Facebook Accused of Tolerating Dangerous and Criminal Behavior to Preserve Profitability (fortune.com) 196
A new whistleblower affidavit submitted by a former Facebook employee "alleges that the company prizes growth and profits over combating hate speech, misinformation and other threats to the public," reports the Washington Post:
The SEC affidavit goes on to allege that Facebook officials routinely undermined efforts to fight misinformation, hate speech and other problematic content out of fear of angering then-President Donald Trump and his political allies, or out of concern about potentially dampening the user growth key to Facebook's multi-billion-dollar profits...
Friday's filing is the latest in a series since 2017 spearheaded by former journalist Gretchen Peters and a group she leads, the Alliance to Counter Crime Online. Taken together, the filings argue that Facebook has failed to adequately address dangerous and criminal behavior on its platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger... "Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives repeatedly claimed high rates of success in restricting illicit and toxic content — to lawmakers, regulators and investors — when in fact they knew the firm could not remove this content and remain profitable," Peters said in a statement.
Friday's filing, which was accompanied by a second affidavit from Peters based on interviews she conducted with other former company employees, argues that top leaders at Facebook, including chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, are aware of the severity of problems within the company but have failed to report them in SEC filings available to investors... Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which some lawmakers are pushing to reform, gives broad immunity to Internet companies for content that users post on their platforms. That is a barrier to some kinds of legal scrutiny but not necessarily to an investigation by the SEC, which has wide-ranging enforcement powers.
There appears to be a convenient case study available. Facebook "had set up safeguards that were aimed at combating misinformation and other forms of platform abuse" in the run-up to America's 2020 election, "but it dismantled many of them by mid-December," Bloomberg reported Friday, citing a new package of redacted documents provided to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen.
And in addition, "In early December, Facebook disbanded a 300-person squad known as Civic Integrity, which had the job of monitoring misuse of the platform around elections... even as efforts to delegitimize the election intensified." Meanwhile, Stop the Steal groups were "amplifying and normalizing misinformation and violent hate in a way that delegitimized a free and fair election," Facebook's internal analysis concluded.
But there's more in that company after-action report, adds the Washington Post: The documents also provide ample support that the company's internal research over several years had identified ways to diminish the spread of political polarization, conspiracy theories and incitements to violence but that in many instances, executives had declined to implement those steps...
The documents and interviews with former employees make clear that Facebook has deep, highly precise knowledge about how its users are affected by what appears on its sites. Facebook relentlessly measures an astonishing array of data points, including the frequency, reach and sources of falsehoods and hateful content and often implements measures to suppress both. The company exhaustively studies potential policy changes for their impacts on user growth and other factors key to corporate profits, such as engagement, the extent of sharing and other reactions.
The article adds that at Facebook, even the public relations and political impacts "are carefully weighed — to the point that potentially flattering and unflattering news headlines about the company are sketched out for review."
Friday's filing is the latest in a series since 2017 spearheaded by former journalist Gretchen Peters and a group she leads, the Alliance to Counter Crime Online. Taken together, the filings argue that Facebook has failed to adequately address dangerous and criminal behavior on its platforms, including Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger... "Zuckerberg and other Facebook executives repeatedly claimed high rates of success in restricting illicit and toxic content — to lawmakers, regulators and investors — when in fact they knew the firm could not remove this content and remain profitable," Peters said in a statement.
Friday's filing, which was accompanied by a second affidavit from Peters based on interviews she conducted with other former company employees, argues that top leaders at Facebook, including chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, are aware of the severity of problems within the company but have failed to report them in SEC filings available to investors... Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which some lawmakers are pushing to reform, gives broad immunity to Internet companies for content that users post on their platforms. That is a barrier to some kinds of legal scrutiny but not necessarily to an investigation by the SEC, which has wide-ranging enforcement powers.
There appears to be a convenient case study available. Facebook "had set up safeguards that were aimed at combating misinformation and other forms of platform abuse" in the run-up to America's 2020 election, "but it dismantled many of them by mid-December," Bloomberg reported Friday, citing a new package of redacted documents provided to Congress by whistleblower Frances Haugen.
And in addition, "In early December, Facebook disbanded a 300-person squad known as Civic Integrity, which had the job of monitoring misuse of the platform around elections... even as efforts to delegitimize the election intensified." Meanwhile, Stop the Steal groups were "amplifying and normalizing misinformation and violent hate in a way that delegitimized a free and fair election," Facebook's internal analysis concluded.
But there's more in that company after-action report, adds the Washington Post: The documents also provide ample support that the company's internal research over several years had identified ways to diminish the spread of political polarization, conspiracy theories and incitements to violence but that in many instances, executives had declined to implement those steps...
The documents and interviews with former employees make clear that Facebook has deep, highly precise knowledge about how its users are affected by what appears on its sites. Facebook relentlessly measures an astonishing array of data points, including the frequency, reach and sources of falsehoods and hateful content and often implements measures to suppress both. The company exhaustively studies potential policy changes for their impacts on user growth and other factors key to corporate profits, such as engagement, the extent of sharing and other reactions.
The article adds that at Facebook, even the public relations and political impacts "are carefully weighed — to the point that potentially flattering and unflattering news headlines about the company are sketched out for review."
This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Facebook is a corporation; acts like it."
I'm shocked. Shocked!
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole "Facebook BAD!" meme was started by Republicans who were angry about being censored, then Democrats piled on for the opposite reason, to blame Facebook for not censoring Republicans hard enough (like this story). This gives everybody somewhat of a feeling of being united ("Facebook BAD!") but not really since they would never agree about what to do.
Also, not one of the news outlets running this story over and over has a solution - as in, hosting a comment section where people from "both sides" interact meaningfully and everybody is nice and everything stated is truthful and nobody ever gets disingenuous or hyperbolic.
Re:This just in... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
100% true.
Their own internal documents show that right-wing views and groups were deliberately promoted, and when complaints came in they were given the kid-glove treatment over and over again.
That also goes for many of the other whacko groups, e.g. QAnon, anti-vaxx, disaster deniers (ala Sandy Hook), Proud Boys, Patriot Front, and so on.
They bring in the clicks and that's literally all that matters to them.
Re: (Score:3)
How would you like them to act? Stringent censorship?
No. Why would you think that? Are you suggesting the only possible options are strict censorship or do nothing?
My preferred solution is simple. Hold Facebook responsible for their own actions, but not anyone else's actions. If someone posts inflammatory lies, I hold that person responsible. If Facebook knowingly creates an algorithm that amplifies inflammatory lies because it's good for profits, I hold Facebook responsible. That's a classic instance of editorial control. We've always held publication
Re: This just in... (Score:2)
This is true. Sad you felt the need to post it AC
And I see this site is just the same political bitchfest as before when I stopped visiting.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I have reported TONS of scammers, identity thieves, ACTUAL thieves, etc. and have been told "this doesn't violate our community standards"...but let one of my friends tell one of their friends something that the censors don't like and they'll have a 30 day ban in a a heartbeat.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I'm sure after Facebook changes their name and rebrands that everything will be just fine on the platform. All the problems will magically go away and everyone will be polite and well-mannered.
Re: This just in... (Score:2)
This is BS. "Stop the steal" type posts are POLITICAL. As many suspected, this latest censorship campaign is yet another attempt to use social media to silence political opponents, this time under the guise that they are "violent".
Bogus. Call these frauds out for what they are.
Re: This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop the steal is not political, it is a conspiracy theory by a group of morons. They are actively trying to subvert a legal and fair election. If you're on their side of the political aisle and dare to admit the truth then you get censored by them, they don't care about politics they only care that you believe in their fantasies.
Re: This just in... (Score:3)
Stop the steal is not political, it is a conspiracy theory by a group of morons. They are actively trying to subvert a legal and fair election. If you're on their side of the political aisle and dare to admit the truth then you get censored by them, they don't care about politics they only care that you believe in their fantasies.
A conspiracy theory by any group can be political. Your statement is like saying "apple is not a fruit, it grows on a tree". The first part of the sentence is wrong, and second part , while being true, doesn't justify the first part.
Subverting a legal and fair election can be 100% political activity.
Re: (Score:2)
True, the flat earth conspiracy is political, because they accuse NASA of being the mastermind behind it. Or at least it's political to the believers, to everyone else it's nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop the steal is not political, it is a conspiracy theory by a group of morons. They are actively trying to subvert a legal and fair election.
You mean like the people who invented the Russia stuff in 2016?
It's all political, it's just that you think your politics are all just obviously good and right. Letting the people hear and decide is the whole point of free speech.
(And yes, yes, your corporate platform is privately owned, blah blah. I'm talking about principles. I admire your newfound commitment to private businesses deciding everything though ... )
Re: (Score:2)
Russia stuff was not invented, it was real. But it was not about Trump, he just obsessed over it.
Re: This just in... (Score:2)
Constitutionally, the state legislature decides how elections are conducted. If those states didn't grant the executive of the state the powers, those altered rules would be federally unconstitutional too.
Re: This just in... (Score:3)
The reality is that at this point there is no constitutional remedy if anything was fraudulent in the election. The only legal reasons to continue down that path would be to ensure the security of future elections. Yet that is taboo depending on who you talk to.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This election was the most secure, monitored, and tightly controlled election in the country's history. There simply was no widespread fraud.
If there was fraud of such a magnitude so as to actually change the outcome, show it to us.
Seriously, show me the proof and I'll believe it. But I've seen nothing so far, despite all of Trump's and Mike Lindell's crazy rantings.
They've had almost a year to show us the "proof" but they've failed miserably every single time. One would almost think that they're full of sh
Facebook is a publicly traded company (Score:2)
Re:Free speech vs Totalitarian regime tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Until mastercard decides that you should not be able to process financial transactions.
Re:Free speech vs Totalitarian regime tech (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have a corporation that is more powerful than the government, and they decide you can't have free speech, you think that's ok?
Re: (Score:3)
Has this happened in the US? No. Remember, your right to free speech stops at the point where it hurts the rights of someone else.
Re:Free speech vs Totalitarian regime tech (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, your right to free speech stops at the point where it hurts the rights of someone else to make vast amounts of money.
Be more careful next time.
Re: (Score:3)
Has this happened in the US?
Yes, that's why Wikileaks only accepts Bitcoin. The payment processing companies decided Wikileaks doesn't deserve free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
There are points where corporations can go "too far" and need some regulation, which is why you have things like the FDA, FCC, FTC,FAA, EPA etc..
For example, you could have a cartel with all the food megacorporations where they will sell almost rotten or rotten food to increase their profit margins, and they use their power and influence to crush all the small companies that try to "use the breach", and on a true free market without any sort of regulation, well, you would have to eat rotten meat.
I imagine t
Re: (Score:2)
That is what is so ironic. It is the very regulation you are defending which is used to keep competitors from being able to 'use the breach.' Do you know who wants expensive mining regulations? Existing mining companies. Why the hell would they want that??!! Simple, those regulations means millions of second and t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can overregulate and screw the small companies just as well, with a prime example being patents and copyrights.
But you can also not overregulate.
Re: (Score:2)
the 2A grants the freedom to own a firearm
You misunderstand the nature of rights and have misread the second amendment. Probably all of the other amendments as well, since they are all written similarly.
Re: Free speech vs Totalitarian regime tech (Score:2)
That's so cute. Your answer to forbidden legal activity is to wash it with money laundering techniques that criminals use.
BTW, can you tell me how to use this dollar bill slot on my laptop? I'm trying to order something from Amazon and want to pay using cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Go to the store and buy an Amazon gift card. While there you could consider supporting a business that gives its employees a place to go to the washroom rather then supporting Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, I could go to a store and buy a best buy gift card then go to best buy and purchase the thing i was going to get from Amazon after getting a sales pitch on how this other brand is so much better and how to protect my investment by buying some overpriced protection plan. That way I can completely defeate the purpose of buying something online twice as much.
But I guess it is worth it as long as you can hang out in the bathroom more if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
and you dumb as fuck leftists...Not even a rightie, I'm a centrist..."
Methinks the sisterfucking KKK cross burner is being a tad obvious. Fuck back off to your mother's basement, there's a good skinheaded little trumpsucking troll.
Re:Free speech vs Totalitarian regime tech (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that this article is about a government organization trying to push Facebook to censor harder, right? We've been watching a slippery slope in action, with the pro-censorship brigade starting with condoning censorship as long as it was by the choice of a private organization, and then using Twitter mobs to force organizations to censor people against their will, and then moving on to using threats of government intervention to censor things that they deem harmful.
Live by the Woke, die by the Woke (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even on the most simple of the internet political spectrum charts, there's the authoritarian - libertarian axis.
The "woke" left is basically the authoritarian left, that want to demand a big power to control everything, mean white the conservatives (that also want a big power to conrrol everything) you point out are the auth right.
The authoritarian left also like to pretend the libertarians on any side are right wings because it's easier to "defeat".
Re:Live by the Woke, die by the Woke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the scale left to right as having branches, like this:
left = increasing authoritarianism of all stripes,
while
right of center = increasing freedom and liberty, of all stripes.
I'd like some of whatever you're taking, but in a smaller dose.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
OK: Unless .. .. why? Try being trans in the extremely left DPRK, see how far one gets. I think you are missing the point, and being myopic.
No one gives a fuck about the DPRK, try to stay focused.
Libertarianism has never worked, which is why no societies have ever successfully formed and thrived using as it a model.
Libertarians are often Republicans who have a few molecules of a soul left, so they know they are doing wrong, but still value their own desires above others so excuse those actions.
Re: (Score:2)
This describes both parties.
Re:Live by the Woke, die by the Woke (Score:5, Insightful)
No false equivalencies, please.
One political party is embracing authoritarianism and is increasingly agitated and violent. Their rhetoric gets more extreme every day, and they've formed a true cult of personality around their hero, Donald Trump.
I know this was a long, long time ago, but remember that it wasn't the left or BLM or antifa that assaulted the Capitol on Jan 6th.
The fact is that the GOP has become a sick parody of itself, lots of sound but no substance. Quite a bit of it is cultlike beyond any doubt. It's a party of stuntmen, grifters, and self-promoters...and that's ALL they have to offer. No platforms, no ideas, no initiatives, just jingoistic entertainment and lots of vague promises.
Re: (Score:2)
remember that it wasn't the left or BLM or antifa that assaulted the Capitol on Jan 6th.
What do you think has a greater chance at being effective: storming the legislature to stop a vote that can easily happen over a zoom call, or conducting a month long siege on a federal courthouse.
Re: (Score:2)
But enough about the "anti" fascists ...
Let me know when antifa assaults the Capitol, kills a cop, and calls for Mike Pence to be hung from the gallows they brought.
Re: (Score:2)
I literally can't figure out which party you are talking about.
I literally don't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties accuse each other of authoritarianism and being violent. I haven't heard anyone accuse the other side of being agitated. That's a you thing.
Both parties have accused the other side of that for decades, if not longer. Accusing our president of being Hitler is a national past-time. The only way to tell which side you are accusing is to figure out which side you are on.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't (or won't) see a substantive difference between the left and the right, then that's a "you" problem.
Who assaulted the Capitol? Was it the lefties or the righties?
Who called for Pence to be hung? Was it antifa?
Who was searching for Nancy Pelosi so they could "put a bullet in her fucking brain"? Was it BLM?
Who carried a Confederate flag into the Capitol? Was it a bunch of unruly Democrats?
Which side had John Eastman write up a 6-point plan to overturn the election? Was it Joe Biden and the Democr
Re: (Score:3)
in the extremely left DPRK
If you think a tin-pot racial supremacist dictatorship like the DPRK is "extremely left" the problem is that you're completely fucking politically illiterate.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The means of production belong to the government that in theory represent the population, which means they're left.
Now you greatly disagree with em on everything else because they're authoritarian and you're libertarian.
Two (or more) axis of politics exist, it's not a binary or 1D thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats in the late 1800s / early 1900s were literally the conservative party in the USA. Which party is that today? Oh yeah, the RepugnantKlan Party of Treason J Trump and other white supremacist toads like Moscow Mitch Putin's Bitch McConnell. The party position inversion through the white-supremacist republican "Southern Strategy" is well documented. [history.com]
Libertarians, on the other hand, are a rump party of white-supremacist John Birch Society klan shits who thought Eisenhower was a "secret communist", and
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians, on the other hand, are a rump party of white-supremacist John Birch Society klan shits who thought Eisenhower was a "secret communist", and they haven't changed one iota since the days of Rothbard.
No they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not my supervisor!
Re: (Score:3)
It's changed a lot in the last 10 or 15 years, partly due to the multiple hands it's passed through along the way, partly due to the ever-increasing number of trolls and dickheads out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Your diatribe can be simply dismissed by pointing that just like one could be an atheist and a racist at the same time, that doesn't make atheism racist. Likewi
Re: (Score:2)
It's because the news media they listen to is not stop lies. Fox makes even the most mild stories into sensationalist attempts by the Democrats to destroy us all. Had a story last night about how there really is no easy fix to the supply line shortage but then blamed Biden for not fixing it; there's certainly no irony shortage at that company. And talking heads at Fox are always droning on and on about woke this and woke that and we're all going to be banned and shouted down.
Those fans of Fox are so easi
Must be about time for ... (Score:2)
another 6-hour blackout. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the news timing is intriguing - Friday evening USA eastern time. The whole world is on weekend time then. One wonders if it's intended to have an impact while Facebook can't usefully cause panic with a shutdown.
Right... (Score:2, Informative)
For example, Facebook pretty much refused to shut down violent organizations like Rose City Antifa.
They even let Nation of Islam keep their Facebook page, and NoI is directly linked to a lot of violence and antisemitism in the world.
That's not even getting into the whole part about allowing various Ayatollahs who call for the destruction of Israel to keep their accounts.
Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)
So far, the nebulous boogeyman "Antifa" has been blamed for a lot of violence, including the capital riot (later debunked by deep research into each individual's pass, there were no antifa agent provocateurs); and federal agents murdered in Oakland during protests originally reported as "Antifa" turned out to be far-right Boogaloos. [oaklandside.org]
Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah. "But but antifa" bullshit is standard issue DARVO gaslighting [uoregon.edu] from the members of the actually violent, actually treasonous GOP.
These days you should really call them the Repugnant Klan Party. They have exactly one strategy since Nixon/Atwater, called the Southern Strategy. It's the one where they blow racist dog whistles through a fucking bullhorn, "start out in 1954 by saying, “N***r, N***r, N***r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n***r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. " [thenation.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
ABC news [go.com] Rose City Antifa:
Re: (Score:3)
They just say violence is on the table if in a protest they're confronted by people trying to be violent against them, e.g. Proud Boys. This makes their position akin to the NRA -- "We need concealed carry guns to defend ourselves." You got any examples?
You want to tell me how this is different than the NRA saying concealed carry guns helps keep our communities safe? What are guns used for if not violence?
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the munny, hunny (Score:2)
Facebook Accused of Tolerating Dangerous and Criminal Behavior to Preserve Profitability
Also, Facebook Accused of Tolerating Dangerous and Criminal Behavior to Preserve Profitability to Preserve Profitability of Lawyers Poised to Sue And Maybe Sell Stock Short.
Zuckerberg: poster boy for BAD CAPITALISM (Score:2)
The problem is obvious (Score:2)
The solution is far from obvious
First problem is the amount of stuff. There are billions of posts, far too many for humans to monitor and robots are really stupid.
Second problem is defining what is objectionable. When anything controversial is discussed, someone on the other side will call it objectionable.
I would prefer to see the false information like anti-vax nonsense removed, but I have no doubt that fundies would judge anything critical of religion to be false information
Censoring art (Score:5, Insightful)
One point is clear: Facebook seems to be very efficient at singling out & censoring photos of classic masterpieces of the human form posted by national art galleries around the world. You know, the kinds of photos you find in school textbooks. Afraid of a little light nudity, are we? And yet Facebook has no problem with harmful, sometimes life-threatening misinformation, hate campaigns, incitement to violence, & incitement to civil unrest. It seems that Facebook is selectively incompetent.
The other point is the rest of the world is watching the USA tear itself apart in the name of vague, under-defined abstractions like freedom & free speech, even when those abstractions are used to justify & validate misinformation, hatred & incitement & yet happily ignoring them when it comes to censoring nudity & controlling women. American society & regulators have been happy to tolerate misinformation, hatred & incitement in its mass media long before social media & Facebook became a thing. Additionally, evangelical pastors have been preaching politicised hatred very effectively from the pulpit for decades.
Facebook's a symptom, not cause. It may be augmenting the hatred more efficiently than other media services but it's in no way new or unique. If legislators & law enforcement do decide to deal with Facebook effectively, the USA's still got bigger problems with misinformation, hatred & incitement to deal with. It already seems to be endemic.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing "abstract" about freedom and free speech. What you are objecting to is not "free" speech, you are objecting to speech you personally, don't like.
The real deal free speech is nothing if not concrete: What's good enough for them is good enough for you. The basis of freedom is fairness. They get to speak, you get to speak. You g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Afraid of a little light nudity
Yes, as most americans are. This fear of nudity (and porn too) comes straight from the puritan superstition that had a massive influence in the US and, more generally, in english speaking countries (UK included). So this has not much to do about Facebook, but a lot to do about the damages the superstition does to your civilization and country as a whole. Superstition is cancer, and should be treated like you treat cancer. It should be detected and slowly eradicated from e
Facebook has become "Big Brother" (Score:2)
It has the continuing data to show what works and what doesn't to inspire certain user opinions and actions and downplays or eliminates what it doesn't like or want to be seen.
It appears that Facebook has become the giant political idea mover.
Sounds a lot like what a repressive regime does, where everyone is supposed to step in line.
Don't push the responsibility (Score:4)
If a group is really violent, it is not the job of a corporate forum to police them. We have literal police and prosecutors to do just that.
And if a group is just hurting others with words... Grow up... It is called free speech, we may not like it, we might really be offended, but it is a founding pillar of this country. Even shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was found to be legal (yes that too).
So, please act responsibly, and do not look for scapegoats or more censorship for "ideas you don't like".
Re:Don't push the responsibility (Score:4, Interesting)
Companies have an obligation not to cross the line into being ACTUAL FUCKING ACCOMPLICES to criminal activity (both in US law and in the law of other countries in which Facebook operates). Facebook clearly failed in that obligation.
Likewise, Facebook can't violate false-advertising law [npr.org] by CLAIMING that they do one thing, and then doing the exact fucking opposite.
Re: Don't push the responsibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't push the responsibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think you understand that Facebook is absolutely not legally liable for things their users may post. That's the whole point of USC 47 Section 230 [eff.org]: "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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And if a group is just hurting others with words... Grow up... It is called free speech, we may not like it, we might really be offended, but it is a founding pillar of this country.
For one thing, laws about free speech apply to governments, not to private publishing corporations. If I write some horrible rant to a newspaper, I don't have any right to have it published. I do get letters published occasionally. It is a bit of a lottery whether you get your letter published, especially on a particularly hot topic.
The second point is that the algorithms used by social media indiscriminately amplify views that are popular among certain groups. This can lead to socially unacceptable views b
Criminal behaviour? (Score:2)
Is it to much to expect an example of the alleged criminal behavior tolerated in that huge post? Article is behind pay wall.
Or should I just agree stop the steal was criminal because an overblown sitin was defined by some people as an insurrection?
Thumbs Down! (Score:2)
Get it? I'm giving Facebook some feedback while mocking the lack of a negative feedback option on their site. Comedy gold!
Tolerating? (Score:2)
Oh no! Facebook didn't censor the people we don't like!
Back in the day, John Gilmore coined the phrase "The Internet Perceives Censorship as Damage and Routes Around It" and it was often repeated here. Nowadays it's the opposite - people expect censorship to be the norm, and routing around it is damage. It's a fun coincidence that the current top article on /. discusses how Gilmore was just removed as a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation he helped found [slashdot.org].
Numbers (Score:2)
It would look bad on their rap sheet if their user numbers were to decline as this could influence their stock price. Once in a while they delete a couple of million bot accounts, but just enough as not to decrease their total number of users.
Facebook Dating is rife with fake and bot accounts. They could easily prevent this by matching the location filled in by t
They watch some stuff closely (Score:2)
Re:FTFY: prizes growth and profits over censorship (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I didn't say anything about my political leanings or anyone elses. Only that I dislike censorship. Interesting that you immediately assume I'm conservative because I say I don't like facebook due to their censorship.
I doubt I would agree with you Moryath on much of anything, but I would also oppose slashdot, facebook, or anyone else censoring your views and statements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not agree with your characterization. And yet still I would not support slashdot or any other site censoring your comments. Can you say the same for mine?
Re: (Score:2)
> And yet still I would not support slashdot or any other site censoring your comments. Can you say the same for mine?
I don't see why he couldn't. What comments would you censor if you owned a popular site on, say, how to setup a new political party ?
Re: (Score:2)
>None. I am opposed to censorship in public discourse ... new type of filtering and rating system
I'm guessing the owners are still going to have to censor all kinds of things of which just a few examples: flooding, obscenity, or incitement to violence, or else user aren't going to stay around.
But where I'm really not following you is you seem to be saying you're opposed to censorship but at the same time all users will be participating in the censorship of comments.
>My system would have many differen
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship on the platform happens so rarely as to be irrelevant to its broad effect on society. What happens continually, literally every page load, is that content that makes you mad gets promoted. There's one party in the US that enjoys snorting getmad on the weekends, and there's another that requires a continual IV infusion to stay alive, and has started synthesizing it from Sudafed and fertilizer in their kitchen. Facebook makes money from both, which is why censorship is so rare on the platform, but
Re: The headline's off? (Score:2)
I like the word illicit as well, such a fantastic weasel word.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it is a crime. It's right there in the summary.
Friday's filing, which was accompanied by a second affidavit from Peters based on interviews she conducted with other former company employees, argues that top leaders at Facebook, including chief executive Mark Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, are aware of the severity of problems within the company but have failed to report them in SEC filings available to investors...
If you lie in SEC filings, you're lying to your investors and potential investors. That's a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they failed to report them to investors because they aren't problems?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh.. I just picked one quarterly earnings report at random: it was the Q2 2020. It contains this statement in the revenue section:
Third, the impact from certain advertisers pausing spend on our platforms related to the current boycott, which is reflected in our July trends;
Glad we have our best and brightest looking into the possibility that FB was hiding this....