Facebook would be a lot better if they banned paid political ads and political facebook groups.  That way people could share news about their lives in peace.  

1 minute ago, jmecklenborg said:

Facebook would be a lot better if they banned paid political ads and political facebook groups.  That way people could share news about their lives in peace.  

Trump campaign spends a lot of money to lie in ads. That's why they allow it and they will not fact check. 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

Trump campaign spends a lot of money to lie in ads. That's why they allow it and they will not fact check. 

 

Facebook takes in $16 billion+ in *quarterly* ad revenue.  The Trump campaign's ad checks are one drop in one bucket out of a hundred buckets.

^If they had stayed private they wouldn't be under pressure to pursue all revenue streams.  They basically don't have a choice since they're public.  

41 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Facebook would be a lot better if they banned paid political ads and political facebook groups.  That way people could share news about their lives in peace.  

 

Why do you hate freedom, Jake?

37 minutes ago, taestell said:

 

Why do you hate freedom, Jake?

 

Would Pintinterest be better with political ads?  Your angry Uncle Gary?

I feel totally violated that the evening news doesn't have commercials for the KKK.

53 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Would Pintinterest be better with political ads?  Your angry Uncle Gary?

 

 I'm totally being sarcastic BTW.

 

Right now Instagram is a much more pleasant social network than Facebook because all you can do is post pictures. However Facebook realizes that young people are abandoning Facebook for Instagram so I think it's only a matter of time before they make Instagram into Facebook Jr. and start allowing text posts and link sharing. And IG already has political ads.

IG has a LOT of ads. You have to really watch what you're doing or else suffer the embarrassment of other people knowing you liked an ad for something dopey like Lucky Charms.

Edited October 25, 20195 yr by GCrites80s

10 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

BTW a guy who works in the warehouse at my company spent 4 years in prison...until they caught him with a cell phone, which cost him an extra year.  How did they know?  Because he posted something on Facebook with said phone!

 

 

I swear you know/associate/work with people, who have had the most peculiar life experiences.  Where do you find these people or how do they find you??

Edited October 26, 20195 yr by MyTwoSense

5 hours ago, taestell said:

 

 I'm totally being sarcastic BTW.

 

Right now Instagram is a much more pleasant social network than Facebook because all you can do is post pictures. However Facebook realizes that young people are abandoning Facebook for Instagram so I think it's only a matter of time before they make Instagram into Facebook Jr. and start allowing text posts and link sharing. And IG already has political ads.

My gf has been very vocal about IG being more pleasant. But some recent article alleges that IG actually causes the most depression. 

Facebook now giving contractors driving white work vans a bad name.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/tech/facebook-white-vans/index.html

 

 

Oh man, sounds like a Russian tracksuit ploy designed to show how easily it is to spread old wives' tales through Facebook now.

 

 

Not getting my hopes up yet, but Facebook spinning off Instagram would be amazing. Instagram is one of the few social networks I enjoy using and I hate the fact that I am "supporting" Facebook by using it. And I hate the way they are turning it more and more into Facebook Jr. over time.

1 hour ago, taestell said:

Not getting my hopes up yet, but Facebook spinning off Instagram would be amazing. Instagram is one of the few social networks I enjoy using and I hate the fact that I am "supporting" Facebook by using it. And I hate the way they are turning it more and more into Facebook Jr. over time.

 

This is interesting to me, because I use Facebook daily but have never signed up for an Instagram account, and if I weren't trying to keep in touch with Indians overseas, I would never have signed up for a WhatsApp account, either.  But I've been part of Facebook ever since you needed a *.edu e-mail address to join.  Instagram to me is just the kaleidoscopic wilderness of vapid, color-saturated, filter-happy "influencers."

I gave up all social media and it is a beautiful thing. 

2 hours ago, Gramarye said:

Instagram to me is just the kaleidoscopic wilderness of vapid, color-saturated, filter-happy "influencers."

 

I think Instagram — like Twitter — is all about who you choose to follow. I only follow friends and photographers I like. I don't follow "influencers" so none of that junk shows up in my feed.

 

Unfortunately since Facebook acquired Instagram, they keep shoving more and more features into it that have nothing to do with the original concept of the app. In addition to the normal feed of your friends' photos, there are Stories and Reels and Messenger and most recently Shopping. Basically they are using the same tricks they used to get people addicted to increase customer engagement with Facebook, and applying them to IG.

13 hours ago, richNcincy said:

I gave up all social media and it is a beautiful thing. 

 

Have had friends do the same - after they watched the Social Dilemma (or whatever documentary it's called on Netflix).

 

I never had Instagram or Snapchat.  And I mostly just keep Facebook around to be able to video chat with my grandmother (we finally helped her figure out how to video call on Messenger).

Edited December 10, 20204 yr by DarkandStormy

 

^ what's cnn doing on there.  Conservatives need to have one of there victim hearings a lot this unfairness  

I miss the days when you needed a college e-mail address to sign up for Facebook. Exclusivity is really the key to jumpstarting a Social media platform. Remember when you had to be invited, in order to have a Gmail account and they gave you an unbelievable 1 gigabyte of storage? Btw, if anyone is on Clubhouse and wants to send me an invite, I would be eternally grateful :)

Facebook is NOTHING like it used to be. Lately, I've been getting friend requests from all these random women. I send them a message asking why they sent me a friend request and if we know each other and they either don't respond or they tell me they did it because I'm "handsome." Yeah, right 🙄.  Sometimes they'll initiate a conversation with me after sending a friend request and I'll respond and do the small talk, however I noticed a pattern emerging. Within a few minutes it leads to them asking for money. They don't always seem like fake accounts, they're sometimes women with a lot of pictures, friends and have been on Facebook for a while. I still wonder if they're bots. If not, they're still scam artists. Sadly, there's probably tons of guys who send them the money they ask for. In fact, I bet a lot of women make a fortune getting lonely guys on the internet to send them money when there's no prospect of them even getting laid but most guys are delusional. Facebook enables this by making it so easy to send money through their platform. I loaned my friend a couple hundred dollars one time and he sent it back to me one day through Facebook. All I had to do was go in my settings briefly and add my debit card number. When he sent it, I instantly got a text from my bank stating that I received a deposit. 

Imagine being a guy and trying to pull that scam on women, through Facebook with a fake account. They'd all tell you to get a job and the FBI probably would be knocking on your door the next day from all of them reporting you, lol!

Edited February 14, 20214 yr by David

On 2/14/2021 at 11:12 AM, David said:

I miss the days when you needed a college e-mail address to sign up for Facebook. Exclusivity is really the key to jumpstarting a Social media platform. Remember when you had to be invited, in order to have a Gmail account and they gave you an unbelievable 1 gigabyte of storage? Btw, if anyone is on Clubhouse and wants to send me an invite, I would be eternally grateful :)

 

It's depressing.  I have blocked a large number of my "friends" - overwhelmingly people who I have never or who I have barely met in real life. 

 

Instagram is even worse.  It's a giant scrum of insecure people.  People used to point cameras outward at the world.  Now they can only point them at themselves:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-are-instagram-fit-pics-why-are-they-so-popular-and-who-is-taking-them-11613394182

 

Got on Facebook yesterday and one of my friends posted this after going to Hurricane Ridge in Washington State. All you women posting boring selfies all day long from your bathroom, try following this!

Edited February 16, 20214 yr by David

Which reminds me, I've got my "quarantine roadtrip" photos, from around Ohio, I could go post in the Photo section here.

On 12/9/2020 at 7:27 PM, richNcincy said:

I gave up all social media and it is a beautiful thing. 

I bet it is! I cancelled my FB account like 8+ years ago and don't miss it one bit.

 

On 2/25/2021 at 9:45 AM, KJP said:

 

Personally, I want Big Tech to be regulated. A lot of people feel that way, but legally, what are you going to do? Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit against Google for suspending her ads during the primary debate, that she PAID FOR got dismissed because the First Amendment clause providing protection from the government curbing free speech doesn't apply to private companies like Google. I didn't like her campaign's media blackout. I was p!ssed. Now we have Brain-Dead-Biden and the Democratic Establishment is happy. I digress.

So they're private entities and it's no different than any other 'publisher' cherry picking what is put out there. A newspaper can choose what information is put out or omitted and we think nothing of it. They don't have any obligation to let you publish articles through them or to let you advertise with them. The problem is, we're addicted to social media and RELY on it to stay connected to the world and have access to every bit of information out there, as well as the ability to express ourselves on these platforms. Folks also want disinformation and idiots censored, so this is a weird one.  Essentially, it's become a public utility, in my opinion. That may sound ridiculous if you're one of the few people who don't use social media, but a lot of people feel strongly about this and want regulation. It's just really hard to argue, legally.

I suppose we would have to amend the constitution and that's a long, hard process. Big Tech is centralized in only a few states (for now) so I see a good chance of it being ratified by 3/4ths of the states' legislature. Congress wouldn't be a problem - it seems bipartisan. Nancy Pelosi represents San Francisco and even she said it's time to regulate Big Tech and they shower her with money.

Side note: My friend got on Facebook the other day and wrote a comment saying, "How's fat boy doing?" in reference to her friend's dog and got suspended from posting, for fat shaming. Fat boy is the name of the dog! Said friend was also recently suspended for saying, "Americans are stupid" as it was considered 'hate speech.' I don't know if they're using horrible algorithms detecting strings that may be deemed offensive or if people are reporting it and folks at Facebook were offended. Either way, that's ridiculous.

Edited February 27, 20214 yr by David

1 hour ago, David said:

So they're private entities and it's no different than any other 'publisher' cherry picking what is put out there. A newspaper can choose what information is put out or omitted and we think nothing of it. They don't have any obligation to let you publish articles through them or to let you advertise with them. The problem is, we're addicted to social media and RELY on it to stay connected to the world and have access to every bit of information out there, as well as the ability to express ourselves on these platforms. Folks also want disinformation and idiots censored, so this is a weird one.  Essentially, it's become a public utility, in my opinion. That may sound ridiculous if you're one of the few people who don't use social media, but a lot of people feel strongly about this and want regulation. It's just really hard to argue, legally.
 

 

That's exactly how newspapers were though. Them and TV/radio were the gatekeepers. Don't expect TV or radio to just let anyone on either. Public Access did but you had to take classes to learn how to use the equipment. And for those who don't know, we haven't had Public Access for over 15 years in Columbus. And it's unlikely to come back since few people have cable TV anymore which means less funding and exposure. When they cut the funding to Public Access in Columbus in 2003 or whatever already enough people had cut the cord due to VHS/DVD, video games and 'net surfing.

 

Or maybe it was because of Damon Zex

 

 

1 hour ago, David said:

Side note: My friend got on Facebook the other day and wrote a comment saying, "How's fat boy doing?" in reference to her friend's dog and got suspended from posting, for fat shaming. Fat boy is the name of the dog! Said friend was also recently suspended for saying, "Americans are stupid" as it was considered 'hate speech.' I don't know if they're using horrible algorithms detecting strings that may be deemed offensive or if people are reporting it and folks at Facebook were offended. Either way, that's ridiculous.

 

It's almost like Facebook is so Republican that it's using its algos to make a mockery of "cancel culture" "PC" and "SJW". Like "Look we made a PC algo to show everyone how stupid it is". And DO NOT make fun of white people on there. If you say "white trash" on there you are done.

11 hours ago, David said:

Personally, I want Big Tech to be regulated. A lot of people feel that way, but legally, what are you going to do? Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuit against Google for suspending her ads during the primary debate, that she PAID FOR got dismissed because the First Amendment clause providing protection from the government curbing free speech doesn't apply to private companies like Google. I didn't like her campaign's media blackout. I was p!ssed. Now we have Brain-Dead-Biden and the Democratic Establishment is happy. I digress.

So they're private entities and it's no different than any other 'publisher' cherry picking what is put out there. A newspaper can choose what information is put out or omitted and we think nothing of it. They don't have any obligation to let you publish articles through them or to let you advertise with them. The problem is, we're addicted to social media and RELY on it to stay connected to the world and have access to every bit of information out there, as well as the ability to express ourselves on these platforms. Folks also want disinformation and idiots censored, so this is a weird one.  Essentially, it's become a public utility, in my opinion. That may sound ridiculous if you're one of the few people who don't use social media, but a lot of people feel strongly about this and want regulation. It's just really hard to argue, legally.

I suppose we would have to amend the constitution and that's a long, hard process. Big Tech is centralized in only a few states (for now) so I see a good chance of it being ratified by 3/4ths of the states' legislature. Congress wouldn't be a problem - it seems bipartisan. Nancy Pelosi represents San Francisco and even she said it's time to regulate Big Tech and they shower her with money.

Side note: My friend got on Facebook the other day and wrote a comment saying, "How's fat boy doing?" in reference to her friend's dog and got suspended from posting, for fat shaming. Fat boy is the name of the dog! Said friend was also recently suspended for saying, "Americans are stupid" as it was considered 'hate speech.' I don't know if they're using horrible algorithms detecting strings that may be deemed offensive or if people are reporting it and folks at Facebook were offended. Either way, that's ridiculous.

The laws are there, they are just not enforced and the social media companies have a rather liberal view of section 240. 
The intent of such a provision was to protect them from a bunch of knuckleheads who posted offensive and openly racist, sexist, degrading, pornographic, etc. etc. etc. items on their message board and forums. Well technically, it is published material, it obviously would be unreasonable to hold them accountable for the contents of third-party post in that manner.

Newspapers, had editorial boards, and they were ultimately responsible for choosing the content That was published in the paper. Therefore they fit under the description of a peer publisher.

 

Since lines are blurred This was the clarify what was the publishing role and what was a common carrier role.

 

Did they just start enforcing section 240 and giving the companies a choice to either choose to be a publisher or a carrier, a lot of these problems would be solved. 
Right now, they are playing both sides of the fence

I didn't see a 240, you mean Title 47 U.S. Code 230? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 

We're definitely on the same page with everything you said except I don't understand what you mean in terms of what isn't being enforced but could or maybe should. Anything enacted by Congress and signed into law is ultimately enforced by the president, so that's Biden's responsibility. He suffers from dementia though, so it's Kamala's responsibility. 

Like I said though, it's a weird one. Clearly both Democrats and Republicans have issues with Big Tech. The issues each side has, is often different so that is an inevitable disaster but I guess what I'm trying to say is that the fact that "Big Tech" is a thing, is indicative of a problem and that regulation needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, Congress knows very little about how the internet, let alone coding, even works. They don't seem to care to know, either. Biden doesn't even know where he is or what he is signing half the time. Speaker Pelosi who despises Facebook, is 80 years old. I have a feeling their intimidation by it will continue to deter them from properly addressing it. I'm sure you've seen the mess that was the Congressional response and questioning during Zuckerberg's testimony in '2018.

Edited February 28, 20214 yr by David

 

they still invest, but big tech got it wrong about india:

 

 

https://trc.taboola.com/slate1/log/3/click?ui=b440088e-d782-47e3-b9df-26fc15cef29d-tuct1f790cd&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Ftechnology%2F2021%2F06%2Findia-silicon-valley-twitter-google-censorship.html&sig=1

Facebook and its affiliates have been down for a couple hours. 

Breaking news!!!! Oh no, the Facebook and Co are down! 
 

Just reiterating that I do not miss social media one bit and I’m sad that this is considered “breaking news”. 

1 minute ago, E Rocc said:

Facebook and its affiliates have been down for a couple hours. 

Let’s hope it stays down 😂

15 minutes ago, richNcincy said:

Let’s hope it stays down 😂

 

Let's not.

Though it's pretty funny to watch karens on *other* social media proclaim that people have to talk to each other now.   Ironic too.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

Let's not.

Though it's pretty funny to watch karens on *other* social media proclaim that people have to talk to each other now.   Ironic too.

 

 

what do you mean, let's not?

 

do you need to get a baby pic up for your grandmother or something?

 

😂

36 minutes ago, mrnyc said:

 

 

what do you mean, let's not?

 

do you need to get a baby pic up for your grandmother or something?

 

😂

 

Well it's my daughter's 11 birthday tomorrow, and she likes the replies.   :)

 

Seriously, as much as some complain about it and as dumb as it sometimes gets, it's where the most people are.

On 6/15/2021 at 10:30 AM, mrnyc said:

 

they still invest, but big tech got it wrong about india:

 

 

https://trc.taboola.com/slate1/log/3/click?ui=b440088e-d782-47e3-b9df-26fc15cef29d-tuct1f790cd&url=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Ftechnology%2F2021%2F06%2Findia-silicon-valley-twitter-google-censorship.html&sig=1

 

India's a far bigger mess than people realize.   The two main parties are bureausclerotic socialists and religious zealots heavily influenced by the RSS, which is a sort of cross between a western fascist party and a Hindu Taliban.

I wonder if this outage has anything to do with this?🤔

 

 

Apparently their DNS entry was wiped which caused the Facebook domain to not exist. And apparently everything from internal e-mail to Building ID badges to unlock doors are tied to that and thus also not working.

32 minutes ago, KJP said:

Apparently their DNS entry was wiped which caused the Facebook domain to not exist. And apparently everything from internal e-mail to Building ID badges to unlock doors are tied to that and thus also not working.

It was a bad day there.   Stock price also fell nearly 5% after the 60 minutes story.   

And the Pandora Papers news...

 

I've read that work-from-home perpetuated Facebook's problems. At some point, Facebook staffers realized they needed to physically work on their servers, but offices at the data centers were empty. What could have been a quick fix took hours because people struggled remotely, realized they needed to come in, spent hours commuting, and then finally got started on their work.

 

It will be interesting to see if this changes any remote work policies in the tech industry.

It's wild that almost everyone unanimously agreed - right and left - that Facebook being down was a positive for society...

 

Then immediately went back on once they had access 

I'm highly suspicious of the Facebook "whistleblower." I watched most of the testimony and something about it felt off. It seems like a ploy to get support for government censorship of social media via agreements and/or "understandings" between the feds and social media giants.

Do you deny the evidence that was brought forward? Or do you just think the timing is suspect? Should we not be concerned if Facebook is steering people into conspiracy theories and ultimately lead to violence?

 

Or should we not be concerned about the impact Facebook is having on countries like Myanmar?

2 hours ago, Ram23 said:

I'm highly suspicious of the Facebook "whistleblower." I watched most of the testimony and something about it felt off. It seems like a ploy to get support for government censorship of social media via agreements and/or "understandings" between the feds and social media giants.

 

I'm actually not totally in disagreement with you. 

 

Here's where I've veered off of my 1A purist position though: I actually believe that social media has the potential to end democracy and perhaps even organized government if unchecked in the long term. 

 

The extent to which misinformation is perpetuated is awful for our culture and, moreover, Facebook has proven itself wildly incapable of choosing when censorship is appropriate - this applies to issues from both the right and the left. 

 

Beyond that - the societal woes such as suicidal ideations, body dysmorphia, social anxiety and the negative effects on cognitive development are also going to result in long term issues. 

 

I'd honestly support a version of facebook where all comments/likes are disabled - same goes for Instagram. Since it would likely have to be universally applied - then twitter would lose replies and arguably retweets as well. 

 

Imagine if UO prioritized and promoted its worst users and posts rather than its best.