As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
As a whistleblower prepares to speak out, what can be done to rein in Facebook?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/02/facebook-whistleblower-tech-firms-social-media-instagram-children-mental-health-us-senators
128 comments
> Pro tip: there’s people other than Mark Zuckerberg who own those super-voting shares in Facebook, who keep his power unchecked. One of them is considered a darling investor in Silicon Valley and pretends to be a voice of social justice (and funds a lot of that sort of stuff).
Pro tip: citations, please!
Pro tip: citations, please!
Zuckerberg controls 58% of the voting shares. No one else on the board matters.
He controls them. He doesn’t own them.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS275871279920151202
> At Facebook, Zuckerberg’s stake, worth some $45 billion, comes with more than 53 percent of the votes in any shareholder poll, according to company filings. That rises to nearly 60 percent including stock owned by co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, which Zuckerberg usually gets to vote.
Note that there have been share sales since the time of this article (2015), so I would assume that the majority has become even more dependent on others voting his way (I wouldn’t know what the board has granted since then, which is a whole other topic...)
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS275871279920151202
> At Facebook, Zuckerberg’s stake, worth some $45 billion, comes with more than 53 percent of the votes in any shareholder poll, according to company filings. That rises to nearly 60 percent including stock owned by co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, which Zuckerberg usually gets to vote.
Note that there have been share sales since the time of this article (2015), so I would assume that the majority has become even more dependent on others voting his way (I wouldn’t know what the board has granted since then, which is a whole other topic...)
"He controls them. He doesn't own them."
He controls at least 75% of the class B shares.
About half of that percetange are shares he owns; the other half are controlled by proxy voting agreements with the owners.
As long as at least 9.1% of all shares issued and outstanding are class B stock, the persons controlling those class B shares will have the majority of shareholder voting power.^1
The percentage of all stock issued and outstanding that is class A stock is unlikely to ever rise above 90.9%. Even if if owners of class B shares sell, there is an automatic conversion to class A shares on any transfer and Zuckerberg's voting power only increases as a result.
1. As of 31 Dec 2020, Facebook has 2,406 million shares of class A stock and 443 million shares of class B stock issued and outstanding. Class A stock has one vote per share, class B has 10.
He controls at least 75% of the class B shares.
About half of that percetange are shares he owns; the other half are controlled by proxy voting agreements with the owners.
As long as at least 9.1% of all shares issued and outstanding are class B stock, the persons controlling those class B shares will have the majority of shareholder voting power.^1
The percentage of all stock issued and outstanding that is class A stock is unlikely to ever rise above 90.9%. Even if if owners of class B shares sell, there is an automatic conversion to class A shares on any transfer and Zuckerberg's voting power only increases as a result.
1. As of 31 Dec 2020, Facebook has 2,406 million shares of class A stock and 443 million shares of class B stock issued and outstanding. Class A stock has one vote per share, class B has 10.
[deleted]
+1 I totally agree with you that it is a charade, or theater.
I try to spend only 1 or 2 minutes when I visit Facebook a couple of times a week. If everyone did that then their profits would tank. My bad for not just quitting but I am addicted to the Oculus Quest (a favorite toy).
I know many people whose digital life experience is always having Facebook open on their desktop. Productivity is almost a religion to me: aspects of peoples' digital lives that prevent us from long periods of single pointed concentration are bad. I use https://freedom.to to limit my use of HN, etc. to specific periods of the day when I am not working - I almost feel like that is a personal failure that I need to do that, but that is what it is.
I try to spend only 1 or 2 minutes when I visit Facebook a couple of times a week. If everyone did that then their profits would tank. My bad for not just quitting but I am addicted to the Oculus Quest (a favorite toy).
I know many people whose digital life experience is always having Facebook open on their desktop. Productivity is almost a religion to me: aspects of peoples' digital lives that prevent us from long periods of single pointed concentration are bad. I use https://freedom.to to limit my use of HN, etc. to specific periods of the day when I am not working - I almost feel like that is a personal failure that I need to do that, but that is what it is.
I just unfollowed everyone and unliked everything, and my profile has just enough for people to know they have the right guy. There's literally nothing for me to see or do on Facebook. It works great.
Thiel's money is not red btw.
They’ve got both sides covered. The fact that you only know about one side should tell you that the other side, and where it places its money, might be worth looking into.
You think Thiel and the Trump election was interesting? Go look at the largest donor to Biden’s “Future Forward PAC.”
You think Thiel and the Trump election was interesting? Go look at the largest donor to Biden’s “Future Forward PAC.”
Dustin A Moskovitz of Asana. How is this some sort of gotcha? Just noting they're both in tech?
Unless and until we come up with a different economic model for social media, we'll always have Facebook (or Twitter, or whatever successor toxic social media site comes next).
Plenty of people here on HN have argued that the real problem is centralization, and I agree. Take whatever specific issue one might have with FB -- let's say disinformation, for instance. We have all these debates about censorship vs free speech vs accountability etc. But in fact, if FB wasn't the behemoth it is, much of this would be moot. In a world where there were _only_ smaller, more niche social media sites, fears around things like online radicalization would be much less, and any well-founded suspicions of actual criminal conspiracies would lend themselves to much more targeted warrant-backed investigations rather than privacy-destroying giant electronic dragnets. And if this example doesn't work for you, pick another one and think through how a world of smaller, less influential sites would change what you see as the problem with social media.
But you can't brute force your way to that world -- that's pushing against a very strong current. So long as the economic model is to create a large, targetable advertising market, you're going to have very strong incentives for centralization and invasion of privacy.
Contrast this with non-digital social hubs -- say, a pub. People come for the socialization, but the actual product being sold is food and drink. Social space becomes a side effect, one that complements and enhances the business model (a pub with a reputation as a good place to meet friends gets more business), but the business model isn't data-mining your audience.
I think a social media network that focused on extending offline hubs into social spaces, where the economic model is attracting an audience to gather and chat and then _selling them something_, would mitigate the incentives to centralization and invasion of privacy. We need to tie social media to the selling of actual products; users need to be customers, not the actual product.
Plenty of people here on HN have argued that the real problem is centralization, and I agree. Take whatever specific issue one might have with FB -- let's say disinformation, for instance. We have all these debates about censorship vs free speech vs accountability etc. But in fact, if FB wasn't the behemoth it is, much of this would be moot. In a world where there were _only_ smaller, more niche social media sites, fears around things like online radicalization would be much less, and any well-founded suspicions of actual criminal conspiracies would lend themselves to much more targeted warrant-backed investigations rather than privacy-destroying giant electronic dragnets. And if this example doesn't work for you, pick another one and think through how a world of smaller, less influential sites would change what you see as the problem with social media.
But you can't brute force your way to that world -- that's pushing against a very strong current. So long as the economic model is to create a large, targetable advertising market, you're going to have very strong incentives for centralization and invasion of privacy.
Contrast this with non-digital social hubs -- say, a pub. People come for the socialization, but the actual product being sold is food and drink. Social space becomes a side effect, one that complements and enhances the business model (a pub with a reputation as a good place to meet friends gets more business), but the business model isn't data-mining your audience.
I think a social media network that focused on extending offline hubs into social spaces, where the economic model is attracting an audience to gather and chat and then _selling them something_, would mitigate the incentives to centralization and invasion of privacy. We need to tie social media to the selling of actual products; users need to be customers, not the actual product.
I'll go even further and say that so long as the platform is run for-profit, this continues to be a problem.
I'm pursuing the idea of trying to better enable self-hosting of your online social presence with Haven[1], but it's difficult to get a framing that resonates quickly with people--in spite of the prevalence ofthese types of news stories.
[1] https://havenweb.org
I'm pursuing the idea of trying to better enable self-hosting of your online social presence with Haven[1], but it's difficult to get a framing that resonates quickly with people--in spite of the prevalence ofthese types of news stories.
[1] https://havenweb.org
I actually do think that in most cases it should be for-profit -- I just think that the profit can't be derived from your audience. For instance, a cafe that does online and in person orders and ALSO has an online social media hub, where people gather and interact and are also able to purchase goods from the cafe, I think would work because it's a social hub where the users are truly customers.
I think some institutions might work -- a forward-thinking library whose website isn't just an announcements and catalog site, but an actual social media hub -- but I think that'd be rare.
I don't think, by and large, private individual sites as social hubs would really work, as there's not enough draw to bring in a sufficiently large userbase to become a social hub.
I think some institutions might work -- a forward-thinking library whose website isn't just an announcements and catalog site, but an actual social media hub -- but I think that'd be rare.
I don't think, by and large, private individual sites as social hubs would really work, as there's not enough draw to bring in a sufficiently large userbase to become a social hub.
>a cafe that does online and in person orders and ALSO has an online social media hub, where people gather and interact and are also able to purchase goods from the cafe, I think would work because it's a social hub where the users are truly customers.
This sounds like an even-more Disney-fied hellscape than the current Internet is.
This sounds like an even-more Disney-fied hellscape than the current Internet is.
> In a world where there were _only_ smaller, more niche social media sites, fears around things like online radicalization would be much less
How so?
How so?
Scale matters.
Coordinated large-scale propaganda (or advertising, but I repeat myself), as well as censorship, surveillance, and targeted manipulation, all benefit tremendously by a monopoly. These are in fact integral features of an information, communications, or media monopoly:
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470)
I'm not entirely sure what the consequences of a bunch of smaller, freestanding forums and discussions would be, but my sense is that it would be better at generating different specific subculures and beliefs (many of which could well independently be poorly-grounded in reality or factual basis) ... but it wouldn't be as subject to the degree of mass propaganda, surveillance, and targeted manipulation.
There's the risk though that such a system might well be asymmetric as to decentralisation. If it's structured such that adversaries could utilise the system but defenders / the general public cannot enact sufficient defences, then what exists is a false decentralisation. Arguably, this is presently the case with FB, where advertisers and propagandists have far more effective tools and capabilities than those defending against them. I'm concerned that this could also effectively be the case with more distributed protocols --- Usnenet, the Fediverse, Diaspora*, etc. (All of which I use / have used in the past.)
Coordinated large-scale propaganda (or advertising, but I repeat myself), as well as censorship, surveillance, and targeted manipulation, all benefit tremendously by a monopoly. These are in fact integral features of an information, communications, or media monopoly:
https://joindiaspora.com/posts/7bfcf170eefc013863fa002590d8e... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24771470)
I'm not entirely sure what the consequences of a bunch of smaller, freestanding forums and discussions would be, but my sense is that it would be better at generating different specific subculures and beliefs (many of which could well independently be poorly-grounded in reality or factual basis) ... but it wouldn't be as subject to the degree of mass propaganda, surveillance, and targeted manipulation.
There's the risk though that such a system might well be asymmetric as to decentralisation. If it's structured such that adversaries could utilise the system but defenders / the general public cannot enact sufficient defences, then what exists is a false decentralisation. Arguably, this is presently the case with FB, where advertisers and propagandists have far more effective tools and capabilities than those defending against them. I'm concerned that this could also effectively be the case with more distributed protocols --- Usnenet, the Fediverse, Diaspora*, etc. (All of which I use / have used in the past.)
>a different economic model for social media
Non-profit would work great. The core functionality that people flock to these platforms for could be replicated on a shoestring budget as the stalker stuff is where the high $ engineering talents are focused (and pissing away our "best and brightest" on negative social outcomes).
Non-profit would work great. The core functionality that people flock to these platforms for could be replicated on a shoestring budget as the stalker stuff is where the high $ engineering talents are focused (and pissing away our "best and brightest" on negative social outcomes).
You can generalize even further. Acquisition of businesses, consolidating them into behemoths, they are all economically incentivized. Removing just that one aspect could solve many of these other issues, even outside of tech.
What can be done to rein in Facebook?
Nothing.
Either shut it down or live with the impact but the time to 'do something' about Facebook was a long time ago. Before legislators in the US let it become this surveillance behemoth. Before it became a massive ad network.
Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't.
Shut it down.
Nothing.
Either shut it down or live with the impact but the time to 'do something' about Facebook was a long time ago. Before legislators in the US let it become this surveillance behemoth. Before it became a massive ad network.
Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't.
Shut it down.
> Reining it in also presumes that legislative methods will work. I think it is already clear that they don't.
How is it clear? What legislation has been attempted?
The simplest legislation--I could fit it on a page--would be to ban M&A by social media companies over a certain size and force break-ups of past mergers that would have violated that restriction had it been in place since, I don't know, February 4, 2004.
How is it clear? What legislation has been attempted?
The simplest legislation--I could fit it on a page--would be to ban M&A by social media companies over a certain size and force break-ups of past mergers that would have violated that restriction had it been in place since, I don't know, February 4, 2004.
They are still operating under an FTC order that they effectively ignore.
They were fined and they deliberately took a bigger fine to protect their CEO.
They ignored calls for their CEO to appear before parliament in the UK and Canada. Ignored.
I am not fully aware of the state of legislative action in the UK from the Cambridge/Brexit issue but that hasn't gone anywhere.
They are far too large to be legislated. They have too much money to fine. What possible options other than shutting the company down exist that Facebook wouldn't either pay with their 'spare change' fund or bury with lobbyists?
They were fined and they deliberately took a bigger fine to protect their CEO.
They ignored calls for their CEO to appear before parliament in the UK and Canada. Ignored.
I am not fully aware of the state of legislative action in the UK from the Cambridge/Brexit issue but that hasn't gone anywhere.
They are far too large to be legislated. They have too much money to fine. What possible options other than shutting the company down exist that Facebook wouldn't either pay with their 'spare change' fund or bury with lobbyists?
> too large to be legislated
You haven't cited any legislation.
The FTC is not powerful enough to regulate Facebook; the U.K. and Canada were snubbed by them--agreed. But none of that is legislation.
(To be clear, Facebook is more powerful than some legislatures. But not the Congress. Not by a long shot.)
You haven't cited any legislation.
The FTC is not powerful enough to regulate Facebook; the U.K. and Canada were snubbed by them--agreed. But none of that is legislation.
(To be clear, Facebook is more powerful than some legislatures. But not the Congress. Not by a long shot.)
> You haven't cited any legislation.
Because I didn't reference any. I mentioned 'legislators' and not legislation.
Because I didn't reference any. I mentioned 'legislators' and not legislation.
> They ignored calls for their CEO to appear before parliament in the UK and Canada. Ignored.
They're playing hardball. They know the only way these other countries can do anything, even with legislation that FB would ignore, is by either blocking the website (which would encourage the silent majority to suddenly speak up and would hurt the decision maker's chances of re-election) or sanctioning the US, which nobody is going to do.
They're playing hardball. They know the only way these other countries can do anything, even with legislation that FB would ignore, is by either blocking the website (which would encourage the silent majority to suddenly speak up and would hurt the decision maker's chances of re-election) or sanctioning the US, which nobody is going to do.
They could "extraordinarily rendition" the everloving shit out of Zuck - that might change Facebook's tune.
They donated $8M to US political campaigns in 2020. Everything else is just theater.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/totals?id=D000...
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/facebook-inc/totals?id=D000...
What about Facebook is made better if they spin off Instagram and WhatsApp? What changes about them? They still have 2B monthly active users. Instagram and WhatsApp will be run by the same people with the same goals, the W2s will just say Instagram Inc. instead of Facebook Inc.
I don't think your problem with Facebook is that they bought a few companies.
I don't think your problem with Facebook is that they bought a few companies.
I think we let them get too big and now the discussion will very much revolve around the capital, value, industries and "jobs" that will be affected by a FB or social media ban or some other legislation.
You can't even effectively "mobilize" the populace for some sort of popular movement against social media because most of that sort of thing these days can only happen on social media. It's not even like we can have a revolution with 50k people and storm FB headquarters and "physically" stop the behemoth. It's headless for the most part. And good luck getting 50k people even. Pretty much All the platforms will stop you before you get anywhere because of "threats of violence".
You can't even effectively "mobilize" the populace for some sort of popular movement against social media because most of that sort of thing these days can only happen on social media. It's not even like we can have a revolution with 50k people and storm FB headquarters and "physically" stop the behemoth. It's headless for the most part. And good luck getting 50k people even. Pretty much All the platforms will stop you before you get anywhere because of "threats of violence".
> Let it become this surveillance behemoth
I would point out that businesses should not be a privilege allowed to exist by legislators or allowed to grow to a certain size by the same.
Second, I'd suggest that having large centralized organizations can only benefit legislatures as they have few sources to work with when either requesting data or bringing them to speak in front of Congress for yet another show trial.
I would point out that businesses should not be a privilege allowed to exist by legislators or allowed to grow to a certain size by the same.
Second, I'd suggest that having large centralized organizations can only benefit legislatures as they have few sources to work with when either requesting data or bringing them to speak in front of Congress for yet another show trial.
Simple: Facebook will be stopped when people decide to stop using it or reduce their time on the platform. All the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product. I am well aware and I use that information to use it in an informed way (limited usage only on desktop, Firefox container, and more). Yes yes, inside the HN bubble it does seem to be popular. But in the normal world it doesn't seem like enough people care to me. Facebook will change once their is a mass movement to pull at their purse strings.
In a free society, people are allowed to surrender some freedom and privacy if they choose. It seems like what Facebook offers is worth the cost to the average person.
In a free society, people are allowed to surrender some freedom and privacy if they choose. It seems like what Facebook offers is worth the cost to the average person.
Imagine in 1980, saying: Philip Morris will be stopped when people decide to stop smoking. All the information about the cancer their products cause is quite public and people still chose to use the product.
While the US didn't outlaw cigarettes, it did take a number of steps to reduce the usage because of the externalities they cause. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't treat Facebook the same way. Add taxes that go towards funding programs to warn of the dangers of anti-vax and other extremist content, keep kids under 13 off of their products, etc.
While the US didn't outlaw cigarettes, it did take a number of steps to reduce the usage because of the externalities they cause. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't treat Facebook the same way. Add taxes that go towards funding programs to warn of the dangers of anti-vax and other extremist content, keep kids under 13 off of their products, etc.
>In a free society, people are allowed to surrender some freedom and privacy if they choose. It seems like what Facebook offers is worth the cost to the average person.
That is quite the platitude when being applied to an industry that is built on manipulating people and eroding "free will" at every turn.
>But in the normal world it doesn't seem like enough people care to me.
1. "normal" people lack a comprehensive understanding of just how much their privacy is being invaded and how manipulated they are. I'd guess that some of us on HN have the foresight to see exactly where this evil path leads. I am moderately technical and all this surveillance and manipulation tech (and its counters) are sometimes confusing to me.
2. Even where "normal" people are vaguely aware that their privacy is being invaded, they are being trained into a state of learned helplessness.
That is quite the platitude when being applied to an industry that is built on manipulating people and eroding "free will" at every turn.
>But in the normal world it doesn't seem like enough people care to me.
1. "normal" people lack a comprehensive understanding of just how much their privacy is being invaded and how manipulated they are. I'd guess that some of us on HN have the foresight to see exactly where this evil path leads. I am moderately technical and all this surveillance and manipulation tech (and its counters) are sometimes confusing to me.
2. Even where "normal" people are vaguely aware that their privacy is being invaded, they are being trained into a state of learned helplessness.
> the information about their privacy abuses are quite public and people still choose to use the product
I don't. I'm still tracked. Also negatively affected by its effects. People are free to smoke cigarettes, but we will pass measures to limit its damage, particularly to innocent bystanders.
I don't. I'm still tracked. Also negatively affected by its effects. People are free to smoke cigarettes, but we will pass measures to limit its damage, particularly to innocent bystanders.
And yet second-hand smoking is only 100% preventable if you isolate yourself from any known smokers. That's why people who care will use a modern tracker blocker and/or firefox containers.
Ad-ops is way ahead of you. Facebook and other corporate surveillers will track you on the backend, like whenever you make a purchase or some other transaction on an unassociated site. Your client-side protections won't save you.
[deleted]
Facebook is primarily a propaganda organization.
It's main objective is to influence, manipulate and subvert the user's judgment and convince them to buy something --- be it physical product or ideology. To further this objective, it has developed an incredibly detailed psychological profile of each individual user using deeply personal info willing surrendered by the user themselves.
It's skill at doing this is what it promotes to it's real paying customers --- mostly advertisers. Users are not their "customer", they are just the marks being manipulated.
As board member Peter Thiel put it, "I'd rather be seen as evil than incompetent". Evil is obviously more profitable.
It's main objective is to influence, manipulate and subvert the user's judgment and convince them to buy something --- be it physical product or ideology. To further this objective, it has developed an incredibly detailed psychological profile of each individual user using deeply personal info willing surrendered by the user themselves.
It's skill at doing this is what it promotes to it's real paying customers --- mostly advertisers. Users are not their "customer", they are just the marks being manipulated.
As board member Peter Thiel put it, "I'd rather be seen as evil than incompetent". Evil is obviously more profitable.
> Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and chief executive, has argued that only companies as large as Facebook have the resources to fight misinformation, election meddling and harmful content.
Look, they’re not a propaganda machine! I’m so thankful we have them to “fight” against “misinformation”. I read that and my blood began to boil. Evil is the perfect description of such disgusting, deceitful pandering.
Look, they’re not a propaganda machine! I’m so thankful we have them to “fight” against “misinformation”. I read that and my blood began to boil. Evil is the perfect description of such disgusting, deceitful pandering.
[deleted]
We should stop using the term misinformation and call it untruth. This deobfuscates what’s really happening, which is that:
Extreme wealth and power has caused some self-appointed Deciders of Truth to band together and decide that anyone who does not pledge allegiance to anything they decide is true will be cast out of society as much as practically possible.
I remember reading Plato’s The Republic when I was young and coming away with the impression that arriving at the nature of truth was very complicated and nuanced. Apparently these tech CEOs and their buddies in government have decided to simplify everything for us proles.
Extreme wealth and power has caused some self-appointed Deciders of Truth to band together and decide that anyone who does not pledge allegiance to anything they decide is true will be cast out of society as much as practically possible.
I remember reading Plato’s The Republic when I was young and coming away with the impression that arriving at the nature of truth was very complicated and nuanced. Apparently these tech CEOs and their buddies in government have decided to simplify everything for us proles.
Do you really believe there is no such thing as a lie?
I don’t want to trust Facebook as an arbiter of anything because their motivations do not align with anything other than personal profit, but people do completely fabricate things and present them as true.
I don’t want to trust Facebook as an arbiter of anything because their motivations do not align with anything other than personal profit, but people do completely fabricate things and present them as true.
There's such a thing as a lie, but "misinformation" isn't a synonym for "lie". Efforts to fight misinformation are almost always understood to encompass misleading information - that is, information that's literally true but is used to advance an argument the misinformation checker doesn't think is valid.
The problem still remains as to who gets to determine what constitutes "misleading".
At least with COVID, one day the same idea can be “misinformation” and the next it’s a blessed fact from the Deciders of Truth. Originally it was misinformation that masks protected you from COVID. So no it’s not as simple as a “lie”.
> We should stop using the term misinformation and call it untruth
Or just call it what it is. Lies.
Or just call it what it is. Lies.
I think the difference between untruth and misinformation is the intent. The latter is on purpose in order to shape a narrative and mislead people. Misinformation is Trump and related people claiming the election was stolen from him - it's blatantly untrue, easily debunkable, and there's an obvious interest there. (I'm not american, just an easy example that came to me)
It's a serious issue and not one that should be taken lightly, but I think it warrants taking a small step back and thinking a bit more about it.
The claim in this comment is that Facebook's business is to sell ads, but facebook users actually the thing being sold, rather than the customers. This has caused Facebook to become evil and do evil things.
However, if you think about it, almost any social "product" follows the same pattern.
Consider Bars and Clubs. On the surface it seems like their only purpose is to sell alcohol to the patrons, and in a way the patrons are just a way to make the club look more popular to attract more alcohol consumers. But most bars don't become propaganda organizations delivering ethanol via an IV drip. Bars want to create a fun environment that is sustainable in the long term, so they avoid strategies that are likely to harm their customers and prevent them from coming back. Some bars are undoubtedly evil, but it's usually pretty obvious and there are regulations to detect and limit misleading or dangerous behavior (spiking drinks, racial discrimination on entry).
For a lot of people, Instagram is more like a Bar than a physical product. It's a place you go to interact with people and have fun or catch up. Facebook wants people to enjoy themselves and keep coming back. Sometimes people have a bad time or are harmed, but it's in Facebook's best interest to understand that and change things to make Instagram safer and more enjoyable, so people will keep coming back and "buying drinks".
The claim in this comment is that Facebook's business is to sell ads, but facebook users actually the thing being sold, rather than the customers. This has caused Facebook to become evil and do evil things.
However, if you think about it, almost any social "product" follows the same pattern.
Consider Bars and Clubs. On the surface it seems like their only purpose is to sell alcohol to the patrons, and in a way the patrons are just a way to make the club look more popular to attract more alcohol consumers. But most bars don't become propaganda organizations delivering ethanol via an IV drip. Bars want to create a fun environment that is sustainable in the long term, so they avoid strategies that are likely to harm their customers and prevent them from coming back. Some bars are undoubtedly evil, but it's usually pretty obvious and there are regulations to detect and limit misleading or dangerous behavior (spiking drinks, racial discrimination on entry).
For a lot of people, Instagram is more like a Bar than a physical product. It's a place you go to interact with people and have fun or catch up. Facebook wants people to enjoy themselves and keep coming back. Sometimes people have a bad time or are harmed, but it's in Facebook's best interest to understand that and change things to make Instagram safer and more enjoyable, so people will keep coming back and "buying drinks".
Consider Bars and Clubs.
Bars earn all their income from serving individual patrons. Facebook earns nothing from their individual patrons. All their income is earned serving those seeking to manipulate and take advantage of their patrons.
It's easy to see where the allegiance lies in either case --- just follow the money.
Bars earn all their income from serving individual patrons. Facebook earns nothing from their individual patrons. All their income is earned serving those seeking to manipulate and take advantage of their patrons.
It's easy to see where the allegiance lies in either case --- just follow the money.
Its main goal is to create more engagement so Zuck can sell more ads. Turning an AI out with the goal of maximizing engagement creates a machine as you described.
Easy legislative fix
1) Stop hiring ex-Facebook employees. Unless they come clean about the company, they're willingly working at a corporation designed to destroy people. Why would you want people that sacrifice morals for money at your company?
2) Pass legislation requiring that algorithmic / amplified social media displays a "Surgeon General's" warning at the top that can't be dismissed. 12px white on black font: "This product is designed to be emotionally disruptive"
3) Disallow companies from targeting or onboarding children. If kids can have an account, there must be no adds or PII used in analytics or big data. No studying them. No manipulating them.
1) Stop hiring ex-Facebook employees. Unless they come clean about the company, they're willingly working at a corporation designed to destroy people. Why would you want people that sacrifice morals for money at your company?
2) Pass legislation requiring that algorithmic / amplified social media displays a "Surgeon General's" warning at the top that can't be dismissed. 12px white on black font: "This product is designed to be emotionally disruptive"
3) Disallow companies from targeting or onboarding children. If kids can have an account, there must be no adds or PII used in analytics or big data. No studying them. No manipulating them.
FB is primarily a data collection and behavior directing organization. Surveillance Capitalism is real.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw
I’d say Twitter has done more damage to the society than FB. Twitter is a pure outrage machine.
I might be in the minority but Instagram is still awesome. It’s gotten more ads but most of them are quite interesting.
I’ve found made in USA goods from IG ads like this: https://psudo.com/
I might be in the minority but Instagram is still awesome. It’s gotten more ads but most of them are quite interesting.
I’ve found made in USA goods from IG ads like this: https://psudo.com/
My understanding is that the scope of Facebook ads and surveillance is not limited to Facebook properties. The Facebook pixel and SDK are pretty ubiquitous.
Twitter is actually useful if you limit who you follow to the right people. My experience of Twitter is a bunch of academics promoting their articles. Lior Pachter trashing tSNE and UMAP is about the spiciest it gets.
Twitter is actually useful if you limit who you follow to the right people. My experience of Twitter is a bunch of academics promoting their articles. Lior Pachter trashing tSNE and UMAP is about the spiciest it gets.
I know very few people on Twitter. Facebook, on the other hand, is nearly a requirement even to have a social life. I don't use FB, but I definitely miss out on general invitations.
It is strictly not possible to participate in local Burning Man events here in Finland without a Facebook account, for instance. They flat out refuse to promote through any other platform or channel.
It is strictly not possible to participate in local Burning Man events here in Finland without a Facebook account, for instance. They flat out refuse to promote through any other platform or channel.
I fundamentally disagree with Twitter's ideological position. Banning the president, allowing Taliban leaders, it is a censorship extravaganza and the selling point is ecochambered short blips of outrage. What you're pointing out is also true - there is some good stuff on Twitter just like any platform. Most political content on Twitter is horrible, left / right - both.
FB goes against silicon valley's zeitgeist and it gets disproportional hate. IMO, all social media is toxic and it has done more damage to the society than benefited ... but the biases are very much evident in how each service is perceived by the larger tech community. FB also did many eggregious things, no doubt. Election interference, etc.
Meanwhile, Tiktok is HN's darling.
Another thing is Twitter has become de facto channels for official communications of government bodies. How do you access these official channels? With a phone number of course when you try to register an account - which is required. Twitter has destroyed the world by coaslescing social media, outrage tactics, government bodies into one hot boiling soup of toxins.
FB goes against silicon valley's zeitgeist and it gets disproportional hate. IMO, all social media is toxic and it has done more damage to the society than benefited ... but the biases are very much evident in how each service is perceived by the larger tech community. FB also did many eggregious things, no doubt. Election interference, etc.
Meanwhile, Tiktok is HN's darling.
Another thing is Twitter has become de facto channels for official communications of government bodies. How do you access these official channels? With a phone number of course when you try to register an account - which is required. Twitter has destroyed the world by coaslescing social media, outrage tactics, government bodies into one hot boiling soup of toxins.
Well a big part of the distinction between FB and Twitter for me is the scale, scope, and competence of their surveillance and targeted influence (i.e. ads) capabilities and operations.
Would Twitter be as evil as FB if they weren’t incompetent? Maybe. But that is not the world we live in.
One area where I think we are talking past each other is referencing the consumer facing aspect vs the money making (B2B) aspect of social media. I think of these companies as ad platforms. They exist to collect data on people and their behavior, and sell tot to advertisers so they can use it to influence decisions. The whole public square thing is incidental to that. It exists only because it helps them collect data and sell ads.
To your other points Twitter is an official channel of communication for government agencies, not THE official channel. They still maintain websites and put out press kits.
Twitter should have banned the president long before they did for his repeated violations of their TOS, as they would have any normal member of the public. Same for other world leaders. Imo, leaders should be held to a higher standard of behavior wrt to the EULA and T&Cs than the average Joe.
Would Twitter be as evil as FB if they weren’t incompetent? Maybe. But that is not the world we live in.
One area where I think we are talking past each other is referencing the consumer facing aspect vs the money making (B2B) aspect of social media. I think of these companies as ad platforms. They exist to collect data on people and their behavior, and sell tot to advertisers so they can use it to influence decisions. The whole public square thing is incidental to that. It exists only because it helps them collect data and sell ads.
To your other points Twitter is an official channel of communication for government agencies, not THE official channel. They still maintain websites and put out press kits.
Twitter should have banned the president long before they did for his repeated violations of their TOS, as they would have any normal member of the public. Same for other world leaders. Imo, leaders should be held to a higher standard of behavior wrt to the EULA and T&Cs than the average Joe.
I can digest your take. I’d say that governments shouldn’t be on Twitter. I have conflicting internal voice - on one hand, I don't want any of these social media companies to allow populist movements to rise (that includes people like AOC that are running populist movements on Instagram and social media). On the other hand, I don't want any politician banned unless they ban all of them - on principle. President Trump was violating TOC left and right but Twitter allowed him for 4 years reaping engagement revenue, but all of sudden they were emboldened as soon as President Biden took office. These are weak companies with weak ideologies.
Make Politics Boring Again, I am down with this.
Make Politics Boring Again, I am down with this.
You may be using Twitter wrong. Switch it from "top tweets" to "latest tweets" mode, and then follow people who tweet and retweet things that are not outrage-driven. I follow a lot of interesting people and I learn a ton.
But even if Twitter were pure outrage, that is far from the most serious social media damage to society. Twitter, for all its faults, is relatively low on mis- and dis-information because people call it out. It's all one conversational space. Facebook, which is much more fragmented, enables flourishing niches of bonkers thought. Some of those niches are just wild-type insanity, but many more are gardens of crazy cultivated by people with a financial or political need for that.
I firmly believe that without Facebook, we wouldn't have a situation where thousands of people are dying per day of a preventable disease, with 95+% of those because of mis- and dis-information about the disease and the necessary countermeasures.
But even if Twitter were pure outrage, that is far from the most serious social media damage to society. Twitter, for all its faults, is relatively low on mis- and dis-information because people call it out. It's all one conversational space. Facebook, which is much more fragmented, enables flourishing niches of bonkers thought. Some of those niches are just wild-type insanity, but many more are gardens of crazy cultivated by people with a financial or political need for that.
I firmly believe that without Facebook, we wouldn't have a situation where thousands of people are dying per day of a preventable disease, with 95+% of those because of mis- and dis-information about the disease and the necessary countermeasures.
I suspect that Facebook has more users than Twitter, and heavier engagement. Facebook has multiple aspects that people heavily use, things like photo albums, marketplace, messenger, birthdays, etc. In comparison Twitter seems more limited.
As far as I know Twitter had not been responsible for ethnic cleansing mole times in multiple countries not helping dictators stay in power: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
Here is Twitter CEO promoting a dictatorship as a place to go for meditation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/12/09/latest-...
I guess I stand corrected (thou can’t read the article) - next up is genocide on the evil company bingo card
I worry that simply breaking up FB could make things worse. Today, with a safe monopoly feedung high profit margins they can afford some mitigations (more reviewers, etc) and to "hold back" a bit on some of the worst/unhealthy engagement tricks.
Several more equal competitors would feel pressure to outdo each other. Some other fix is needed (probably in addition to breakup).
Several more equal competitors would feel pressure to outdo each other. Some other fix is needed (probably in addition to breakup).
However, reach on any one platform becomes limited.
Also, it doesn’t seem like their position in the market has really encouraged Facebook to “hold back” on anything. Growth is their only goal.
Also, it doesn’t seem like their position in the market has really encouraged Facebook to “hold back” on anything. Growth is their only goal.
I wonder if the government could create a regulatory AI that could be applied to social media companies. As laws and regulations change, the AI would just need to be updated and it would enforce them automatically on the companies.
And it should take into account the shared experiences and values of U.S. Congress members, who are elected to serve the best interests of their constituents.
Maybe not to control content, but to create context. We could call it GW.
Assume Facebook no longer exists tomorrow. The same incentives that drive Facebook's behavior, i.e. human consumption patterns, will still exist. And will be exploited by another company. Facebook is merely one instance of a problem deeply rooted in humans.
Sure, there is the anti-competitive aspect to it. But wrt to the divisiveness and polarization, the exploitation by political actors, it would not make a difference. Something else would just rise up to fill that void. It's the digital equivalent of junk food. Banning Coke, would do nothing to solve obesity.
Sure, there is the anti-competitive aspect to it. But wrt to the divisiveness and polarization, the exploitation by political actors, it would not make a difference. Something else would just rise up to fill that void. It's the digital equivalent of junk food. Banning Coke, would do nothing to solve obesity.
That's an acceptable view point. However, that doesn't mean FB should not be punished into oblivion. They don't get a free pass just because "someone else would have done it if we didn't" is not an acceptable defense.
I don't disagree. My point is more broadly about the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem.
> the ills of social media, and how it's often framed as a Facebook problem
Facebook is the biggest. And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes, in a way we don't for its competitors. They also have a spectacular track record of lying and lawbreaking.
Facebook is the biggest. And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes, in a way we don't for its competitors. They also have a spectacular track record of lying and lawbreaking.
> And we have evidence of the harm it, specifically, causes,
Just to reiterate, it's not that it is "just" harmful. They are actively studying how to make it even more so.
Just to reiterate, it's not that it is "just" harmful. They are actively studying how to make it even more so.
Yeah, but what other social media exists beyond Twitter?
> what other social media exists beyond Twitter?
Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit and Pinterest each have more MAUs than Twitter [1].
[1] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-soc...
Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit and Pinterest each have more MAUs than Twitter [1].
[1] https://www.searchenginejournal.com/social-media/biggest-soc...
25% of your list is owned by FB.
Pandora's box, if you will. Social media companies created the void as they filled it. There's no putting the lid back on it now.
Calls for breaking up companies make great headlines for politicians but let's look at the history and why this was necessary as a solution to antitrust.
The textbook case for the Sherman Act was Standard Oil. Built up by Rockefeller in the late 19th century, Standard Oil came to effectively control the extraction, refining, distribution and sale of kerosene (in particular). This is when oil pipelines began, interestingly to break up another monopoly: the railroads (for distribution).
Standard Oil split into a bunch of companies, many of which still exist today (eg Chevron, Exxon-Mobil). This break up actually made Rockefeller (even more) fantastically wealthy.
The key point is that Standard Oil could (and did) use its significant market power to squash competitors.
Another example: the Paramount decision that split film studios, distribution and theaters.
Personally I think very few Big Tech companies would warrant this kind of government action and top of that list for me would be Amazon, whose stranglehold on logistics, delivery and online storefronts is near-total. Amazon's delivery prices (FedEx, UPS, USPS primarily) cannot be matched. The barrier to entry is so huge, no one could reasonably compete.
But Facebook? Let's look at the last 10 years. FB bought IG when (IMHO) IG represented an existential threat to FB. So if you're going to argue market dominance, you're going to have to explain how a company a few years old with 13 employees (at the time of acquisition) could possibly threaten FB.
Another is TikTok.
Can we stop applying standards developed for 19th century oil producers to Big Tech where distribution is essentially free and said companies exist only so long as the users want them to?
I know it's trendy for lawmakers to bang their drums about an issue as a kneejerk reaction to grab some headlines and that they must hurry to do so before the market just solves the problem anyway but still.
Disclaimer: Ex-Facebooker. Opinions are my own.
The textbook case for the Sherman Act was Standard Oil. Built up by Rockefeller in the late 19th century, Standard Oil came to effectively control the extraction, refining, distribution and sale of kerosene (in particular). This is when oil pipelines began, interestingly to break up another monopoly: the railroads (for distribution).
Standard Oil split into a bunch of companies, many of which still exist today (eg Chevron, Exxon-Mobil). This break up actually made Rockefeller (even more) fantastically wealthy.
The key point is that Standard Oil could (and did) use its significant market power to squash competitors.
Another example: the Paramount decision that split film studios, distribution and theaters.
Personally I think very few Big Tech companies would warrant this kind of government action and top of that list for me would be Amazon, whose stranglehold on logistics, delivery and online storefronts is near-total. Amazon's delivery prices (FedEx, UPS, USPS primarily) cannot be matched. The barrier to entry is so huge, no one could reasonably compete.
But Facebook? Let's look at the last 10 years. FB bought IG when (IMHO) IG represented an existential threat to FB. So if you're going to argue market dominance, you're going to have to explain how a company a few years old with 13 employees (at the time of acquisition) could possibly threaten FB.
Another is TikTok.
Can we stop applying standards developed for 19th century oil producers to Big Tech where distribution is essentially free and said companies exist only so long as the users want them to?
I know it's trendy for lawmakers to bang their drums about an issue as a kneejerk reaction to grab some headlines and that they must hurry to do so before the market just solves the problem anyway but still.
Disclaimer: Ex-Facebooker. Opinions are my own.
> Standard Oil split into a bunch of companies, many of which still exist today (eg Chevron, Exxon-Mobil). This break up actually made Rockefeller (even more) fantastically wealthy.
This looks like an argument for antitrust. The component companies' political influence was reduced. Consumers saw better prices [1]. And apparently, shareholders also won.
[1] David I. Rosenbaum, Market Dominance: How Firms Gain, Hold, or Lose it and the Impact on Economic Performance
This looks like an argument for antitrust. The component companies' political influence was reduced. Consumers saw better prices [1]. And apparently, shareholders also won.
[1] David I. Rosenbaum, Market Dominance: How Firms Gain, Hold, or Lose it and the Impact on Economic Performance
The number of employees in a company has no bearing on anti-competitive behaviour of an acquisition.
IG have over a 1bn users now, they had 20-30mn at time of acquisition. Maybe FB felt they were a threat, but it's definitely not a given that they would have been equally successful alone.
Whatsapp, OTOH is a completely different issue and probably should have to be divested.
Whatsapp, OTOH is a completely different issue and probably should have to be divested.
What about AT&T?
This just in: Ex-FB employee says Amazon, not FB, is the problem.
¿Por que no los dos?
This just in: Ex-FB employee says Amazon, not FB, is the problem.
¿Por que no los dos?
AT&T was a government-created monopoly.
https://www.cablefax.com/technology/how-at-amp-t-became-a-mo...
https://www.cablefax.com/technology/how-at-amp-t-became-a-mo...
Regulated monopolies are definitely a thing, and a valid way to protect the interests of consumers. When the regulations that constrained a monopoly from predatory behaviors are removed, as they were before the break-up of AT&T, it's reasonable to get rid of the now no longer regulated monopoly. The alternative to breaking up AT&T would have been to re-impose regulations that protected consumers, but the courts didn't have that power and the legislative and executive branch weren't acting.
This doesn't sound very promising.
"Give users more control over their data" < what does this even mean.
It sounds more like, look we give users more control over data, but please let us do the meta verse project.
From what I see there, it will get even worse. Fb collects data and sells ads based on that data, meanwhile the users are undergoing gamification aka incentivized to spend as much time as possible on the platform.
The best governance would be if people simply stopped using it, but people do want to share and like, they think it adds value to the life.
It sounds more like, look we give users more control over data, but please let us do the meta verse project.
From what I see there, it will get even worse. Fb collects data and sells ads based on that data, meanwhile the users are undergoing gamification aka incentivized to spend as much time as possible on the platform.
The best governance would be if people simply stopped using it, but people do want to share and like, they think it adds value to the life.
Nobody has the will to do anything to reign in any of these social media companies. We are all getting too rich off of them.
So what can be done to reign in Facebook? Nothing.
So what can be done to reign in Facebook? Nothing.
[deleted]
Build something better.
... as a non-profit. Keep it focused on the core reasons people wanted FB to begin with: connecting with family and RL friends (old and new) and a easy way to see what's going on in people's lives. This would be incredibly cheap to build and run. Positioned as a way to combat the evils of facecrook I would donate a large % of my annual charitable spend and I think many others would as well.
I feel that this is the only effective way to counter FBs network effect monopoly.
I feel that this is the only effective way to counter FBs network effect monopoly.
[deleted]
, then sell it to FB.
That or FB will use its monopoly and vast reach to put you out of business.
Odd that "Stop using Facebook and products it owns" wasn't listed.
While I understand that at this point it will probably take some regulatory action to fully deal with Facebook and its abuses, there's a huge cognitive dissonance among many people when it comes to Facebook. Lots of the people who complain about how evil the company's behavior is use the company's products frequently. Lots of criticism of Facebook is published on websites that have Facebook Like and follow buttons, and use Facebook tracking pixels.
Stop feeding the beast.
While I understand that at this point it will probably take some regulatory action to fully deal with Facebook and its abuses, there's a huge cognitive dissonance among many people when it comes to Facebook. Lots of the people who complain about how evil the company's behavior is use the company's products frequently. Lots of criticism of Facebook is published on websites that have Facebook Like and follow buttons, and use Facebook tracking pixels.
Stop feeding the beast.
If Facebook wasn't behaving anti-competitively by preventing interoperability this might work, but as of right now an individual may not always have a choice in using Facebook.
A lot of businesses, social clubs, schools/daycare centers, etc use Facebook as their primary online presence. Your option is to either sign up or not participate.
A lot of businesses, social clubs, schools/daycare centers, etc use Facebook as their primary online presence. Your option is to either sign up or not participate.
1. Don't participate
2. Communicate with the business through some other means (all local businesses I deal with have a phone), and if they don't provide one, then stop doing business there, too, and find a way to tell them why.
3. If your friends won't communicate with you simply because you won't use a Facebook-owned communication channel, then I have bad news for you: They might not really be great friends.
Sorry to be rude, but this idea that "you don't have a choice to use Facebook properties" is ridiculous. We all have a choice. I haven't used Facebook for close to 10 years now, and I never signed up for any of their other properties like Instagram and WhatsApp. I had an Oculus and stopped using it when the Facebook purchase happened. You do have a choice.
2. Communicate with the business through some other means (all local businesses I deal with have a phone), and if they don't provide one, then stop doing business there, too, and find a way to tell them why.
3. If your friends won't communicate with you simply because you won't use a Facebook-owned communication channel, then I have bad news for you: They might not really be great friends.
Sorry to be rude, but this idea that "you don't have a choice to use Facebook properties" is ridiculous. We all have a choice. I haven't used Facebook for close to 10 years now, and I never signed up for any of their other properties like Instagram and WhatsApp. I had an Oculus and stopped using it when the Facebook purchase happened. You do have a choice.
I am responsible for outreach of two local community based non-profits. FB is de-facto mandatory for us. Not participating would greatly hobble our ability to reach the people we serve. And, thanks to FB's crap, I am forced to manage the presence of these non-profits with an account created with my PII.
I get that this advice works for you. What makes you so confident that you understand the situations of everybody else on the planet?
Swoop (a low-cost airline in Canada) runs their customer support portal through Facebook Messenger, and has a surcharge on their phone support.
You literally have to pay to avoid Facebook with Swoop.
You literally have to pay to avoid Facebook with Swoop.
I'm consciously uncoupling from Facebook over time. I'm down to a couple of groups, well one actually, before I disengage entirely in a month or two. You are correct that a lot of organizations make use of Facebook but somebody has to push back so why not you?
It has to start somewhere...
It has to start somewhere...
In all such cases (and there certainly are a few) I decline to participate. Yes, Virginia, it really is just that simple.
It's not like "stop using Facebook and products it owns" is novel advice. But it doesn't seem to be constraining Facebook much. At this point, I don't think it's a realistic way to have impact on the problem. The people who are thoughtful and aware and dedicated enough to do that have taken some action. But Facebook clearly doesn't need those people to make a lot of money.
It's _much_ easier to stop using Facebook than, say, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, etc.
Facebook is an addiction.
"Just say no", is wonderful advice but the reality is somewhat more complicated.
"Just say no", is wonderful advice but the reality is somewhat more complicated.
> "Just say no", is wonderful advice
Which is why we're surprised it's not in the article.
Applying that advice is complicated, but we should still push for it, and there's is a very strong network effect. If in reaction to new a lot of people stopped using Facebook, then Facebook would be that much easier for others to stop using.
Which is why we're surprised it's not in the article.
Applying that advice is complicated, but we should still push for it, and there's is a very strong network effect. If in reaction to new a lot of people stopped using Facebook, then Facebook would be that much easier for others to stop using.
It might be easier said than done, but at some point you have to stop indulging your addiction if you want to stop indulging your addiction.
Maybe, but that's now how addictions are generally fixed. Even for simple physical ones, like caffeine, kicking the habit is a complicated process, and is best done with careful preparation and a nuanced understanding of how the addict benefits from the addiction.
That's even more true for more serious addictions. There are always reasons somebody became an addict, and preventing relapse often requires solving those problems first before any real headway is made.
Generally, the "just say no" advice is much more fun to say than it is useful to the addict.
That's even more true for more serious addictions. There are always reasons somebody became an addict, and preventing relapse often requires solving those problems first before any real headway is made.
Generally, the "just say no" advice is much more fun to say than it is useful to the addict.
People deal with their addictions. If people can overcome alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, etc., people who are genuinely addicted to Facebook can do more than say "I'm addicted."
What can be done by the government? Or by individuals taking responsibility for their families?
Nothing, create your own Facebook
..Also send the whistleblower to the Ecuadorian embassy
..Also send the whistleblower to the Ecuadorian embassy
[deleted]
Nothing in the neolib Anglosphere and its colonies. We grant power by skill at the accumulation of money (which we call a meritocracy - a religion with credit as merit and cash as grace), so Facebook is only answerable to its corporate peers. Those are the people it can't piss off.
In other countries, there are power centers awarded by other than cash accumulation. Xi, Putin, and MBS aren't particularly worried about Facebook.
Europe is the only place making an attempt, but that's because they have a post-WWII extra-capitalist social consensus sponsored (and enforced) by US military spending. Any real flexing by the US, and Europe either backs down or turns to China.
This article is typical Guardian legislative fanfiction, where we pretend that rules are put into place based on how well they might work to achieve liberal philosophical aims, rather than by power. If any politician or movement amassed the power to do any of these things, the Guardian would devote all of its energy to attacking them.
In other countries, there are power centers awarded by other than cash accumulation. Xi, Putin, and MBS aren't particularly worried about Facebook.
Europe is the only place making an attempt, but that's because they have a post-WWII extra-capitalist social consensus sponsored (and enforced) by US military spending. Any real flexing by the US, and Europe either backs down or turns to China.
This article is typical Guardian legislative fanfiction, where we pretend that rules are put into place based on how well they might work to achieve liberal philosophical aims, rather than by power. If any politician or movement amassed the power to do any of these things, the Guardian would devote all of its energy to attacking them.
I don’t really like the stuff the Guardian is doing. What can we do to rein in the Guardian?
Why does every attack on Facebook seem like an actual pressure tactic to get them to censor views the mainstream media disagrees with? It seems a lot of the reporting on Facebook is driven more by a desire for censorship than for anything else.
In terms of misinformation, it was just a couple a weeks ago that the mainstream media was pushing the narrative that the Border Patrol was whipping immigrants, which was completely false.
In terms of misinformation, it was just a couple a weeks ago that the mainstream media was pushing the narrative that the Border Patrol was whipping immigrants, which was completely false.
> Why does every attack on Facebook seem like an actual pressure tactic to get them to censor views the mainstream media disagrees with?
Maybe that is just the way you want to see it? The article is clearly talking about recent revelations about the impact of Instagram on teens. Not sure how you are getting to 'censor views the mainstream media disagrees with' but it must have been a serpentine road.
Maybe that is just the way you want to see it? The article is clearly talking about recent revelations about the impact of Instagram on teens. Not sure how you are getting to 'censor views the mainstream media disagrees with' but it must have been a serpentine road.
>
From https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/border-patrol-hai...
From https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2021/border-patrol-hai...
Ratje said he saw a Border Patrol agent swing his horse’s rein in the air while migrants were in the river. One migrant who was holding bags of food fell backward.
As some migrants tried to get past Border Patrol agents, Ratje took photos, including one that would later go viral. Ratje saw the agent swing his rein vertically, spot a Haitian migrant in a black shirt carrying bags of food, and then pursue him
The Border Patrol agent “is grabbing the Haitian with his right hand and has his reins in his left hand. The rein swings up,” Ratje said. The migrant then “got swung around,” Ratje said, but the agent eventually let go.
A separate video tweeted by John Holman, a correspondent for Al Jazeera, showed a Border Patrol agent yelling at Haitian migrants as they crossed the Rio Grande with food. A video showed a Border Patrol agent in the river yelling at migrants: “Hey you use your women? This is why your country’s s—, because you use your women for this!”
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/24/what-we-know-...
>Ratje told PolitiFact that his photographs didn’t show signs of agents whipping any migrants or using anything as a whip to strike them.
>"Nobody saw a Border Patrol agent whipping," he said. "What we did see was a Border Patrol agent swinging the rein in like a circle. It looked pretty threatening. Nobody saw him strike the migrant with that thing, the reins.
>"I asked other colleagues, ‘Did you see him whipping?’ No," he added. "That stuff got misconstrued.
Truth is there was no whipping of immigrants. That part was completely misinformation.
>Ratje told PolitiFact that his photographs didn’t show signs of agents whipping any migrants or using anything as a whip to strike them.
>"Nobody saw a Border Patrol agent whipping," he said. "What we did see was a Border Patrol agent swinging the rein in like a circle. It looked pretty threatening. Nobody saw him strike the migrant with that thing, the reins.
>"I asked other colleagues, ‘Did you see him whipping?’ No," he added. "That stuff got misconstrued.
Truth is there was no whipping of immigrants. That part was completely misinformation.
> Truth is there was no whipping of immigrants. That part was completely misinformation.
I guess you have to make your silver lining out of something eh?
I guess you have to make your silver lining out of something eh?
When your politicians put random employees and other paid shills in front of committees as proof that they’re being “tough on Facebook,” understand that it’s a giant charade. It’s only when they call the super-voting shareholders and the board that something serious is going on. These are the people who think you’re all too stupid to know how the game works.