Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:46 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
I love Facebook. I just became a grandpa and was able to participate in things happening 1,000 miles away. I'll be looking at Facebook daily for a few weeks now, then I might stay away for a month.
But... Mark Zuckerberg is allowing lies in those pictures of your grandkids!
  #52  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:49 AM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post

As for blocking ads, I use uBlock Origin and Ghostery on Chrome. Can't remember if it blocks the sponsored ads that look like regular posts, because I check FB maybe twice or thrice a week.
UBlock/Adblock work pretty well, but on top of that I also use FB Purity that gets rid of not just ads, but more or less anything I don't want to see. I got rid of my newsfeed, related pages and a bunch of other things. It's worth looking at.

On my phone, however, I still get all the sponsored ads. When they get to the point that I'm seeing them between nearly every post, I start reporting them...reporting every single one of them. If they want to serve up 30 ads every time I open facebook, they can sift through all my reports to.

Don't get me wrong, I know it's income for them, it's just too many ads.
  #53  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:58 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
UBlock/Adblock work pretty well, but on top of that I also use FB Purity that gets rid of not just ads, but more or less anything I don't want to see.
I don't know who you were quoting in your post, but it wasn't me.

Fake news!

I'm gonna demand a Congressional investigation.
  #54  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:07 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I don't know who you were quoting in your post, but it wasn't me.
Honestly, I don't know who I was quoting either. When hit the quote button it pulled up two or three other quotes from replies I started, then abandoned (and the deselect link wasn't there). I thought I got it right, guess not.

It would appear I was quoting D_Odds.
  #55  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:16 PM
saje is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 2,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
You DO? That's awesome that that can be done. Could you teach me how?

I started I Can Do Without Seeing Any Ad Pages At All, Thankyouverymuch six and a half years ago, but it isn't getting much traction.

Probably because people already know how to block all ads, like you. I'd really prefer to do it your way. So, yeah, can you teach me?
Try FB Purity fbpurity.com It lets you configure the page with as much or as little crap as you want. My pages are mostly blank except for the center content that I want. No games, no ads, no stupid pokes. It gets updated as FB changes shit too.

I'm always horrified when I log on from somewhere that doesn't have all my filtering!
  #56  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:17 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,971
Any guesses as to the topic of today's rage thread?
  #57  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:20 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
Zuckerberg was being questioned by AOC about Facebook's policy concerning political ads and misinformation and he was all like: "Wut? I get paid."

Last edited by bobot; 11-08-2019 at 12:21 PM.
  #58  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:42 PM
D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Honestly, I don't know who I was quoting either. When hit the quote button it pulled up two or three other quotes from replies I started, then abandoned (and the deselect link wasn't there). I thought I got it right, guess not.

It would appear I was quoting D_Odds.
I'm feeling very Dangerfield-esque right now.

__________________
The problem with political jokes is that they get elected
  #59  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:50 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
You DO? That's awesome that that can be done. Could you teach me how?

I started I Can Do Without Seeing Any Ad Pages At All, Thankyouverymuch six and a half years ago, but it isn't getting much traction.

Probably because people already know how to block all ads, like you. I'd really prefer to do it your way. So, yeah, can you teach me?
Watch me make your life ever so much better--go to FB Purity and install it for your preferred browser. Not only can you make ALL the ads go away, you can tweak the holy fuck outta Faceplant and get rid of all the shit that annoys you. Fully customizable FB user interface, that's what FB Purity gives you. You're welcome!

ETA: Whoops, ninja'd! Which is awesome because usually NOBODY knows about FBP so the word is finally getting out. I've been using it since it was a Greasemonkey script and I wouldn't touch FB with someone else's ten foot pole without it.

Last edited by SmartAleq; 11-08-2019 at 12:52 PM.
  #60  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:38 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
"Deceit" in political ads is like holding or pass interference in football (happens on virtually every play/in every ad).
Offensive Election Interference. Ten yard penalty, replay First Down.
  #61  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:40 PM
Derleth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 21,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
UBlock/Adblock work pretty well
Just make sure you're using uBlock Origin as opposed to uBlock or Adblock Plus, because the latter two have an "acceptable ads program" where they let certain ads through. uBlock Origin blocks ads.
  #62  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:49 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Any guesses as to the topic of today's rage thread?
If you arent an SEC fan then you are an untermenschen and probably want the Little Donald inside of you. You are an ISIS supporter and you dont flush after peeing.
  #63  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:50 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You all can go to hell; never complain again, dumb bitch fuckers! You people are fucking slaves.
Not me. I've never bit the Facebook hook. Ever.

I can still insult people, say stupid shit, and post stupid cat memes to my heart's content without helping to put advertising money in Sucker-berg's pockets.

Fuck him.
  #64  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:51 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Alright I see now. I don't use facebook and haven't been following the news, all I did was read the OP link. It seems facebook now has a double standard? OK. That sucks.
Ummmm, it always DID. Ditto for Twitter.
  #65  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:51 PM
Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 29,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derleth View Post
Just make sure you're using uBlock Origin as opposed to uBlock or Adblock Plus, because the latter two have an "acceptable ads program" where they let certain ads through. uBlock Origin blocks ads.
Didn't know there was a difference. I see I have uBlock, I'll swap it over to uBlock origin.
It may not make a huge difference at this point, however, since I recently installed a pi-hole, but some ads still slip through.
  #66  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:04 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 15,137
Is there an SDMB thread this refers to that the OP didn't bother to link (as usual)?
  #67  
Old 11-08-2019, 03:24 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
But... Mark Zuckerberg is allowing lies in those pictures of your grandkids!
You fool! There are no grandkids! FAKE NEWS!
  #68  
Old 11-08-2019, 04:46 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You all can go to hell; never complain again, dumb bitch fuckers! You people are fucking slaves.
Why do you feel it is Facebook's responsibility to filter anything? If people are so easily fooled or persuaded by memes and other garbage they see on Facebook, that isn't Zuckerberg's problem to solve. This is like blaming McDonald's for selling unhealthy food. It's not their responsibility to ensure people are eating healthy. Quit being such a week-willed, simple minded little bitch. If supplement companies can post bullshit ads about how amazing their products are and how they "totally work!", and if news papers can run fucking Astrology sections, and if the super market can sell fucking homeopathy, then why are you so concerned about Facebook? Because he's rich and successful? Get the hell off your high horse and go fuck yourself.
  #69  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:29 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,964
Let me review my views. I am largely a determinist. The problem isn't that a particular cop was unkind, or a particular insurance worker unhelpful. — Instead, both of them are themselves Victims of the System. Should we blame rural voters who went to, e.g. bad parochial schools, or didn't learn cognitive methods? Again, they are Victims of The System. Open signs of racism seem to be on the rise since Trump's election. Do we blame the racists? Or do we understand that borderline racists have been enabled by the Trump Phenomenon? And disenchanted some voters are for whatever reasons. Surely many of my detractors would agree that some voters are at extremely low information-level. (I speak of valid info. Some of these voters might be filled to the brim with fake information from Facebook or Infowars or whatever it is.)

My parable became confusing because Dopers assumed the toddler's dad was the metaphrand for the low-information voter. I tried to dissuade this pre-emptively with
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus
Oh? Typical Trump voters are smarter than the average six-year old? OK, change it to "eight-year old" for the thought experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat View Post
Fuck me, are you even pretending that this is somehow comparable?
This was painful for me. I hope you all will give me a chance to address the charges.
Quote:
On the one hand, you have the proposal that adults should be expected to check claims made on the internet.
NO! I'm saying just the opposite.
Look: If 31.6% of adults tend to fall for Facebook fakery then 31.6% of adults tend to fall for Facebook fakery. This isn't rocket science. (Where is Stranger on a Train, BTW?) Just as 42.4% of a certain species of butterfly are bright green. We'd hope for good public policies that might improve cognitive skills; but if the failure rate is 31.6% under present conditions, then the failure rate is 31.6%.

We have empirical proof that the total failure rate, however derived, is too high: The Abomination DJT was elected. (Color me the culprit: I was still laughing at the idea when DJT started winning primaries.)

I don't think one needs asahi's level of hysteria to understand that the voter disinformation factor is much too high.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gary
On the other, we have...fuck it, I've no idea what point you're even trying to make. That if we expect adults to check internet facts for themselves, that we should hold children to account for taking guns to school. Or something? Fuck knows.
Again: You must have conflated me with someone else. I don't "expect" (whatever that means) adults to check. Quite to the contrary, I expect 31.6% (arbitrary number) to fail to check. Is this disagreeable? Sure! I support programs for improving cognition and information integrity. I am NOT saying this would be easy.

Similarly, I do NOT hold the six-year old responsible for the gun he's carrying. I didn't realize until I started answering this, but you have my position COMPLETELY BACKWARDS! I do NOT expect all adults to be "responsible" let alone children. You don't blame the individual butterflies for being 42.4% green — tweak the program (i.e. change the system) if you don't like green.

So.... What AM I saying? The system is failing us. (I'm afraid multiple systems may be failing in multiple ways; but let's not give up.) Finding individuals "innocent" or "guilty", "responsible" or "irresponsible" is beside the point. We want to deal with facts factually. We want to understand The System, and seek to improve it.

Of course we want citizenship to improve; more responsible content from Facebook might help; and so on. But in fact, at least for the near term, we confront the fact that disinformation — some of it deliberately injected by foreign countries like Russia — is degrading our electoral experience.

So what's my prescription? Good policies, and good plans of course; but it would be good if top entities strove in humanity's interest.

What does that last clause even mean? Although I don't approve of how Mr. Gates made his fortune, he is a genius and has been one of the greatest philanthropists ever. Similarly, mega-investors like Buffett, Soros or Renaissance are smart, strong-willed and philanthropic. Some governments seek public good. In Europe, companies have public obligations.

I am happy with the way these billionaires are spending their money. Special applause to the CEO of Twitter who announced he was banning harmful political ads. (?)

Even Mike Bloomberg may be OK. His sudden hat-into-the-ring might be out of kindness and sense of duty to his country. (The Demo-candidate selection may become gruesome.) Unfortunately Bloomberg may be a poor choice for the role of 'Generic-Male-Last-Ditch.)

Some billionaires are scummy: Charles Koch and Dr. No being two obvious examples. I don't think Zuckerberg is in the same league of evil — I think of him as a mediocre frat-boy, but if he doesn't direct a major change like Twitter did, we definitely want to label Zuckface "More harmful than helpful."

But again, even Zucky is a product of the system. In the American economy as constituted, a few billionaires will emerge almost at random. Odds are that most of these will be less strong-willed and philanthropic as, say, Gates or Soros. The System means we should expect some naughty billionaires.

Quote:
I know a lot of people have said this to you of late, but you really need to consider some time away from the internet.
Yes, I think I'd better ask the Management for another 45-day voluntary suspension. Before they cut me off though, I'd like to hear from Gary. AFAICT, you've got my position completely backwards.
  #70  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:55 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Why do you feel it is Facebook's responsibility to filter anything? If people are so easily fooled or persuaded by memes and other garbage they see on Facebook, that isn't Zuckerberg's problem to solve. This is like blaming McDonald's for selling unhealthy food. It's not their responsibility to ensure people are eating healthy. Quit being such a week-willed, simple minded little bitch. If supplement companies can post bullshit ads about how amazing their products are and how they "totally work!", and if news papers can run fucking Astrology sections, and if the super market can sell fucking homeopathy, then why are you so concerned about Facebook? Because he's rich and successful? Get the hell off your high horse and go fuck yourself.
Fuck you, you smarmy **nt.

Let's start with the basics: almost everyone agrees that Facebook engages in deceptive business practices. Let's consider how they mislead their own advertisers:

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-a...ng-to-hide-it/

Quote:
The social network revealed in September 2016 that it artificially inflated a key metric, total time watched divided by views, for two years because it only counted videos as viewed if they had been watched for 3 or more seconds. By failing to take shorter views into account but still counting them towards total time watched, it possibly misled advertisers.
Or let's consider how they deceive their own users:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...y-restrictions

Quote:
Facebook, Inc. will pay a record-breaking $5 billion penalty, and submit to new restrictions and a modified corporate structure that will hold the company accountable for the decisions it makes about its users’ privacy, to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated a 2012 FTC order by deceiving users about their ability to control the privacy of their personal information.
  #71  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:28 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Why do you feel it is Facebook's responsibility to filter anything?
...because the system has been hijacked and weaponized by people who literally want to destroy democracy and the-way-of-life-as-we-know-it. Unlike the OP I'm not prone to hyperbole. But Facebook is the dystopian nightmare. It gives authoritarianism's direct access to "people brains". The State can leverage the power of Facebook to know everything they need to know about almost everyone on its platform. What TV shows they like. Who they are friends with. Who they follow. Where they are at 10AM in the morning. And they use that power to direct propaganda directly to people's eyeballs.

Jack from Twitter explains it best here when he explains why Twitter will no longer be hosting political advertising.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money.

...

While internet advertising is incredibly powerful and very effective for commercial advertisers, that power brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes to affect the lives of millions.

...

Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.

...

These challenges will affect ALL internet communication, not just political ads. Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.

...

A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.
  #72  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
Any guesses as to the topic of today's rage thread?
How about...YOU!!!!

Sunny Daze, just shut the hell up!
  #73  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:16 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fuck you, you smarmy **nt.
There's no need to use the *-word.
  #74  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
There's no need to use the *-word.
Fuck your tone policing, you prick.
  #75  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,008
Liberals, you need to think. You bastards tone police people like me, but you never see conservatives checking their own -- and you wonder why you lose all the god damn time?

Fuck you punks. I vote. I get in people's faces. I canvass. I call. I don't wanna hear any of your fucking shit. The problem with liberals is that they're not angry enough and that they are total pussies who cry about injustice. I don't take shit. I fight that shit. Fuck you, you fucking losers (who wanna call me out).
  #76  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:51 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let me review my views. I am largely a determinist. The problem isn't that a particular cop was unkind, or a particular insurance worker unhelpful. — Instead, both of them are themselves Victims of the System. Should we blame rural voters who went to, e.g. bad parochial schools, or didn't learn cognitive methods? Again, they are Victims of The System. Open signs of racism seem to be on the rise since Trump's election. Do we blame the racists? Or do we understand that borderline racists have been enabled by the Trump Phenomenon? And disenchanted some voters are for whatever reasons. Surely many of my detractors would agree that some voters are at extremely low information-level. (I speak of valid info. Some of these voters might be filled to the brim with fake information from Facebook or Infowars or whatever it is.)

My parable became confusing because Dopers assumed the toddler's dad was the metaphrand for the low-information voter. I tried to dissuade this pre-emptively with

This was painful for me. I hope you all will give me a chance to address the charges.
NO! I'm saying just the opposite.
Look: If 31.6% of adults tend to fall for Facebook fakery then 31.6% of adults tend to fall for Facebook fakery. This isn't rocket science. (Where is Stranger on a Train, BTW?) Just as 42.4% of a certain species of butterfly are bright green. We'd hope for good public policies that might improve cognitive skills; but if the failure rate is 31.6% under present conditions, then the failure rate is 31.6%.

We have empirical proof that the total failure rate, however derived, is too high: The Abomination DJT was elected. (Color me the culprit: I was still laughing at the idea when DJT started winning primaries.)

I don't think one needs asahi's level of hysteria to understand that the voter disinformation factor is much too high.



Again: You must have conflated me with someone else. I don't "expect" (whatever that means) adults to check. Quite to the contrary, I expect 31.6% (arbitrary number) to fail to check. Is this disagreeable? Sure! I support programs for improving cognition and information integrity. I am NOT saying this would be easy.

Similarly, I do NOT hold the six-year old responsible for the gun he's carrying. I didn't realize until I started answering this, but you have my position COMPLETELY BACKWARDS! I do NOT expect all adults to be "responsible" let alone children. You don't blame the individual butterflies for being 42.4% green — tweak the program (i.e. change the system) if you don't like green.

So.... What AM I saying? The system is failing us. (I'm afraid multiple systems may be failing in multiple ways; but let's not give up.) Finding individuals "innocent" or "guilty", "responsible" or "irresponsible" is beside the point. We want to deal with facts factually. We want to understand The System, and seek to improve it.

Of course we want citizenship to improve; more responsible content from Facebook might help; and so on. But in fact, at least for the near term, we confront the fact that disinformation — some of it deliberately injected by foreign countries like Russia — is degrading our electoral experience.

So what's my prescription? Good policies, and good plans of course; but it would be good if top entities strove in humanity's interest.

What does that last clause even mean? Although I don't approve of how Mr. Gates made his fortune, he is a genius and has been one of the greatest philanthropists ever. Similarly, mega-investors like Buffett, Soros or Renaissance are smart, strong-willed and philanthropic. Some governments seek public good. In Europe, companies have public obligations.

I am happy with the way these billionaires are spending their money. Special applause to the CEO of Twitter who announced he was banning harmful political ads. (?)

Even Mike Bloomberg may be OK. His sudden hat-into-the-ring might be out of kindness and sense of duty to his country. (The Demo-candidate selection may become gruesome.) Unfortunately Bloomberg may be a poor choice for the role of 'Generic-Male-Last-Ditch.)

Some billionaires are scummy: Charles Koch and Dr. No being two obvious examples. I don't think Zuckerberg is in the same league of evil — I think of him as a mediocre frat-boy, but if he doesn't direct a major change like Twitter did, we definitely want to label Zuckface "More harmful than helpful."

But again, even Zucky is a product of the system. In the American economy as constituted, a few billionaires will emerge almost at random. Odds are that most of these will be less strong-willed and philanthropic as, say, Gates or Soros. The System means we should expect some naughty billionaires.


Yes, I think I'd better ask the Management for another 45-day voluntary suspension. Before they cut me off though, I'd like to hear from Gary. AFAICT, you've got my position completely backwards.
What you call “the system” has been known to others as “democracy” combined with “liberty.” For someone who likes to pat himself on the back because of superior intellect you miss obvious truths and ramifications.
  #77  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Liberals, you need to think. You bastards tone police people like me, but you never see conservatives checking their own -- and you wonder why you lose all the god damn time?

Fuck you punks. I vote. I get in people's faces. I canvass. I call. I don't wanna hear any of your fucking shit. The problem with liberals is that they're not angry enough and that they are total pussies who cry about injustice. I don't take shit. I fight that shit. Fuck you, you fucking losers (who wanna call me out).
I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
  #78  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:31 PM
Ambivalid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 14,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Liberals, you need to think. You bastards tone police people like me, but you never see conservatives checking their own -- and you wonder why you lose all the god damn time?

Fuck you punks. I vote. I get in people's faces. I canvass. I call. I don't wanna hear any of your fucking shit. The problem with liberals is that they're not angry enough and that they are total pussies who cry about injustice. I don't take shit. I fight that shit. Fuck you, you fucking losers (who wanna call me out).
Man, I'd be really curious to see if you look strung out irl. I bet you do.
  #79  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:01 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,610
Facebook is a want, not a need. Get over it, already.

P.S. Asahi, get help.
  #80  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:41 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fuck you punks. I vote. I get in people's faces. I canvass. I call. I don't wanna hear any of your fucking shit. The problem with liberals is that they're not angry enough and that they are total pussies who cry about injustice. I don't take shit. I fight that shit. Fuck you, you fucking losers (who wanna call me out).
How much are the Republicans paying you for all this?
  #81  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:42 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fuck your tone policing, you prick.
I wasn't tone policing. I was pointing at you and laughing.
  #82  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:47 AM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
Man, I'd be really curious to see if you look strung out irl. I bet you do.
Im betting its alcohol talking. If he tried to talk to people in real life like he talks to people here, he would be getting beaten up all the time. If he has a wife and kids I feel for them.
  #83  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:16 AM
Deltree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fuck you, you fucking losers (who wanna call me out).
What kind of recreational pharmaceuticals does it take to make a hysterical fruitcake like you?
  #84  
Old 11-09-2019, 03:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
What you call “the system” has been known to others as “democracy” combined with “liberty.” For someone who likes to pat himself on the back because of superior intellect you miss obvious truths and ramifications.
I think this is the stupidest post I've ever seen from you; and that's saying something!

The system includes gerrymandering and voter suppression. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes overriding, by 5-4 Scotus vote, laws regulating campaign finance. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes de-funding of public education. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes election interference by our enemies. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
....

I could go on, but what's the point? Find a sixth-grader to explain the above examples; then come back.

All kidding aside: Give me some help here, Dopers. Has octopus ever posted anything intelligent in all his time here?
  #85  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:34 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
All kidding aside: Give me some help here, Dopers. Has octopus ever posted anything intelligent in all his time here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the current administration has cut aide to the countries that need help with a "fundumental restructure." Do you consider that a prudent move or a problematic one?

The current administration has dropped the number of refugees it will accept from 100,000 to 15,000. There are over 25.9 million refugees in the world, 3.5 million people are seeking asylum. Do you consider only accepting 15,000 people to be a noble and considerate ideal? Do you think you could do better, or is that a number you feel comfortable with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
I think we can take in and assimilate more than 15,000. The US alone probably could, if fear mongering subsided, take in that 3.5 million.
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Banquet Bear has it right. Huey walked into a trap. When the usual gang piles on and it’s no secret that’s what they do and it’s many vs one, by the very nature of the fight the one is going to come across as unhinged and overly combative. It’s a nasty nasty tactic and I was surprised that that tactic worked outside the Pit; I am flabbergasted it worked in the Pit.
...I don't agree with a lot of octopus's politics, but I've never found him/her to be unreasonable in debate and able to be convinced with evidence to be able to change their position. And octopus, as well as asahi, supported me when I went out-to-bat for Huey. I'll never forget that. That was a very, very rough time for me and both of them reached out privately and helped me through it and I'll never ever forget that. I'll always appreciate both of them no matter how annoying others may find them So the answer to your question is an unqualified "yes."
  #86  
Old 11-09-2019, 07:34 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,061

Where you going with them goal posts?


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Fuck you, you smarmy **nt.

Let's start with the basics: almost everyone agrees that Facebook engages in deceptive business practices. Let's consider how they mislead their own advertisers:

https://www.cnet.com/news/facebook-a...ng-to-hide-it/



Or let's consider how they deceive their own users:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...y-restrictions
None of which were the topic of your OP, which was about Facebook refusing to scrub and fact-check political ads. Facebook has no obligation to allocate any of it's resources toward fact checking any statements, memes, ads or random bullshit posted by politicians, Russian Trolls, or emotionally unstable wackjobs like yourself. Further, the government shouldn't be wasting it's time trying to pressure a company into suppressing free speech in any capacity. Talk about the first steps of a dystopian society...
I don't mind targeted advertising. I'd rather see ads that are relevant to me, than useless junk, diabetes medicine, kids' cereal or whatever. If I have to be exposed to ads, it's better if they are useful or at least related to my interests. But I can see how disturbed freaks with strange kinks and disturbing search histories might be bothered by the ads they're exposed to. Otherwise, I can't understand why people get so twisted about the type of data fed to and tracked by internet companies and social media.
To your second and third points, if Facebook is lying to advertisers and investors, then there are civil and criminal laws in place for dealing with such things. It doesn't require Congressional hearings or blanket insults fired at thousands of strangers on message boards.
  #87  
Old 11-09-2019, 07:43 AM
saje is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 2,275
I don't believe or trust ads at all, of any kind. They utterly don't effect me other than to irritate the hell out of me.

I realize that many people do watch and actually enjoy ads, and may be gullible enough to believe what's being said, but there are ads everywhere, not just FB. What are you going to do, squash all advertising?

Facebook ain't the problem, it's a much, much deeper thing.
  #88  
Old 11-09-2019, 08:19 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Talk about the first steps of a dystopian society...
I don't mind targeted advertising. I'd rather see ads that are relevant to me, than useless junk, diabetes medicine, kids' cereal or whatever. If I have to be exposed to ads, it's better if they are useful or at least related to my interests.
...except we aren't talking about targeted advertising. We are talking about micro-targeted dark propaganda. Once again, as Jack from Twitter said "Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.

We don't know what they are doing. Those Brexit ads that said stuff like "Britain's new border is with Syria and Iraq", most of us didn't even know they existed until two years after they were deployed. The advert with a bullfighter that said "These are animals, not entertainment, stop animal abuse, VOTE LEAVE" were micro-targeted at "animal lovers". You can't combat that kind of messaging. Not when you don't know that that messaging even existed. Not when you can't match the funding provided by billionaires and sophistication of organizations like Cambridge Analytica. Both Brexit and the last US Election were won in the tightest of margins. And if you are rich enough you can buy the information and you can create the right algorithms to nudge those margins just enough to win the majority vote.

Twitter did absolutely the right thing when they banned political advertising on its platform. Its all happening too fast, and its happening at overwhelming scale, we need to take a pause so we can figure out exactly what is going on. Facebook should absolutely follow Twitters lead.
  #89  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:01 AM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 14,923
I just read that both Facebook and Youtube are working to remove any reference to the whistle blower. Twitter has said naming him is not a violation of the terms of their service.

All these tech companies need some rules to play by.
  #90  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:05 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...except we aren't talking about targeted advertising. We are talking about micro-targeted dark propaganda.. . . [such as ads] micro-targeted at "animal lovers
I'll have to think about this more. Perhaps I am just so used to ignoring political ads on Facebook that I don't really seem bothered or affected by them. There's something seriously wrong with people who get their political news from Facebook, I think. But I don't know if sheltering them from their own stupidity, naivety and impressionability is the answer. I think society is generally too quick to demand that the government step in to "fix" things, and I am perhaps overly cautious when those demands teeter on infringing on things like free speech.

Quote:
Twitter did absolutely the right thing when they banned political advertising on its platform. Its all happening too fast, and its happening at overwhelming scale, we need to take a pause so we can figure out exactly what is going on. Facebook should absolutely follow Twitters lead.
I don't disagree with this. Twitter surely did the right thing; perhaps the best thing. But having the government jump in and attempt to bully Zuckerburg (or any private person or corporation) into taking a particular course of action isn't the best approach. Especially when, as you rightly point out, we haven't figured out "exactly what is going on" so we can't possibly know exactly how to combat it.

One thing I am certain of, is that attacking, insulting, and shaming people who 1) find Facebook useful; 2) are not influenced by stupid memes or other propaganda; 3) aren't ashamed or paranoid about the "private" information collected by internet-based business and social media is definitely not the best course of action. Someone such as the OP who prides him(her?)self as someone who gets politically involved and tries so hard to convince others of his/her particular views should take that into consideration. You're never going to convince anyone with that technique, and are probably doing more harm than good.

Last edited by Bear_Nenno; 11-09-2019 at 09:06 AM.
  #91  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:13 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You all can go to hell; never complain again, dumb bitch fuckers! You people are fucking slaves.
Hello, I guess we're being Mr. Hyde today. In your Dr. Jekyll personality, you support centrist corporate tools like Biden, and your main complaint with Bloomberg is that you wish he'd have run in 2016.

Seriously, are there two people fighting over control of your Doper identity? It frequently seems that way.
  #92  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:14 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,857
Lemme give it a try, with 98% less rage than the OP:
Quote:
Originally Posted by saje View Post
I also have all the ads blocked, I take every "news" item posted with a giant handful of salt, and take into consideration the source. If something piques my interest/worry/outrage I will go and research whatever it is. I'm not a slave or a sheep, TYVM. I'm a reasonably educated consumer taking marginal risks with my private info in return for an online platform I like.
The problem isn't you. The problem is that there are tens of millions of Americans who uncritically absorb the stuff on Facebook. And it affects their voting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Odds View Post
Also, while I don't want to seem a Zuckerberg apologist, why are we blaming the medium rather than the people creating and posting the lies?
I guess we could blame the Russian bots, but there's not a whole lot we can do about them directly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Why do you feel it is Facebook's responsibility to filter anything? If people are so easily fooled or persuaded by memes and other garbage they see on Facebook, that isn't Zuckerberg's problem to solve. This is like blaming McDonald's for selling unhealthy food. It's not their responsibility to ensure people are eating healthy.
If a hostile power were paying McDonalds for access to their French fry supply and distribution network, and they were using that access to sneak opiods into the fries, I'd be pretty upset if McDonalds was just shrugging and saying it wasn't any of its business to police what got into its food.

(An overwrought analogy, but best I could do at the moment.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Facebook is a want, not a need. Get over it, already.
Agreed that FB is a want, not a need. I find it to actually be an unpleasant environment, and have probably spent less than half an hour on FB in the past year.

But while I can take or leave Facebook, there's no way I can walk away from its pernicious effects on our democracy. Those affect me whether I ever go near a computer, tablet, or smart phone.
  #93  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:52 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear
Twitter did absolutely the right thing when they banned political advertising on its platform. Its all happening too fast, and its happening at overwhelming scale, we need to take a pause so we can figure out exactly what is going on. Facebook should absolutely follow Twitters lead.
Is actual advertising the problem? Or is it all of the fake news, viral crap-posts--many of which are from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation? If it's the latter, how does Twitter plan to combat that? If it's the former, then why waste time with Zuckerburg at all? The federal government has more power to modify campaign laws than it does to dictate what type of advertisements Facebook is allowed to accept, and how much effort and money and resources they need to divert to vet the statements made in those ads. They could pass a law forbidding political advertising and campaigning on social media altogether.
  #94  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:55 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
I don't disagree with this. Twitter surely did the right thing; perhaps the best thing.
I said earlier in another post, Twitter solution has the particular elegance of not requiring them to be the ones who pass judgement on the veracity of the advertising or having to choose who they can trust to do it. Just no political ads, period.

Quote:
Is actual advertising the problem? Or is it all of the fake news, viral crap-posts--many of which are from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation? If it's the latter, how does Twitter plan to combat that? If it's the former, then why waste time with Zuckerburg at all? The federal government has more power to modify campaign laws than it does to dictate what type of advertisements Facebook is allowed to accept, and how much effort and money and resources they need to divert to vet the statements made in those ads. They could pass a law forbidding political advertising and campaigning on social media altogether.
Actually they CAN'T do that last one, that's why they decide to try and shame Zuck into it (thus themselves using the tools of social media culture). Otherwise, yes, those are problems that would remain even in the absence of the official overt ads.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 11-09-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #95  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:15 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Decaf???????


HERESY!!!!!!
  #96  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:17 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I think this is the stupidest post I've ever seen from you; and that's saying something!

The system includes gerrymandering and voter suppression. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes overriding, by 5-4 Scotus vote, laws regulating campaign finance. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes de-funding of public education. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
The system includes election interference by our enemies. "Democracy and liberty — get over it."
....

I could go on, but what's the point? Find a sixth-grader to explain the above examples; then come back.

All kidding aside: Give me some help here, Dopers. Has octopus ever posted anything intelligent in all his time here?
No. Not once, not ever. Not ever in the history of ever.
  #97  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:19 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Lemme give it a try, with 98% less rage than the OP:
The problem isn't you. The problem is that there are tens of millions of Americans who uncritically absorb the stuff on Facebook. And it affects their voting.

I guess we could blame the Russian bots, but there's not a whole lot we can do about them directly.

If a hostile power were paying McDonalds for access to their French fry supply and distribution network, and they were using that access to sneak opiods into the fries, I'd be pretty upset if McDonalds was just shrugging and saying it wasn't any of its business to police what got into its food.

(An overwrought analogy, but best I could do at the moment.)
Agreed that FB is a want, not a need. I find it to actually be an unpleasant environment, and have probably spent less than half an hour on FB in the past year.

But while I can take or leave Facebook, there's no way I can walk away from its pernicious effects on our democracy. Those affect me whether I ever go near a computer, tablet, or smart phone.
This person makes a lot of sense.

Listen to him.
  #98  
Old 11-09-2019, 12:38 PM
Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,439
"The problem," said the theater manager gravely, "is not the people who keep screaming 'FIRE!!!' It's the gullible idiots who believe it, and trample each other to death trying to escape."
  #99  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:13 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
That's a great analogy.
  #100  
Old 11-09-2019, 01:17 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Is actual advertising the problem? Or is it all of the fake news, viral crap-posts--many of which are from fake accounts created specifically to spread disinformation? If it's the latter, how does Twitter plan to combat that? If it's the former, then why waste time with Zuckerburg at all? The federal government has more power to modify campaign laws than it does to dictate what type of advertisements Facebook is allowed to accept, and how much effort and money and resources they need to divert to vet the statements made in those ads. They could pass a law forbidding political advertising and campaigning on social media altogether.
They could pass any law they like. The president wouldn’t sign it and the courts wouldn’t uphold it. This is one of the top reasons to keep the Republicans in power.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017