Concern trolls abundant. Instead of responding with logical replies, a lot of people devolve to name calling and insults. It's no wonder that many of the folks that are actually into these things are so reinforced to believe it. It's "Us VS the world". The entire idea of being woke is akin to the John Carpenter movie "They Live"
Aside from that though is from my activities I see a programmed response from people not into these things. Anger, detest, and absolutely no empathy. Things the majority of them would not respond with face to face, suddenly they're emboldened to say because they're sitting behind a screen miles away. The right side is the same way, using the same methods of dehumanizing the left.
The weird thing is, both sides are pretty well programmed, but both sides will also say, "No we're not!" I fully expect to see those kinds of responses to this comment, as well as a few shining jewels of wisdom sprinkled in there.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: I'm a false positive (Score:5, Insightful)
Qanon, anti-vaxx stuff. I posted things about 9/11 was an inside job. What's amazing is how many people that barely know me start becoming amateur psychologists. Concern trolls abundant. Instead of responding with logical replies, a lot of people devolve to name calling and insults.
So you were intentionally trolling everyone with batshit insane conspiracy theories, and in response, everyone treated you like you were either intentionally trolling or batshit insane? You expect a logical reply to "9/11 was an inside job" from a complete stranger over the Internet?
Red Dwarf predicted this future back in 1992 (Score:2)
Be a Facebook Informer. Betray your Family and Friends. Fabulous prizes to be won.
Fun Answer to the Prompts (Score:5, Funny)
" Are you worried someone you know is becoming an extremist ? "
Absolutely !
You really need to keep an eye on that Mark Zukerberg guy.
His business model sure seems to be pretty shifty imo.
What's he need everyone's information for anyway ?
You never know, he may just up and snap at any time. :D
The solution is less Facebook, not more (Score:2)
The solution to Facebook problems is less Facebook, not more.
What defines extremist? (Score:2)
To Republicans, ALL Democrats are extremists
To fundies, ALL atheists, skeptics, members of different religions or LGBT advocates are extremists
To generalize, anyone with power or wealth to protect defines any disagreement, however slight, as extremist if it threatens their power or wealth
Re: (Score:2)
To Democrats, ALL Republicans are extremists.
To atheists, ALL Religious people are extremists.
See, I can do it, too. Yeah, both sides look at Those Other People as devils who will destroy all that is good, right, and proper in society.
Note that, as an example, President Biden is one of those multimillionaires you think are threatened by Those Other People.
selectively leveraging their profile data (Score:2)
They know all the thumbs-up given by many people who were absolutely known to have committed above acts. Their data scientists should be able to correlate patterns of the thumbs-ups to identify other Facebook users leaning in the same directions.
Not a Bad Idea (Score:2)
Extremism happens on both ends of the political spectrum. There are obvious dangers of "big brother" and people turning in their neighbors.. but we are not there yet. geez... Our country is facing multiple problems and seems to be handling it all in the most immature of ways..
I don't have a lot of hope for the world. I don't want to get poltiically involved but I feel as if we need some extremists in the middle, to protect us from the extremists on the far right and left.
--Matthew
Re: (Score:2)
FaceBook + Instagram = FBI (Score:2)
Surely no one will use this to "SWAT" their foes, or fill it with false positives on purpose to make it useless.
Welcome to the ongoing "Sovietization" of America, and both the Republicans and Democrats have been in on it for many years. In the Soviet Union, kids were encouraged by their teachers to turn in their own parents for "unpatriotic activities" for extra meal rations. Looks like we are heading that way now.
They're learning (Score:2)
They're learning from their friends in China. What happens if you report a friend? Do they send the Red Guards (==Antifa) to sack his house?
Please show me the prompt (Score:2)
Needs some work (Score:2)
So far four of my friends have made posts that I replied to and I got this shit saying I was exposed to extremist content. Two were pictures of motorcycles, one was a friend telling someone else "I'm a Muslim but I've never been to a mosque and the third was an ad for some stupid ass beard cream.
Yup, extremism is everywhere when you classify everything as extremist propaganda.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fine to be an extremist as long your extremist group have a name that say you're the good guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, if you storm the Capital while setting up a Guillotine outside, you're probably an extremist.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:5, Insightful)
If you setup an "autonomous zone" and burn down a police station, you're probably also an extremist.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is how Facebook's algorithm works:
If you mark all your friends as extremists, you're the extremist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is how Facebook's algorithm works:
If you mark all your friends as extremists, you're the extremist.
Having a friend who went from right wing to full blown QAnon after getting on Facebook, I looked into their system.
If you visit a linked page of something, could be left or right, could be say, firearms. Facebook makes a note, and more similar links show up as suggestions.
And the further down that road you are inclined to click, the more extreme the links become.
I figured that out pretty quickly, and blocked a lot of "suggestions". He didn't. So FB is just amplifying latent traits, and ends up feeding kook level thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. They just want to know where to push more camo, prepper gear, MRE's, etc ads. Not sure what sort of ads they'd push to the other side of the spectrum.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as if both were in the wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost as if both were in the wrong.
The people in Congress who denounce one while implicitly or explicitly supporting the other are the real extremists.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:4, Insightful)
If you setup an "autonomous zone" and burn down a police station, you're probably also an extremist.
So - this sounds a lot like you approve of the January 6th insurrection, because someone else did something. Where were you on January 6th? Saking for some friends.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:5, Insightful)
No - you don't know the meaning of the word "also" - that word means the label applies to both scenarios.
I'm not saying that one excuses the other. What I'm saying is that the the right isn't the only side guilty of extremist behavior, but the media and corporations often portray it as such. In the links that Facebook links to its all about combatting "right wing" extremism, despite the fact that the left is engaging in extremism with equal or more frequency.
I can acknowledge we've got some crazies in our ranks on the right, but I am not agreeable to a false accusation that it is endemic or isolated to the right.
Re: (Score:2)
No - you don't know the meaning of the word "also" - that word means the label applies to both scenarios.
I'm not saying that one excuses the other. What I'm saying is that the the right isn't the only side guilty of extremist behavior, but the media and corporations often portray it as such.
It takes a special type of howaboutism to compare Antifa and MAGA insurrection completely equally.
Your howaboutism siimply says that you suport the MAGA insurrection.. Tell me they were wrong, and were criminal trying to overthrow the government, without claiming whatever far right talking point. Maybe I'll believe you.
For you see MAGA. Rioting and property destruction is wrong no matter who does it - Your howaboutism exposes your support for one or the other.
Unless you can maybe condemnn the peopel you like - then we'll see.
Re: Report the cancellers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So burning down a government building isnt extremism?
Not for him - it is MAGAs rising up to take what God gave them. Or sumpin.
Re: (Score:2)
If you setup an "autonomous zone" and burn down a police station, you're probably also an extremist.
So - this sounds a lot like you approve of the January 6th insurrection, because someone else did something. Where were you on January 6th? Saking for some friends.
"I like apples" "so what you're saying is you hate oranges?"
I'm saying that when a person invokes whataboutism, it ends up being a hackneyed defense of what he''s howabouting.
It's like a serial killer when asked if he killed someone replies - "Adolph Hister killed a lot of people."
Just because Aunt-tee-fa does something, it does not mean that it was okay for the insurrection to hang Mike Pence had they been successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to prove their point. Youâ(TM)re trying to label them as an extremist and shut them down.
Why would a patriotic American tourist be considered an extremist?
Because if you believe https://hillreporter.com/gop-c... [hillreporter.com] Then comparing the peaceful patriots and what they did - kinda puts Antifa in the same boat. That's if you use the whataoutism fallacy.
This is the problem with whataboutism. It defends the action it tries to condemn. It's obvious that the people who use and defend it don't understand it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's see, I search on police station fire in Portland.
What I find is a) it was not a police station, but the police officers' union, and b) they started a fire in a small dumpster, and an awning caught fire.
Protesting the actual murder.
So, as Krugman writes, all of you white wingers get *everything* wrong.
Re:Report the cancellers (Score:4, Informative)
Boy was that an embarrassingly ironic post.
1. The fire I was referencing was in SEATTLE, not Portland, and it was a police station - the East Precinct to be exact.
2. What you are referring to happening in Portland (the fire that was instead a police officer's union) was not in protest of a murder but in "protest" (lets be real - setting fires and rioting may often occur near a protest but it is NOT a protest) of a family's eviction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I see, so you believe in what is against international law, collective punishment.
When a handful of idiots come in along with hundreds or thousands of others, all are guilty. Yep.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you are saying here. Are you saying "Jeffrey Dahmer at and killed people, so I will too?"
Re: (Score:2)
I remember them having a functioning gallows but not a guillotine. Sounds too Yur-a-peein' for that crowd anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember them having a functioning gallows but not a guillotine. Sounds too Yur-a-peein' for that crowd anyway.
Yup, the Gallows were for Mike Pence. The probably had plans for Nancy Pelosi, and Cortez as well. Weird that Republicans now say they were just tourists. Damn Gallows totin' tourists! Rough crowd, those MAGAs.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you storm the Capital while setting up a Guillotine outside, you're probably an extremist.
Gallows, not guillotine - they planned on hanging Mike Pence if he didn't obey their lord and savior.
They thought about using a guillotine, but that sounded French, and they're still pissed off about French Fries.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, in this modern age of technology, we've never had problems with elections recently [nytimes.com], so I can't conceive how the results of the main election could have been altered.
Re: (Score:2)
Their "eyes" are uninteresting to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Division might not be so bad. Wouldn't you rather have interests aligned with at least a part of society than get steamrolled by some unified leviathan?
And why would you assume good faith in a political conversation anyway? Don't do that!
Re: (Score:2)
Division might not be so bad.
Well that's what they want with the border. And you may both be right: Quite a few studies do indeed show that more ethnically homogeneous communities are more trusting not just of their of their own in-group, but also of outsiders. This in contrast to more ethnically diverse communities where trust and social cohesion is decreased relatively. It's even said to be causal, not just correlation.
And why would you assume good faith in a political conversation anyway?
It's something at least I try to strive for, and I'm sure there are members from both sides who would do the sam
Re: (Score:2)
When I said "division", I meant to refer to your previous post on the "political divide". Though the two party system has issues, political division just means that our opposed beliefs and preferences are represented. One side may win and gridlock the agenda of the other, and four years later the opposite might happen. While neither scenarios are great, it's probably better than one side getting its way all the time without any checks, even if most people buy the narrative supporting it.
I don't have anythin
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
If you punch people on the street because they're bald, you're probably also an extremist.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah that's a common confusion - See while the Nazis called themselves "National Socialists" they were actually fascists. It's sort of like how North Korea calls itself the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but they're not actually a democracy/republic.
Re: Report the cancellers (Score:2)
Not only as rare as lightning strikes. In most cases the person affected attached a metal rod to their head and sat on a tall building during a storm.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like Facebook's editorial policies, don't use Facebook. And don't tell me that's not "realistic"; it is perfectly realistic, it just represents having to make a choice that some people would rather not have to make.
As usual, you've grasped the wrong end of the 1984 stick here. In the novel, the Ministry of Truth forced people to express ideas they didn't necessarily like by making them use Newspeak. Under the 1st Amendment in the US, no private party can be compelled to make, host, or distri
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this is not true: facebook has repeatedly stated that it is a platform, not a publisher and therefore has certain benefits under US Law. This means that they can remove content that is illegal, they can't just remove 'whatever it wants'. Not without abandoning the 'platform' principle and instead becoming a publisher. Of course, as a platform, they can't be sued for what people post. As a publisher, they can. So, FB just wants it both ways: the control of a publisher but the lack of accountab
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds like you're talking about Communications Decency Act Section 230.
(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
Section 230 simply does not work that way. This platform/publisher business around moderation (as a matter of US law, and section 230 in particular) is a pile of lies propagated predominantly (but not entirely) by alt-right politicians and media.
Even without Section 230 the operators of these services would almost certainly still be protected in almost arbitrary moderation of their systems by the first amendment, and the main effect
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like Facebook's editorial policies, don't use Facebook. And don't tell me that's not "realistic"; it is perfectly realistic, it just represents having to make a choice that some people would rather not have to make.
As usual, you've grasped the wrong end of the 1984 stick here. In the novel, the Ministry of Truth forced people to express ideas they didn't necessarily like by making them use Newspeak. Under the 1st Amendment in the US, no private party can be compelled to make, host, or distribute speech they don't agree with. Facebook is free to ban whatever it wants on its platform, and if it makes an *unpopular* decision, it can face the consequences like any other private party.
Well there's the practical aspect which is that, yes, you can make the effort to avoid FB (I barely look at in in months). And I agree we need a clear and rational line.
And there's also the other aspect which is about principles -- if the majority of a group take a "low" ethical stance, then it doesn't matter if people have a few minor alternatives available, which in the end could just be, "well you are free to build your own multi billion dollar social media platform" -- if the majority of the group (of m
Re:Orwellian (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to recreate Facebook to create a forum for expressing unpopular opinions; you need to recreate Facebook to track your subscribers' online activities to a fare-thee-well. Much, much more technologically simple avenues will do to support expression, and in fact people are availing themselves of those. The relative lack of prominence of those attempts has nothing to do with capitalization and everything to do with the fact that they're fringe sites.
There used to be a saying in the pre-Internet days that "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one." Don't you think Communists would have liked to have access to the pages of the New York Times, or that the KKK would have liked to put their viewpoints out on the CBS Evening News? People with money and mainstream views have always had more convenient access to audiences than people without money and fringe views.
Today the situation is infinitely better for fringe viewpoints, because back in the day you had no effective means to *reach* like-minded people en masse. Parler (which, by the way, enforces its own right wing editorial policies) has 2.3 million active users. The only thing that keeps Parler from growing into Facebook is its limited appeal.
Re:Orwellian (Score:4, Interesting)
Telecommunication providers...
... which Facebook is not.
Facebook, I assume you haven't noticed, is not in the business of providing communication bandwidth. It is in the business of tracking and *shaping* your online behavior. Which is why you really should limit its use and especially, never install it on your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's test that...
If you don't like the cake baker's editorial policies, don't use the the cake baker. And don't tell me that's not "realistic"; it is perfectly realistic, it just represents having to make a choice that some people would rather not have to make.
As usual, you've grasped the wrong end of the 1984 stick here. In the novel, the Ministry of Truth forced people to express ideas they didn't necessarily like by making them use Newspeak. Under the 1st Amendment in the US, no private party can be compelled to make, host, or distribute speech they don't agree with. The cake bakeris free to ban whatever it wants on its platform, and if it makes an *unpopular* decision, it can face the consequences like any other private party.
Cool Story, Bro, but the Suppreme court has ruled that if you have religious objections, you arr not forced to do anything for anyone.
Not only can the godly man refuse to make a cake for gay people, but I can refuse to make a cake for Christians. My religion, my choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool Story, Bro, but the Suppreme court has ruled that if you have religious objections, you arr not forced to do anything for anyone.
Not only can the godly man refuse to make a cake for gay people, but I can refuse to make a cake for Christians. My religion, my choice.
Cool story, bro [coloradosun.com]
According to the Supreme court, he is within his rights https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I shouldn't be shocked that the woke millenials fail to see the similarities to the cultural revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. None of them have a fucking clue.
Re: (Score:2)
"Achmed, Facebook wants to let you know that your friend Muhammad may need support. He has been exposed to extremism."
What's that ... no?
True, Muhammad was just watching beheading videos and stuff. It's not like he wanted people to show ID to vote or anything. I should get my priorities straight.
His argument is creating cognitive dissonance, so ... mod him down!
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, Facebook is asking users to violate the privacy of other users for a reward? I mean... We shouldn't be surprised about this, coming from the #1 company in the U.S. to hand over information to the Police and Feds.
Weird thing is, their algorithms are a huge part of that radicalization, so why wouldn't they already know who is radicalized?