MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Facebook Down  (Read 1445 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2021, 07:39 »
0
I've wonder is there a news site (not CNN or Fox) that actually only reports news based on fact?


DOP

« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2021, 08:06 »
+1
It isn't just that it hosts the hate or misinfornation. It's that it uniformly pushes the hate and misinformation over other speech. Because that kind of content maximises engagement and keeps people clicking. When you have an endless supply of content and your algorithm buries everything but the worst of it you aren't just the paper a news paper is written on. You are choosing the content to present to the reader, so something more akin to the newspaper editor. Facebook is highly curated by human beings, they just do it via algorithms.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-mark-zuckerberg-should-be-on-trial-for-crimes/id1373812661?i=1000492096869

They do what their users want, and that's why FB is so popular.

Some like you are accusing them for being too tolerant, others are accusing them of censorship.

So where do you want to draw the line? Where it fits your own interests?

Is the fact that the most powerful president in the world got banned, while in power, for promoting lies and misinformation not good enough for you? Not impressed? Do you want more?
BTW, I just read that now he is begging a judge to "re-instate" him. He desperately wants on FB again.

Or maybe you want the government to regulate and start censoring other opposition outlets like NewsMax, OAN, FoxNews because they also spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard?

But why stopping here?
They should also censor the republican party, because they spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.
Or specific elected individuals who spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.

Or maybe you want specific movies or video games to be banned because "they promote violence". Maybe you want Tarantino to be banned, too.

Even if you would like this too, that's not how democracy works. That's what North Korea is doing.

The government should stay out of all this. People should be free to make their own choices. If people flock to FB, it's because they like it. No government should tell them what to like.


So, are you happy for everyone to watch a video of a child being sexually abused?

Is that what FB is accused of? I doubt!

FB has already drawn that line way beyond that, without any push from the government.
They drew that line because they know very well that this bad, and they know very well that their users are also considering this very bad. There is no need for a government to draw the line so low, when FB already did it, way beyond this limit.

The government should hunt down criminals and child abusers. That's their job.

Only some users would consider that bad. 
Child abuse pornography/rape is a huge industry.
So, you don't seem to believe in censorship, or do you just believe that it should be up to the company alone with no overriding authority?
In either case, what do you think should happen if the line is drawn by the company (any online company, not just FB) below such content?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 08:08 by Suspect »

« Reply #27 on: October 08, 2021, 08:48 »
0
It isn't just that it hosts the hate or misinfornation. It's that it uniformly pushes the hate and misinformation over other speech. Because that kind of content maximises engagement and keeps people clicking. When you have an endless supply of content and your algorithm buries everything but the worst of it you aren't just the paper a news paper is written on. You are choosing the content to present to the reader, so something more akin to the newspaper editor. Facebook is highly curated by human beings, they just do it via algorithms.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/part-one-mark-zuckerberg-should-be-on-trial-for-crimes/id1373812661?i=1000492096869

They do what their users want, and that's why FB is so popular.

Some like you are accusing them for being too tolerant, others are accusing them of censorship.

So where do you want to draw the line? Where it fits your own interests?

Is the fact that the most powerful president in the world got banned, while in power, for promoting lies and misinformation not good enough for you? Not impressed? Do you want more?
BTW, I just read that now he is begging a judge to "re-instate" him. He desperately wants on FB again.

Or maybe you want the government to regulate and start censoring other opposition outlets like NewsMax, OAN, FoxNews because they also spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard?

But why stopping here?
They should also censor the republican party, because they spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.
Or specific elected individuals who spread lies and misinformation, as per some arbitrary standard.

Or maybe you want specific movies or video games to be banned because "they promote violence". Maybe you want Tarantino to be banned, too.

Even if you would like this too, that's not how democracy works. That's what North Korea is doing.

The government should stay out of all this. People should be free to make their own choices. If people flock to FB, it's because they like it. No government should tell them what to like.


So, are you happy for everyone to watch a video of a child being sexually abused?

Is that what FB is accused of? I doubt!

FB has already drawn that line way beyond that, without any push from the government.
They drew that line because they know very well that this bad, and they know very well that their users are also considering this very bad. There is no need for a government to draw the line so low, when FB already did it, way beyond this limit.

The government should hunt down criminals and child abusers. That's their job.

Only some users would consider that bad. 
Child abuse pornography/rape is a huge industry.
So, you don't seem to believe in censorship, or do you just believe that it should be up to the company alone with no overriding authority?
In either case, what do you think should happen if the line is drawn by the company (any online company, not just FB) below such content?

As I said, FB is not allowing such content on their platform. Their ToS is very clear about it.

That's not what we are talking about, is it? It's a moot point. It doesn't happen, and hypothetical examples should be used to justify regulations.

If anything, the government must focus in hunting down those criminals who are stupid enough to document their crimes (like they  do with the morons who documented their invasion of the Capitol).

So, instead of calling for hearings the owner of a prosperous business liked by a billion people (mainly because of political reasons) why don't you ask for hearings for those criminal business owners who are involved in the child abuse industry and force them to root out the real child abusers?
1 billion people like FB also because they don't want to see what they don't like to see. And FB knows that.

Hunting down real criminals would be time much better spent for our elected representatives.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 10:31 by Zero Talent »

DOP

« Reply #28 on: October 08, 2021, 08:59 »
0
[/quote]

As I said, FB is not allowing such content on their platform. Their ToS is very clear about it.

That's not what we are talking about, is it? It's a moot point. It doesn't happen, and hypothetical examples should be used to justify regulations.

If anything, the government must focus in hunting down those criminals who are stupid enough to document their crimes (like they  do with the morons who documented their invasion of the Capitol).

So, instead of calling for hearings the owner of a prosperous business liked by a billion people (mainly because of political reasons) why don't you ask for hearings for those criminal business owners who are involved in the child abuse industry and force them to root out the real child abusers?

Hunting down real criminals would be time much better spent for our elected representatives.
[/quote]


Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 09:01 by Suspect »

« Reply #29 on: October 08, 2021, 09:02 »
0


Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.

No. That's an abuse in itself.
Besides, regulating something that doesn't exist is not just a waste of resources. It's simply stupid.

Nothing is universal. Even the 1st ammendment doesn't grant absolute freedom to go unpunished if you scream "Fire" in a movie theater and people die. But don't allow the government to use it as an example to shut you up.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 09:12 by Zero Talent »

DOP

« Reply #30 on: October 08, 2021, 09:10 »
+1


Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.

No. That's an abuse in itself.
Besides, regulating something that doesn't exist is not just a waste of resources but it's simply stupid.

This is what you said:

"As I said, FB is not allowing such content on their platform. Their ToS is very clear about it.

That's not what we are talking about, is it? It's a moot point. It doesn't happen, and hypothetical examples should be used to justify regulations.
"

If it isn't happening on FB, it could happen (as it happens elsewhere) so regulating FB even if it doesn't exist on there at present, isn't stupid.

However, I'm not sure if we are talking at cross purposes, as I am uncertain what you really believe with regard to censorship ie who should be accountable and who should do the accounting.

You are looking at it from a political point of view I think, but every principle can and should be extrapolated (in my view).


« Reply #31 on: October 08, 2021, 09:13 »
0


Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.

No. That's an abuse in itself.
Besides, regulating something that doesn't exist is not just a waste of resources but it's simply stupid.

This is what you said:

"As I said, FB is not allowing such content on their platform. Their ToS is very clear about it.

That's not what we are talking about, is it? It's a moot point. It doesn't happen, and hypothetical examples should be used to justify regulations.
"

If it isn't happening on FB, it could happen (as it happens elsewhere) so regulating FB even if it doesn't exist on there at present, isn't stupid.

However, I'm not sure if we are talking at cross purposes, as I am uncertain what you really believe with regard to censorship ie who should be accountable and who should do the accounting.

You are looking at it from a political point of view I think, but every principle can and should be extrapolated (in my view).

I was still editing my previous post.
Maybe this can clarify:

Nothing is universal. Even the 1st amendment doesn't grant absolute freedom to go unpunished if you scream "Fire" in a movie theater and people die in a stampede.
But don't allow the government to use it as an example to shut you up.

And yes, making laws for things that never happened, but are only thought possible by some politicians, is simply a waste of time and a nice way for those politicians to prove themself "useful" in front of voters who were never concerned with that matter because it never happened. Suddenly, that situation that never happened becomes a concern, a fear, and a reason to vote for saviors from things that never happened.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 10:31 by Zero Talent »

DOP

« Reply #32 on: October 08, 2021, 09:20 »
0


Hypothetical examples are always used to justify regulations.  This is a method of suppressing abuse.

You are rather selective in the applications of your principles ZT.  They are clearly not universal, as once extrapolated they don't hold up to scrutiny.

No. That's an abuse in itself.
Besides, regulating something that doesn't exist is not just a waste of resources but it's simply stupid.

This is what you said:

"As I said, FB is not allowing such content on their platform. Their ToS is very clear about it.

That's not what we are talking about, is it? It's a moot point. It doesn't happen, and hypothetical examples should be used to justify regulations.
"

If it isn't happening on FB, it could happen (as it happens elsewhere) so regulating FB even if it doesn't exist on there at present, isn't stupid.

However, I'm not sure if we are talking at cross purposes, as I am uncertain what you really believe with regard to censorship ie who should be accountable and who should do the accounting.

You are looking at it from a political point of view I think, but every principle can and should be extrapolated (in my view).

I was stil editing my previous post.
Maybe this can clarify:

Nothing is universal. Even the 1st ammendment doesn't grant absolute freedom to go unpunished if you scream "Fire" in a movie theater and people die. But don't allow the government to use it as an example to shut you up.

There is a saying I expect your know:

  I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

I am unsure though.  Censorship can and often does lead to abuse but also lack of censorship can encourage movements such as neo-nazism.

These are big questions and I respect your point of view.




« Reply #33 on: October 08, 2021, 09:40 »
0

There is a saying I expect your know:

  I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It

I am unsure though.  Censorship can and often does lead to abuse but also lack of censorship can encourage movements such as neo-nazism.

These are big questions and I respect your point of view.

Thanks, same here.

And to go back to FB, FB has already done a lot to ban * from their platform, without any need for any government hearing nor regulation.

Even more, as already highlighted twice, FB has banned a former president known for calling people close to the nazi ideology "good people". So FB was not afraid. FB acted and enforced their community standards, even when it was impacting the most powerful president in the world.

https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/dangerous-individuals-organizations/

If anything, this courage deserves respect, in my opinion!

And let's not forget how much FB has helped people across the world to organize themselves and topple abusive governments.
"Power to the people" in action! You should never want this to be regulated!
« Last Edit: October 09, 2021, 09:48 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #34 on: October 08, 2021, 10:26 »
+1
Isn't FB an example of how most businesses operate in the US?

1. Step 1: Eliminate all competition, create a monopoly
2. Step 2: Maximize profit: lower quality of product/service, remove disaster recovery
3. Step 3: Disaster happens: get a government bailout

« Reply #35 on: October 08, 2021, 10:47 »
0
Isn't FB an example of how most businesses operate in the US?

1. Step 1: Eliminate all competition, create a monopoly
2. Step 2: Maximize profit: lower quality of product/service, remove disaster recovery
3. Step 3: Disaster happens: get a government bailout

1. That's only possible in a crony-capitalism system, through government intervention. Like when the government is issuing preferential laws and regulations designed to favor their sponsors. But also when good intentions backfire, when regulations meant to "protect" people are only met by a few big companies (able to afford armies of lawyers and accountants) while being prohibitively expensive for smaller competitors. Some of these pseudo-monopolies are even lobbying the government for tougher regulations, designed to shield them from smaller competitors.

2. That's normal, for anyone one of us, not just for companies. Those who pushed too hard will pay the price, being punished by customers who will migrate to better, more stable alternatives.

3. Similar to 1, that's only happening in a crony-capitalism system, where the government is bailing out their sponsors, instead of letting them die as they should, punished by their customers, as mentioned on point number 2.

Having said that, there is a significant amount of crony capitalism in the US. No doubt about this!
However, in my opinion, there is less than in other countries more heavily regulated. In many cases, the government becomes the biggest monopoly.

We can safely say the crony capitalism amount and the likelihood of monopolies is directly proportional to the amount of regulations and government interventions in the economy.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 11:08 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #36 on: October 08, 2021, 11:31 »
+2
To the OP, I believe the outage was implemented by Facebook to scrub their content before the whistleblower told her story.  I'm basing this on one data point so could be wrong, but here it is.  A couple of weeks ago I wrote to Facebook about a fraudulent fundraiser on their site - a person I know posted that one of her relatives was in the hospital and she was trying to raise money for her care.  I know for a fact that relative was not in the hospital and the request was a fraud.  Someone else wanted to report it but couldn't because she had posted on the fraudulent Facebook page and was banned by the owner, so we used my account (which is what you are supposed to do according to Facebook).  They only allow you to select radio buttons for the abuse, none of which corresponds to fraud, and there was no option to provide details.  We heard back a day or so later that they had looked into it, but decided there was not a problem so buzz off.  I was so annoyed that I immediately wrote to both of my senators and my representative and told them Facebook needs to be regulated since they have no mechanism to remove actual fraud that is reported by others.

The fraudulent post stayed up and I checked every few days to see what was happening, especially after someone actually donated to the fraudulent request.   Of course I couldn't see it during the outage, but as soon as Facebook came back I could no longer access the fraudulent account - either it was deleted or the person banned me (which is unlikely since they did not know I had objected).  It is possible that the owner of the account finally deleted it and it just happened to correspond to when Facebook went down, but I suspect Facebook took down their own system and used the time to scrub it of fraudulent accounts - would make sense when you know someone is about to blow the lid on what you are doing.

As to censorship and regulation, you can't falsely cry fire in a crowded theater because someone could get killed in the ensuing panic or it could lead to people not taking fire alarms seriously and get caught in a real fire.  It is lies and misinformation.  Banning such things should apply to all lies and misinformation.  For example, antiVaxxers are causing many people to die who wouldn't if they hadn't listened to the misinformation.  Those should be banned.  The problem is how to enforce it and who should make the decision.  The easiest solution would be to make Facebook and other providers responsible for the content on their sites - let those who are harmed by misinformation sue Facebook and the content creators for damages.  Let the courts sort it out, which is not possible now because Facebook is unreasonably protected (the same as the gun industry).  Facebook would clean up their site quickly (and possibly go out of business) if that were the case.  Their algorithm is designed to cause maximum unrest and this really needs to change.

One of the most surprising things to me was about how many people get most of their news from Facebook.  My first thought when I heard this was, "There's news on Facebook?".  I had no idea - I never see news on Facebook and still don't, although I've never looked and don't go on there very often.  I can't imagine getting news from such a source.

« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2021, 16:22 »
+1

...
As to censorship and regulation, you can't falsely cry fire in a crowded theater because someone could get killed in the ensuing panic or it could lead to people not taking fire alarms seriously and get caught in a real fire.  It is lies and misinformation.  Banning such things should apply to all lies and misinformation.  For example, antiVaxxers are causing many people to die who wouldn't if they hadn't listened to the misinformation.  Those should be banned.  The problem is how to enforce it and who should make the decision.  The easiest solution would be to make Facebook and other providers responsible for the cont...

the big difference here is between government & business censorship.  US govt is prohibited from censorship in almost all cases by the 1st amendment.  businesses are not. but the actual question is whether FB should be censoring at all. Extreme,  ongoing false, malicious and speech that incites violence is sound reason for censorship.  merely expressing false, hateful or unpopular views is not (anti-vaxxers, creationists, etc) but 'ordinary' businesses may censor speech they disagree with.   but FB is not an ordinary business - it's dominance makes it a common carrier like telephone services, mail delivery, etc and limits what it can do. and they should not be censoring except in extreme cases presenting a 'clear & present danger'

in addition, hate speech laws make expression a thought crime, which threatens the free exchange of ideas & eventually  democracy itself.   look at Texas' anti abortion law which makes it illegal to talk to someone about abortion, or even drive them to a provider!


------------for legal wonks  --
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"...
"The truth prevailed, not through forcing censorship or jailing a person for speaking, but through the overwhelming counterbalance of more speech." 
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2021, 00:52 »
+1

the big difference here is between government & business censorship.  US govt is prohibited from censorship in almost all cases by the 1st amendment.  businesses are not. but the actual question is whether FB should be censoring at all. Extreme,  ongoing false, malicious and speech that incites violence is sound reason for censorship.  merely expressing false, hateful or unpopular views is not (anti-vaxxers, creationists, etc) but 'ordinary' businesses may censor speech they disagree with.   but FB is not an ordinary business - it's dominance makes it a common carrier like telephone services, mail delivery, etc and limits what it can do. and they should not be censoring except in extreme cases presenting a 'clear & present danger'

in addition, hate speech laws make expression a thought crime, which threatens the free exchange of ideas & eventually  democracy itself.   look at Texas' anti abortion law which makes it illegal to talk to someone about abortion, or even drive them to a provider!

Look at what happene to 8chan. It was not ther most beautiful place on the net, but when the El Paso killer made his announcement on 8chan, 8chan was drawn into the legal machinery. Seems like the authorities expect some sort of real time censorship from the sites and networks. That is difficult to maintain, that is why we deal with bots that lock accounts on and off because of some auto-detected words that may relate to something illegal.

Censorship does excist, and it is expected to do so.

« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2021, 04:21 »
0
You go ahead and carry on arguing against what you dreamed I said. Life's too short to engage with libertarians on the internet.
That's a powerful argument when you have no argument left.  :P
Btw, I'm not a libertarian and never voted for one.  ;)

Please reread my post and the essay you wrote in response to it. What were you replying to? did I say anything about censorship or what should be done about Facebook, or did I just outline why I think Facebook is an evil sh*tshow without actually saying government intervention is the solution?

But don't let what I actually posted distract you from your usual rant against government which you feel you need to inject into half your posts.

Call yourself whatever like, you walk like duck and quack like a duck.

« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2021, 08:36 »
0
You go ahead and carry on arguing against what you dreamed I said. Life's too short to engage with libertarians on the internet.
That's a powerful argument when you have no argument left.  :P
Btw, I'm not a libertarian and never voted for one.  ;)

Please reread my post and the essay you wrote in response to it. What were you replying to? did I say anything about censorship or what should be done about Facebook, or did I just outline why I think Facebook is an evil sh*tshow without actually saying government intervention is the solution?

But don't let what I actually posted distract you from your usual rant against government which you feel you need to inject into half your posts.

Call yourself whatever like, you walk like duck and quack like a duck.

When you wrote this:

"Sorry but you don't seem to understand how facebook works or why it has come under fire for its policies"


... FB was under the government fire during the hearings in the Congress.
If that's "fire" you meant then: there you go!

If you meant a different "fire", like the "fire" from NY Times, Fox News or some other media outlets all asking for regulations, then I apologize for misunderstanding your unclear post!

And, btw I'm clearly not a duck.
Nobody holds the monopoly of truth. Sometimes the ducks are right, sometimes the donkeys and sometimes the elephants.
A rational being should be able to think and make sense of all those animalic noises.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2021, 13:16 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2021, 08:59 »
0
I must lead an extremely boring life. I did not even know Farcebook was down until I saw it on the news. I can't imagine having this be a going concern and a source of conversation. Just wondering did you all survive?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
15768 Views
Last post February 05, 2010, 18:14
by Dmvphotos
3 Replies
3812 Views
Last post June 11, 2011, 07:59
by click_click
6 Replies
3840 Views
Last post April 03, 2015, 15:06
by Ariene
17 Replies
4469 Views
Last post August 19, 2015, 06:38
by Cesar
Deleting Facebook

Started by RAW « 1 2 3  All » Off Topic

50 Replies
18097 Views
Last post May 30, 2018, 19:40
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle