Facebook collected data using a spy app they themselves banned...

[Zorro!]

Paranoia?

No, stop projecting.

What data could they collect that you did not enter yourself?

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

Yup! Our Freedom and Liberty requires that we keep these companies in check.

Actually not.

Only government can pose a threat to or freedom and liberty, not private entities such as social media sites.

The concepts of freedom and liberty concern solely the relationship between government and those governed.

Nonsense. We decided long ago that ALL Americans have a right to enter the stores they chose, the seat they wish on the bus, the restroom facilities, the drinking fountains, the hotels/motels, airlines and so forth.

 

[Zorro!]

Paranoia?

No, stop projecting.

What data could they collect that you did not enter yourself?

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability

 

[FA_Q2]

No, stop projecting.

What data could they collect that you did not enter yourself?

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability

Not really.

The law is not clearly defined here as they do not fall under publisher as this site does not fall under publisher even if they control the discourse to an extent. To be quite frank, they should be immune from publishers liability. They do not publish the content. If I call Trump a racist on FB, if you want them to be a publisher, then they would be liable for libel. That is untenable and asinine.

The solution has always been pretty clear, stop using them.

 

[FA_Q2]

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.

False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.

None of the pages I visit gets deleted.

Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality. There are few people as arrogant as that. You may even have exceeded Trump.

 

[Ringel05]

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.

False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.

None of the pages I visit gets deleted.

Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality. There are few people as arrogant as that. You may even have exceeded Trump.

That's Blei in a nutshell.

 

[Zorro!]

What data could they collect that you did not enter yourself?

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability

Not really.

The law is not clearly defined here as they do not fall under publisher as this site does not fall under publisher even if they control the discourse to an extent. To be quite frank, they should be immune from publishers liability. They do not publish the content. If I call Trump a racist on FB, if you want them to be a publisher, then they would be liable for libel. That is untenable and asinine.

The solution has always been pretty clear, stop using them.

When they were maintaining neutral programs, their sweetheart regulatory treatment made sense, now that they are partisan censorious hacks, it no longer does.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is in need of Congressional change now that these mega tech giants are censoring and excluding based on political viewpoint.

The law currently states: "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."

Section 230 requires neutrality from tech platforms as a predicate for immunity.

Senator Ted Cruz has said:

"The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum."​

The Communications Decency Act was a reaction to Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., a landmark 1995 New York state court decision extending standards for liability, long imposed on publishers for their content, to new media.

Companies risk losing protection under Section 230 if they engage in censorious partisanship rather than provide neutral platform for lawful speech.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also pointed out that Twitter's censorious hard edge partisanship has jeopardized its immunity: "Twitter is exempt from liability as a 'publisher' because it is allegedly 'a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.' That does not appear to be accurate."

Section 230's first sentence eliminates liability for content uploaded to tech platforms. The second sentence removes liability for tech companies' vile suppression of lawful political speech, that was NEVER the intention of Congress.

 

[FA_Q2]

Seriously?
You do understand data mining and what the consequences can be to people if their computer usage could be shared/purchased and given to the government or any other entity.
Personally, I would not be surprised that Facebook was "testing the waters" by doing this.
Period - M$ and Google know every single thing you do on your computer.
Right now, at least they tell us so, that the data is placed in aggregate anonymously and used for harmless reasons to "help them help us".
Via Facebook/twitter or anyother social media app that identifies WHO YOU ARE and not just a MAC address... then it is possible for the government an other entities to know everything YOU personally do on any computer/cell phone you use. And even locate you 24 hrs. a day.
All of that is 100% doable. Easily.

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability

Not really.

The law is not clearly defined here as they do not fall under publisher as this site does not fall under publisher even if they control the discourse to an extent. To be quite frank, they should be immune from publishers liability. They do not publish the content. If I call Trump a racist on FB, if you want them to be a publisher, then they would be liable for libel. That is untenable and asinine.

The solution has always been pretty clear, stop using them.

When they were maintaining neutral programs, their sweetheart regulatory treatment made sense, now that they are partisan censorious hacks, it no longer does.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is in need of Congressional change now that these mega tech giants are censoring and excluding based on political viewpoint.

The law currently states: "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."

Section 230 requires neutrality from tech platforms as a predicate for immunity.

Senator Ted Cruz has said:

"The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum."​

The Communications Decency Act was a reaction to Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., a landmark 1995 New York state court decision extending standards for liability, long imposed on publishers for their content, to new media.

Companies risk losing protection under Section 230 if they engage in censorious partisanship rather than provide neutral platform for lawful speech.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also pointed out that Twitter's censorious hard edge partisanship has jeopardized its immunity: "Twitter is exempt from liability as a 'publisher' because it is allegedly 'a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.' That does not appear to be accurate."

Section 230's first sentence eliminates liability for content uploaded to tech platforms. The second sentence removes liability for tech companies' vile suppression of lawful political speech, that was NEVER the intention of Congress.

Ted Cruz may have stated that but it is not supported in the law unless you can point to the section that requires neutrality.

There is a debate around changing it but I vehemently disagree with doing so - government is NOT the solution. That is for another thread though.

 

[Zorro!]

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

Which puts them in violation of Congress' sweetheart deal that excludes them from publishers liability

Not really.

The law is not clearly defined here as they do not fall under publisher as this site does not fall under publisher even if they control the discourse to an extent. To be quite frank, they should be immune from publishers liability. They do not publish the content. If I call Trump a racist on FB, if you want them to be a publisher, then they would be liable for libel. That is untenable and asinine.

The solution has always been pretty clear, stop using them.

When they were maintaining neutral programs, their sweetheart regulatory treatment made sense, now that they are partisan censorious hacks, it no longer does.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is in need of Congressional change now that these mega tech giants are censoring and excluding based on political viewpoint.

The law currently states: "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."

Section 230 requires neutrality from tech platforms as a predicate for immunity.

Senator Ted Cruz has said:

"The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum."​

The Communications Decency Act was a reaction to Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., a landmark 1995 New York state court decision extending standards for liability, long imposed on publishers for their content, to new media.

Companies risk losing protection under Section 230 if they engage in censorious partisanship rather than provide neutral platform for lawful speech.

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley also pointed out that Twitter's censorious hard edge partisanship has jeopardized its immunity: "Twitter is exempt from liability as a 'publisher' because it is allegedly 'a forum for a true diversity of political discourse.' That does not appear to be accurate."

Section 230's first sentence eliminates liability for content uploaded to tech platforms. The second sentence removes liability for tech companies' vile suppression of lawful political speech, that was NEVER the intention of Congress.

Ted Cruz may have stated that but it is not supported in the law unless you can point to the section that requires neutrality.

There is a debate around changing it but I vehemently disagree with doing so - government is NOT the solution. That is for another thread though.

That's the point. They are no longer a neutral platform, they are instead censorious hard edged partisans. The sweetheart immunity deal that made sense 25 years ago, no longer does.

If they don't want to be neutral platforms, then they can have the same exposure as any other publication. At the time they were thought to be like a telephone service and of course no one has a political gateway to who can use the telephone and no one is preventing lawful speech on the telephone because they don't agree with it.

 

[Bleipriester]

They do. Facebook buttons on websites track you, whether used or not. So do the bugs and trackers loaded on this board.
The sheer mass of data can only be evaluated by software and the only reasonable explanations for this effort are software improvement and monetarization. For example the trackers and bugs monitor your behavior across websites, process the gathered data and deliver ads accordingly. There is no human supervision unless necessary. In fact, they give a rats ass what we are doing.

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.

False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.

None of the pages I visit gets deleted.

Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality. There are few people as arrogant as that. You may even have exceeded Trump.

That´s a stupid personal attack. If it´s true what you claim, why Trump, Assad, Maduro pages don´t get deleted?

 

[FA_Q2]

Until they do.

That is the problem with today's social media companies - they actually are caring what you do because they see themselves as moral arbiters that both can and NEED to control public discourse. As tech and AI improves, this will become a larger political problem.

They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.

False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.

None of the pages I visit gets deleted.

Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality. There are few people as arrogant as that. You may even have exceeded Trump.

That´s a stupid personal attack. If it´s true what you claim, why Trump, Assad, Maduro pages don´t get deleted?

I made a statement of fact. You countered it with your personal account of all of social media.

WTF did you expect - certainly not to be taken seriously.

 

[Bleipriester]

They are only interested in general behavior, not in your personal. It is all about coin and maybe the creators are just nerds who have fun. "Jew Zuckerberg" could easily use his householder rights to remove any person or page from Facebook.

False, established by the FACT they are removing or harming those pages already.

None of the pages I visit gets deleted.

Glad to know that you think you and your experience encompasses all of reality. There are few people as arrogant as that. You may even have exceeded Trump.

That´s a stupid personal attack. If it´s true what you claim, why Trump, Assad, Maduro pages don´t get deleted?

I made a statement of fact. You countered it with your personal account of all of social media.

WTF did you expect - certainly not to be taken seriously.

Nope. You are claiming something and there is a lack of examples backing your claim.