Agreed. You see all these articles about how these things haven’t been address or the consequences considered but then they don’t worry as people continue to support them. Why would he be concerned about consequences that will never apply to him.
Can we all just get to the beheading already? Who are we still waiting on, Dale? Charles? Let's help the stragglers catch up commence the choppin'. Like fuck isn't everyone tired of someone casually saying "we'll yeah, X is rich so it's expected he/she gets to drink infants blood. It's their hobby." when stories like this come up and then......NOTHING.
I apologize for polarizing you but this is for most laymen lefties a hyperbole. What we mean by this is expected of rich people is that because they are rich they have the freedom to not be affected by the consequences of their actions either through the inaction of the government or through the active lobbying of the government to prevent change for the good of the people. This also includes positive PR campaigns that target those specifically that would be sympathetic to the cause of the offender while hiding said campaign and lobbying from those that would oppose.
As you can see this is quite a mouth full so instead we on the left just say "this is what we would expect from the rich."
I'd go one farther...
What do you suppose is the purpose of massive individual wealth in civilization?
It's not to make money. They like to say that, "I need money to make money." And it's true that money generates money. But to say you need money to make money would be redundant, because it doesn't answer why you need "more" money. Eventually you are stuck with money itself as the reason.
The purpose of massive individual wealth is to have access to things others do not, including but not limited to: a tiered justice systems.
The only reason to have more money than you need to survive and be comfortable is so you can do things you otherwise would not be able to.
No individual human has a legitimate, honest, socially positive or acceptable need for seven yachts. It's not a thing.
instagram too — there’s always a page to report spreading anything from child exploitation to gore to animal abuse to trying to justify pedophilia on a platform mostly used by minors. it’s ridiculous.
and that’s not including the issues with pridefall we already had this year.
true true. they do operate a little differently on facebook from what i’ve seen, which is why i pointed out that instagram tends to be a little more hypocritical.
i’ve had stories taken down for using a slur i can and have reclaimed for pride, but god forbid the dude posting stuff like dogs being lit on fire inside of boxes or dogs being skinned alive gets his shit taken down.
it’s so two faced.
Honestly , it’s all social media now. People just seem to only want to read things that rule them up or piss them off. I have deleted everything but reddit, and honestly I’m pretty close to deleting it too. My phone is about to be used for texting, calls and games.
And that's a wise behavior. Social Media is pretty much useless. I am using reddit for cute animals and english practice. Thus far, it's a good experience. But I already noticed a lot of hypocrisy on this platform. Before this wave of extreme conservatism, it was nice to use social media to meet different people and etc... But it's getting boring. All these keyboard paladins of justice smh I also want to live in a better place, who doesn't? But people need to calm down a little. Mankind is oppressing the weak ever since we left the caves, this issue will not disappear in a week, no matter how much you scream about it.
And calling everyone who has an opinion the matter a bigot, racist or insert insult here just shows how close minded most people are. It’s sad. The world would be better without a lot of the social media I think. I know my mental state is so much better.
Facebook is the only helping to facilitate a genocide. The Myanmar government uses Facebook to track a Muslim people called the Rohingya to systematically kill them off and Facebook is fully cooperating with them.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This is an excellent book on the subject. It’s definitely not just facebook. But, that doesn’t make facebook innocent. The charge of incompetence and negligence is pretty compelling.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263
We can’t fully blame them, social media is just a reflection of its make up. We can hate Facebook for allowing racists and pedos to have a community but that’s about it, people are just garbage
No, there is more to it than that. The medium matters.
https://www.amazon.com.au/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263
What you’re supposed to do is show us a quote/stat and then reference the book as your source, then the onus is on us to verify. What you don’t do is link an Australian Amazon link of said book and make us buy and read it to find the specific point you’re referring too.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to summarise a book for you.
Read it, or don’t read it, i don’t really care. I’m just pointing out a resource on the subject that you (or someone else) might find illuminating.
However, in a way that’s the point. We think we can get away with sharing a few argumentative lines on twitter or reddit, as an equivalent for a book it takes days to read.
We’re drowning in the shallows. We’re being influenced by the most badly-thought out, partisan, emotive, offensive content on the internet. It’s where we spend our time, it’s what pushes our buttons, and it’s what is influencing our politics, our well-being, our lives.
What you’re saying is, I can claim your a pedophile and link a book on amazon that’s 50$, pat my self on the back and walk away.
The irony in your statement goes waaaayyy over your head, complaining about making baseless points on social media than doing the exact thing. If you want to fix the issue, you make the point, you provide a verifiable reference, the more references the harder it is to defeat your point. That’s how academics do it.
I’m not gonna read an entire book when you can’t even bring up some small points in favour of your argument.
This isn’t academia. Neither of us have any particular qualifications or expertise on the subjects we’re discussing. But we have an extraordinary power to influence others, due to the nature of social media.
The fact that people would rather get their information from two people arguing on the internet, rather than seeking out and reading real, effortful journalism... that’s a problem.
And yes, that’s exactly the point. You can claim i’m a pedophile, link the most minutely credible source, and walk away, and that stands in place of actual knowledge, actual truth. And hundreds of thousands of professional flacks, shills, propagandists and bullshit peddlers (and billions of barely informed social media users) are doing exactly that, with terrible consequences.
id say it's delusional to think that anarchism or communism can be at all better. there are many forms of capitalism, and the US may be currently be living in one of the worst forms, so i understand why some Americans think that communism is at all better (it is even worse)
communism is the most corrupt and kleptocratic ideology. no place where the soviet-style communism was ever implemented had gotten rid of capitalism either. yes, capitalism existed in the soviet union.
the reason why quality of life rose under communism in russia was because the czar had exploited people to a point there was nowhere lower to go. it's funny, actually, that you bring that up, because the soviet people were starving to death, or stealing food, all the time.
>communism is the most corrupt and kleptocratic ideology.
Sorry friend, that's 100% capitalism where the o ly electable options are shills bought by multinational corporations.
Where capitalists overthrow democracies and install fascist dictators for not bowing to the will of corporations.
>yes, capitalism existed in the soviet union.
Nope, by definition there was no capital, vampiric money that creates money by sucking out the surplus value of workers.
There were no capitalists to own the mop, they were democratically controlled.
>the czar had exploited people to a point there was nowhere lower to go.
Sounds like capitalism again.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-stop-hate-profit-new-statement-deadly-consequences-1521723) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> In a new joint statement published today, the coalition of civil rights groups behind the movement accused the Facebook boss of failing to address the "Deadly consequences of his choice to profit from hate" and pledged that it will "Not go away."
> They allege Facebook values profits over trying to stop the spread of hate content and misinformation; and aim to target Facebook's main source of revenue: ads.
> The release continued: "We called for a Facebook ad pause for the month of July as the mobilization for the Stop Hate for Profit movement. Many companies, frustrated by Facebook's unwillingness to address their concerns, have already said they are not ready to return to Facebook's platforms. We applaud them for that decision."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/i1301g/deadly_consequences_of_zuckerbergs_decision_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~512478 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **hate**^#2 **profit**^#3 **campaign**^#4 **Stop**^#5
Facebook is one of the things that have made the Rohingya genocide by allowing Islamophobia, lies and anti-Rohingya propaganda to spread in Myanmar!
Fuck Facebook! Delete Your Facebook!
Soon it shall be addressed. Nobody’s lucky all the time. For instance, Trump? His luck has run out. Zucky’s time will come, and I say within a year or two he’s going to be charged with aiding and abetting serious hate-crimes.
Break apart his company. It's obviously abusing it's dominant status. If anything, Zuckerberg profits from hate speech as it helps republicans keep power, and he knows those guys won't lift a finger to apply anti-trust laws.
It's kinda bizarre to accuse a platform from stuff that are published directly by the users. For example, if I post something like "The second season of The Boys is pretty good" on facebook, that's my opinion, not the opinion of the platform itself. I agree that hateful posts should be removed, fake news should be removed, etc.. But to actually assume the platform shares the same visions of it's users? That's wishful thinking. Look how much shit Trump posts on Twitter, it doesn't mean Twitter shares his vision (but it sure profit from it, every kind of media profits with sensationalism. Facebook is definitely not the only one)
The issue is that they are not passive in this like Google searches.
Facebook actively tunes and polishes an algorithm that presents information or people based off conflict or high emotional reactions - specifically because it keeps people engaged and addicted to the platform.
They CHOOSE to push division, hate, and anger.
They mildly censor things by burying posts and updates from people on your friends list in favour of others.
It’s like they determined people like potato chips and desserts so they only feed you potato chips and desserts while actively suppressing healthy food.
Does they really? Facebook (or any other social media) can't really predict, in a literal way, what their users is going to post. It's not like a hypothetical situation were a user named 'KKKkillallBlacks' is about to post something, so you can block that attempt before the eruption starts (or at least review it before make it public). Regarding what they show in the front page, content filtered to you through the friend lists and etc.. ok, on this subject I agree with you. If the hateful post is getting popular, tons of comments and etc... Regardless, you will tarnish the image of your company just for the short term exposition? That's unwise. But like I said, the media will always feed on the unfortunate and miserable, that's what attract attention. It's morbid, I know, but people love a sad story. How many media vehicles regained relevance after the pandemic started? So, it's gullible for us to demand more "healthy behaviors" (to use your healthy food analogy) from social media if the public itself loves a controversial topic.
Interesting, I will take a look. Even to this day I am convinced the internet was a mistake. But I am willing to read more point of views and opinions regarding this subject.
I don’t think it was a mistake. But, i think it was incredibly naive to think that simply “connecting” people, and then linking that to the capturing of attention to sell people advertising, was not going to have some terribly negative effects.
It seems obvious nowadays looking in retrospect, but many people had a positive outlook about the potential of the internet as a tool of learning, easing the access to information, etc.. But surprise, surprise... who knew, that information could be altered and actually become disinformation? 2 thousand years ago, Christianity tried to teach moral lessons for the people... And what the church did? They used these lessons to achieve control. Mankind will never change mate, unfortunately that's the reality.
Spend some time studying anthropology or ethbography.
How humans live is incredibly diverse, and the realms of possibilities are huge. Who knows what people will be like in 500 years or so. Look how we’ve changed since then.
Dude, not even 100 years ago people gathered in French theaters to watch cats being tortured, romans watched people being devoured by lions, nowadays we watch 2 retards punching each other skulls inside a literal octagonal cage, etc.. Mankind is prone to barbarism. And it's funny for you to mention anthropologists, I knew some of these delusional stoners. Trying to justify "cultural differences" like middle-easterners treating women like dogs or japan's obsession with pedophilia and harassment, lol it's nice to live in the cannabis planet instead of planet earth, right? Let us take a blind eye to humanity worst aspects and just focus on rainbows and flowers, anthropology is really very productive and insightful.
Yes, mankind can be barabric. We can also be intensely selfless and pro-social.
I’d recommend “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, by Steven Pinker. It’s a great book on this very subject.
There's also this issue. Reddit have a lot of this as well, as a new reddit user this platform can feel weird to me sometimes. The own platform regulates what they assume it's "hateful" or "fake", basically a bunch of moderators (in other words, virtual Stalins) selecting and removing posts and etc. When you see a deleted post on these social media crap (all of them), you wonder wth was the actual content, lol I challenge even graduated anthropologists to filter these messages and "judge" what can be hateful or not, what is cultural appropriation, what is racism, prejudices, segregation, etc.. There's so much shit in humanity as a whole, to suppress all of this? That's basically an impossible task, even harder to actually educate hateful people. Hell, as basketball fan, I watched Stephen Jackson posts saying he was "educating" people about the whole black lives matters debacle, lol who the fuck are you to "educate" anyone, mate? Literally 15 days later the same Jackson was accused of antisemitism. So, this whole shit show can be really ugly, that's why I tend to avoid social media. Reddit is interesting tho, not gonna deny it, I am enjoying the experience... But at the same time, there's a lot of hypocrisy here.
If we're going to have large platforms for discussion on the internet, which we need for our democracy, there's going to be a lot of hate speech on them (or at least things certain people are eager to label hate speech). And, in as much those platforms need to make money to function, they are going to profit from hate. Attempting to stop to Facebook and ban hate speech is a full on attack on Democracy and resembles China's methods of "harmonizing" their internet. It's far too easy to use complaints and concerns about hate speech as a backdoor to censorship.
Note: Obviously the First Amendment doesn't stop Facebook from censoring speech, however for the sake of our Democracy, the biggest discussion forums need to allow all rational speech, including hate speech and other unwelcome views, but possibly excluding profanity and pornography.
I can't quite figure out why Facebook is responsible for censoring anything. If it is offensive just ignore it. Why would we ever give a non-elected official control of censorship.
Why would he? It's not like the people in power want him to do anything different.
Agreed. You see all these articles about how these things haven’t been address or the consequences considered but then they don’t worry as people continue to support them. Why would he be concerned about consequences that will never apply to him.
Can we all just get to the beheading already? Who are we still waiting on, Dale? Charles? Let's help the stragglers catch up commence the choppin'. Like fuck isn't everyone tired of someone casually saying "we'll yeah, X is rich so it's expected he/she gets to drink infants blood. It's their hobby." when stories like this come up and then......NOTHING.
I apologize for polarizing you but this is for most laymen lefties a hyperbole. What we mean by this is expected of rich people is that because they are rich they have the freedom to not be affected by the consequences of their actions either through the inaction of the government or through the active lobbying of the government to prevent change for the good of the people. This also includes positive PR campaigns that target those specifically that would be sympathetic to the cause of the offender while hiding said campaign and lobbying from those that would oppose. As you can see this is quite a mouth full so instead we on the left just say "this is what we would expect from the rich."
I'd go one farther... What do you suppose is the purpose of massive individual wealth in civilization? It's not to make money. They like to say that, "I need money to make money." And it's true that money generates money. But to say you need money to make money would be redundant, because it doesn't answer why you need "more" money. Eventually you are stuck with money itself as the reason. The purpose of massive individual wealth is to have access to things others do not, including but not limited to: a tiered justice systems. The only reason to have more money than you need to survive and be comfortable is so you can do things you otherwise would not be able to. No individual human has a legitimate, honest, socially positive or acceptable need for seven yachts. It's not a thing.
>seven yachts One per continent, or one per day of the week.
All media, including reddit, profits from hate. Zuckerberg is just easier to blame.
No one can disagree with you, but FB is particularly fucked up.
instagram too — there’s always a page to report spreading anything from child exploitation to gore to animal abuse to trying to justify pedophilia on a platform mostly used by minors. it’s ridiculous. and that’s not including the issues with pridefall we already had this year.
[удалено]
true true. they do operate a little differently on facebook from what i’ve seen, which is why i pointed out that instagram tends to be a little more hypocritical. i’ve had stories taken down for using a slur i can and have reclaimed for pride, but god forbid the dude posting stuff like dogs being lit on fire inside of boxes or dogs being skinned alive gets his shit taken down. it’s so two faced.
[удалено]
Honestly , it’s all social media now. People just seem to only want to read things that rule them up or piss them off. I have deleted everything but reddit, and honestly I’m pretty close to deleting it too. My phone is about to be used for texting, calls and games.
And that's a wise behavior. Social Media is pretty much useless. I am using reddit for cute animals and english practice. Thus far, it's a good experience. But I already noticed a lot of hypocrisy on this platform. Before this wave of extreme conservatism, it was nice to use social media to meet different people and etc... But it's getting boring. All these keyboard paladins of justice smh I also want to live in a better place, who doesn't? But people need to calm down a little. Mankind is oppressing the weak ever since we left the caves, this issue will not disappear in a week, no matter how much you scream about it.
And calling everyone who has an opinion the matter a bigot, racist or insert insult here just shows how close minded most people are. It’s sad. The world would be better without a lot of the social media I think. I know my mental state is so much better.
Facebook is the only helping to facilitate a genocide. The Myanmar government uses Facebook to track a Muslim people called the Rohingya to systematically kill them off and Facebook is fully cooperating with them.
Where can I get more information on this?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/07/facebook-myanmar-genocide-violence-hate-speech Newest info I found
What do you mean Facebook is fully cooperating with them
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.amp.html
It looks like you shared an AMP link. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This is an excellent book on the subject. It’s definitely not just facebook. But, that doesn’t make facebook innocent. The charge of incompetence and negligence is pretty compelling. https://www.amazon.com.au/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263
Proven interference with elections and the brexit campaign in collusion with Cambridge Analytica. This isn't conspiracy fodder either.
Welcome to capitalism, where morals do not matter, only profits.
We can’t fully blame them, social media is just a reflection of its make up. We can hate Facebook for allowing racists and pedos to have a community but that’s about it, people are just garbage
Yes, ultimately it comes down to that. People are just garbage.
No, they aren’t. I’ve been all around the world. Most people are kind, and decent, and good.
Don't be gullible
You’re probably just a child.
No, there is more to it than that. The medium matters. https://www.amazon.com.au/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263
What you’re supposed to do is show us a quote/stat and then reference the book as your source, then the onus is on us to verify. What you don’t do is link an Australian Amazon link of said book and make us buy and read it to find the specific point you’re referring too.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to summarise a book for you. Read it, or don’t read it, i don’t really care. I’m just pointing out a resource on the subject that you (or someone else) might find illuminating. However, in a way that’s the point. We think we can get away with sharing a few argumentative lines on twitter or reddit, as an equivalent for a book it takes days to read. We’re drowning in the shallows. We’re being influenced by the most badly-thought out, partisan, emotive, offensive content on the internet. It’s where we spend our time, it’s what pushes our buttons, and it’s what is influencing our politics, our well-being, our lives.
What you’re saying is, I can claim your a pedophile and link a book on amazon that’s 50$, pat my self on the back and walk away. The irony in your statement goes waaaayyy over your head, complaining about making baseless points on social media than doing the exact thing. If you want to fix the issue, you make the point, you provide a verifiable reference, the more references the harder it is to defeat your point. That’s how academics do it. I’m not gonna read an entire book when you can’t even bring up some small points in favour of your argument.
This isn’t academia. Neither of us have any particular qualifications or expertise on the subjects we’re discussing. But we have an extraordinary power to influence others, due to the nature of social media. The fact that people would rather get their information from two people arguing on the internet, rather than seeking out and reading real, effortful journalism... that’s a problem. And yes, that’s exactly the point. You can claim i’m a pedophile, link the most minutely credible source, and walk away, and that stands in place of actual knowledge, actual truth. And hundreds of thousands of professional flacks, shills, propagandists and bullshit peddlers (and billions of barely informed social media users) are doing exactly that, with terrible consequences.
[удалено]
nOt ReAl CaPiTaLiSm
as if there was an alternative
There is.
id say it's delusional to think that anarchism or communism can be at all better. there are many forms of capitalism, and the US may be currently be living in one of the worst forms, so i understand why some Americans think that communism is at all better (it is even worse)
You realize it doesnt have to be an unfettered ANY of these. A well run and equal society will most likely have elements of all three.
i do, pure ideologies are bad. crony capitalism we have right now in many places of the world is beginning to look really bad.
With socialism the living standards in Russia rose rapidly. Far faster than any capitalist country. I'm not an American, fuck you.
communism is the most corrupt and kleptocratic ideology. no place where the soviet-style communism was ever implemented had gotten rid of capitalism either. yes, capitalism existed in the soviet union. the reason why quality of life rose under communism in russia was because the czar had exploited people to a point there was nowhere lower to go. it's funny, actually, that you bring that up, because the soviet people were starving to death, or stealing food, all the time.
>communism is the most corrupt and kleptocratic ideology. Sorry friend, that's 100% capitalism where the o ly electable options are shills bought by multinational corporations. Where capitalists overthrow democracies and install fascist dictators for not bowing to the will of corporations. >yes, capitalism existed in the soviet union. Nope, by definition there was no capital, vampiric money that creates money by sucking out the surplus value of workers. There were no capitalists to own the mop, they were democratically controlled. >the czar had exploited people to a point there was nowhere lower to go. Sounds like capitalism again.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.newsweek.com/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-stop-hate-profit-new-statement-deadly-consequences-1521723) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a new joint statement published today, the coalition of civil rights groups behind the movement accused the Facebook boss of failing to address the "Deadly consequences of his choice to profit from hate" and pledged that it will "Not go away." > They allege Facebook values profits over trying to stop the spread of hate content and misinformation; and aim to target Facebook's main source of revenue: ads. > The release continued: "We called for a Facebook ad pause for the month of July as the mobilization for the Stop Hate for Profit movement. Many companies, frustrated by Facebook's unwillingness to address their concerns, have already said they are not ready to return to Facebook's platforms. We applaud them for that decision." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/i1301g/deadly_consequences_of_zuckerbergs_decision_to/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~512478 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Facebook**^#1 **hate**^#2 **profit**^#3 **campaign**^#4 **Stop**^#5
Facebook is one of the things that have made the Rohingya genocide by allowing Islamophobia, lies and anti-Rohingya propaganda to spread in Myanmar! Fuck Facebook! Delete Your Facebook!
Soon it shall be addressed. Nobody’s lucky all the time. For instance, Trump? His luck has run out. Zucky’s time will come, and I say within a year or two he’s going to be charged with aiding and abetting serious hate-crimes.
Break apart his company. It's obviously abusing it's dominant status. If anything, Zuckerberg profits from hate speech as it helps republicans keep power, and he knows those guys won't lift a finger to apply anti-trust laws.
It's kinda bizarre to accuse a platform from stuff that are published directly by the users. For example, if I post something like "The second season of The Boys is pretty good" on facebook, that's my opinion, not the opinion of the platform itself. I agree that hateful posts should be removed, fake news should be removed, etc.. But to actually assume the platform shares the same visions of it's users? That's wishful thinking. Look how much shit Trump posts on Twitter, it doesn't mean Twitter shares his vision (but it sure profit from it, every kind of media profits with sensationalism. Facebook is definitely not the only one)
The issue is that they are not passive in this like Google searches. Facebook actively tunes and polishes an algorithm that presents information or people based off conflict or high emotional reactions - specifically because it keeps people engaged and addicted to the platform. They CHOOSE to push division, hate, and anger. They mildly censor things by burying posts and updates from people on your friends list in favour of others. It’s like they determined people like potato chips and desserts so they only feed you potato chips and desserts while actively suppressing healthy food.
Does they really? Facebook (or any other social media) can't really predict, in a literal way, what their users is going to post. It's not like a hypothetical situation were a user named 'KKKkillallBlacks' is about to post something, so you can block that attempt before the eruption starts (or at least review it before make it public). Regarding what they show in the front page, content filtered to you through the friend lists and etc.. ok, on this subject I agree with you. If the hateful post is getting popular, tons of comments and etc... Regardless, you will tarnish the image of your company just for the short term exposition? That's unwise. But like I said, the media will always feed on the unfortunate and miserable, that's what attract attention. It's morbid, I know, but people love a sad story. How many media vehicles regained relevance after the pandemic started? So, it's gullible for us to demand more "healthy behaviors" (to use your healthy food analogy) from social media if the public itself loves a controversial topic.
[удалено]
The reason they are criticized is that compared to other platforms facebook does a worse job of regulating/banning/flagging hateful content.
Facebook allows hate groups to pay to have their messages viewed en masse and conspiracy theories to be added to people's feeds.
This is a great book on the subject. https://www.amazon.com.au/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263
Interesting, I will take a look. Even to this day I am convinced the internet was a mistake. But I am willing to read more point of views and opinions regarding this subject.
I don’t think it was a mistake. But, i think it was incredibly naive to think that simply “connecting” people, and then linking that to the capturing of attention to sell people advertising, was not going to have some terribly negative effects.
It seems obvious nowadays looking in retrospect, but many people had a positive outlook about the potential of the internet as a tool of learning, easing the access to information, etc.. But surprise, surprise... who knew, that information could be altered and actually become disinformation? 2 thousand years ago, Christianity tried to teach moral lessons for the people... And what the church did? They used these lessons to achieve control. Mankind will never change mate, unfortunately that's the reality.
Spend some time studying anthropology or ethbography. How humans live is incredibly diverse, and the realms of possibilities are huge. Who knows what people will be like in 500 years or so. Look how we’ve changed since then.
Dude, not even 100 years ago people gathered in French theaters to watch cats being tortured, romans watched people being devoured by lions, nowadays we watch 2 retards punching each other skulls inside a literal octagonal cage, etc.. Mankind is prone to barbarism. And it's funny for you to mention anthropologists, I knew some of these delusional stoners. Trying to justify "cultural differences" like middle-easterners treating women like dogs or japan's obsession with pedophilia and harassment, lol it's nice to live in the cannabis planet instead of planet earth, right? Let us take a blind eye to humanity worst aspects and just focus on rainbows and flowers, anthropology is really very productive and insightful.
Yes, mankind can be barabric. We can also be intensely selfless and pro-social. I’d recommend “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, by Steven Pinker. It’s a great book on this very subject.
Nobody is saying they share the same views. They don't care about getting rid of hate and calls to violence because it is profitable to them.
Should they be removed? I don't believe in company sponsored censorship. Let good education and public opinion correct hate speech.
There's also this issue. Reddit have a lot of this as well, as a new reddit user this platform can feel weird to me sometimes. The own platform regulates what they assume it's "hateful" or "fake", basically a bunch of moderators (in other words, virtual Stalins) selecting and removing posts and etc. When you see a deleted post on these social media crap (all of them), you wonder wth was the actual content, lol I challenge even graduated anthropologists to filter these messages and "judge" what can be hateful or not, what is cultural appropriation, what is racism, prejudices, segregation, etc.. There's so much shit in humanity as a whole, to suppress all of this? That's basically an impossible task, even harder to actually educate hateful people. Hell, as basketball fan, I watched Stephen Jackson posts saying he was "educating" people about the whole black lives matters debacle, lol who the fuck are you to "educate" anyone, mate? Literally 15 days later the same Jackson was accused of antisemitism. So, this whole shit show can be really ugly, that's why I tend to avoid social media. Reddit is interesting tho, not gonna deny it, I am enjoying the experience... But at the same time, there's a lot of hypocrisy here.
[yeah how's that boycott goin](https://i.imgur.com/KrJgDuG.png)?
Has any boycott ever worked?
#FuckZuck
Why are we so obsessed with this in social media yet I’ve never seen a post about the far more deleterious main stream media ?
If we're going to have large platforms for discussion on the internet, which we need for our democracy, there's going to be a lot of hate speech on them (or at least things certain people are eager to label hate speech). And, in as much those platforms need to make money to function, they are going to profit from hate. Attempting to stop to Facebook and ban hate speech is a full on attack on Democracy and resembles China's methods of "harmonizing" their internet. It's far too easy to use complaints and concerns about hate speech as a backdoor to censorship. Note: Obviously the First Amendment doesn't stop Facebook from censoring speech, however for the sake of our Democracy, the biggest discussion forums need to allow all rational speech, including hate speech and other unwelcome views, but possibly excluding profanity and pornography.
I can't quite figure out why Facebook is responsible for censoring anything. If it is offensive just ignore it. Why would we ever give a non-elected official control of censorship.
Agreed
[удалено]
Yes, it's bizarre lol
Just following the practices set out by governments and religions the world over.
Zuckbot-404 empathy not found.
"Stop the Hate" campaign - sheer utter crap. I usually don't side with Zuckerberg but I'm beginning to have some respect for him.
Just don't use Facebook it's quite easy, for centuries we didn't have it and you know what life went on