The future of Facebook...

[iceberg]

Also, it is not really the political part that I think is the biggest problem. FB knows it is used for human trafficking and does not really try all that hard to fix it. They are known to be used to promote violence in parts of the world and they let it happen.

To me these are the things that really matter. I could really not give a fuck if they are mean to Conservatives or not.

as the impact of this "mean to conservatives" i see all the time on fb, i do care. i also know they do human trafficking's and don't stop it as the other things you point out.

this is where countries and states are going to make it very difficult for FB to operate in their areas. trying to control where FB allows any given thing to be seen and follow all local laws? that's an undertaking no one wants but its coming.

if you can't police yourself, others will find a way to do it for you.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Publisher

Definition of Publisher in the Legal Dictionary by The Free Dictionary

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

PUBLISHER. One who does by himself or his agents make a thing publicly known; one engaged in the circulation of books, pamphlets, and other papers.

now, in this instance, the pamphlets, books or "other papers" are already known, are they not? FB in fact is making lesser known "books, pamphlets and other papers" more publicaly known. i can print a book on my own, but a publisher can still take it and publish it to a greater audience.

also, when FB fact checks, they cross over platform and go into publishing. a "platform" does not fact check. that isn't their role. they are free to state their rules / terms of service and then apply them evenly. easy to say FB has not done this.

so, i think it's obvious that FB blurs the shit out of this line and as i said, takes the best of both and responsibility of neither. so does twitter, youtube and all the majors.

I would argue that FB does not make things publicly known, they provide a platform for other to make things publicly known. When I post something on FB I am making it publicly known, not FB.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

as the impact of this "mean to conservatives" i see all the time on fb, i do care.

I guess I do not see it. Pretty much my entire family are right wing pro-Trump types and none of them have ever had any issues. Though I did get in trouble once for a picture I posted comparing Trump to Mussolini

 

[Canon Shooter]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

I think the vast majority of Facebook users are blissfully ignorant to how the controversial aspects of Facebook might affect them. They use Facebook to keep in touch with cousin Molly and Aunt Matilda and to find new recipes and find out when they're next high school reunion is.

Facebook has over 2.8 billion users worldwide. To put that into perspective, over 1/3 of the earth's population uses Facebook.

Facebook's not going anywhere...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I think the vast majority of Facebook users are blissfully ignorant to how the controversial aspects of Facebook might affect them. They use Facebook to keep in touch with cousin Molly and Aunt Matilda and to find new recipes and find out when they're next high school reunion is.

Facebook has over 2.8 billion users worldwide. To put that into perspective, over 1/3 of the earth's population uses Facebook.

Facebook's not going anywhere...

I tend to agree with all of this. Most do not know or really care about FBs darker side as it does not impact them personally. I know it is what I use FB for and sadly there really is not a good alternative.

 

[iceberg]

I would argue that FB does not make things publicly known, they provide a platform for other to make things publicly known. When I post something on FB I am making it publicly known, not FB.

and i would argue that a book can be out there for awhile before a publisher picks it up to publish it. the fact it existed before doesn't prevent someone else from publishing it later.

now, when you post on FB sure you are making it publicly known. but when FB comes along and fact checks it, they now become a publisher. esp when you are "fact checking" opinions. but if you are to say what i posted is real or is not, you cross over platform and yes, into that gray area.

if you are going to have a team "fact check" then where is your data coming from to do so? in my mind this is where we cross into publisher. keep in mind S230 was there to prevent censorship, not enable it against your "enemies".

in the strict sense of the definition however, FB *is* a publisher. the entire "first time known" - i'll ask again for a legal quantifier vs. your opinion on what makes a publisher a publisher. i provided legal links and definitions to bolster my "opinion". disagree is fine, part of a convo; but if you're to say a publisher only publishes things FIRST TIME, please reference that so we can compare legal definitions, not how we feel about it.

 

[iceberg]

I tend to agree with all of this. Most do not know or really care about FBs darker side as it does not impact them personally. I know it is what I use FB for and sadly there really is not a good alternative.

no alternative is my main issue. however, we now cross over to monopoly and that isn't going to help their case either.

while i appreciate the start ups that have tried, each one was nothing more than right wing LEFT WING SUCKS sites and the biggest echo chamber in the world. however, it was their right to do so and google, amazon and the rest targeting these sites, removing them from the app store, and cancelling their hosting was bullshit. esp when told "they planned evil events there" and we all know FB/twitter do it daily and do not apply that to themselves.

when i saw trump was going to do TRUTH whatever, i figured that would be a waste and an even bigger echo chamber.

FB will be broken up i believe and we'll see where that goes.

twitter is just a huge RSS feed i got no use for.

 

[Votto]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

If Zuckerberg did not spend all those millions to get Biden elected and censored Facebook to rid itself of any negative posts about Biden, he might be in trouble. But Zucker knows who is in power and who runs things. He's just one more useful tool of the Left.

 

[dblack]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

The feds have seen the power of social media. The feds like power. They want power. They want control of social media.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If Facebook goes down there will be 60,000 new unemployed but I don’t imagine you care about that.
Cultist.

Don't sit here and act like you give a single fuck about those 60,000 employees.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The feds have seen the power of social media. The feds like power. They want power. They want control of social media.

...and THAT has been my concern about all of this.

Government acting through the private sector is still government action.

Under penalty of OSHA fines, government forcing employers to require vaccines for employees as a condition of their employment is government interfering in individual medical decisions.

 

[Hellbilly]

Don't sit here and act like you give a single fuck about those 60,000 employees.

I didn’t. I claimed he didn’t care. I was right.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I didn’t. I claimed he didn’t care. I was right.

You claimed who didn't care? Zucktard?

 

[iceberg]

I would argue that FB does not make things publicly known, they provide a platform for other to make things publicly known. When I post something on FB I am making it publicly known, not FB.

Publishers don't necessarily make things "publicly known" either in many cases. They simply publish new and old works.

Those 2 are not tied together.

 

[candycorn]

The Facebook Papers may be the biggest crisis in the company's history

Facebook has confronted whistleblowers, PR firestorms and Congressional inquiries in recent years. But now it faces a combination of all three at once in what could be the most intense and wide-ranging crisis in the company's 17-year history.

www.cnn.com

Forgive the source, it was just the most convenient one and the fact the MSM is going after FB I think is significant.

On Friday, a consortium of 17 US news organizations began publishing a series of stories — collectively called "The Facebook Papers" — based on a trove of hundreds of internal company documents which were included in disclosures made to the Securities and Exchange Commission and provided to Congress in redacted form by Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's legal counsel. The consortium, which includes CNN, reviewed the redacted versions received by Congress.

So, what do you all think? Does FB survive this?

Is there a good enough alternative for all those young moms to post things showing what amazing mothers they are to replace FB?

Or does all this get "forgotten" and people go on living on FB like they have been doing?

I think, to the average person, this doesn't matter one bit.

I'm sure there are a lot of allegations about Facebook....Here is one I'm going to address which seems to be the "hot one" right now.

"Frances Haugen: And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is -- optimizing for content that gets engagement, or reaction. But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions. "

Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation

Frances Haugen says in her time with Facebook she saw, "conflicts of interest between what was good for the public and what was good for Facebook." Scott Pelley reports.

www.cbsnews.com

I think, to the average person, their response (as well as mine) is "duh". Gee, you mean tech companies try to keep you on their platforms as long as possible?

This is from Yahoo...

Its almost as if they want me to click on the link... I can't believe it! The audacity.

 

[dblack]

Government acting through the private sector is still government action.

Right. But, Trumpsters often confuse the actions of their political enemies for "government action".

Under penalty of OSHA fines, government forcing employers to require vaccines for employees as a condition of their employment is government interfering in individual medical decisions.

That IS government action. It's a good example of how regulatory agencies like OSHA lend themselves to abuse.

 

[Hellbilly]

You claimed who didn't care? Zucktard?

No, stupid. The moron I responded to.

 

[iceberg]

now if they'd stop doing this shit and give all who follow base guidelines an equal footing, we'd not have these issues.

Internal ‘racial-justice’ chat board shows Facebook staff wanting to censor Breitbart over coverage of BLM riots

The Facebook employee’s message complaining about Breitbart included screenshots of headlines, such as “Minneapolis Mayhem: Riots in Masks,” “Massive Looting, Buildings in Flames, Bonfires!” and “BLM Protesters Pummel Police Cars on 101.”

thepostmillennial.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

and i would argue that a book can be out there for awhile before a publisher picks it up to publish it. the fact it existed before doesn't prevent someone else from publishing it later.

Yes, but the publisher has to choose to publish it. FB does not choose what is put on their site. They choose what can stay, but not what is put there initially. Thus the difference between them and a publisher

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Publishers don't necessarily make things "publicly known" either in many cases. They simply publish new and old works.

Those 2 are not tied together.

True, to me the biggest difference is the prior approval that a publisher has vice a platform.

Just imagine what this site would be like if every post had to be approved before anyone could see it.