That bombshell report was produced by the NYT in an article titled: “Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis”
Facebook is societal poison…which is why I shuttered my account for good earlier this year. And I don’t miss it. Like, at all.
You were on it as recently as this year? Sure, it has a lot of applications for a lot of folks, but for this hombre two and a half weeks of getting spammed with wedding/baby/family reunion photos was good enough for me. The newsfeeds - eye-candyish, alarmist horse-hockey.
Blech, Raspberries, Ptooey, Bleh, Bleaugh.
Still debating about turning off adblock, so I bagged on the second link.
I just wanna see a bug-eyed MZ do some more intense congressional apologizing.
Facebook is awesome. I don’t see what the big outrage is here, or why those stories are “bombshells”
I’m sure it is merely coincidental that Mark Zuckerberg looks so much like Caligula.
Using a Republican analytics organization to bad mouth George Soros isn’t a bad thing?
Well, you wouldn’t want a Democratic analytics organization to dig up dirt on George Soros; they’d just blab everything to their Jewish Illuminati handlers.
This doesn’t sound like a Facebook problem, this sounds like a “choice of friends” problem. Because I have zero problems of the variety you describe (I hate FB for entirely different reasons).
I think Zuckerberg is the bastard love-child of Rick Scott. Both are Lizard People.
Exactly. And not necessarily choice of friends, but choice of which friends you want to see posts of. You can unfollow your friends on Facebook and they’ll still see your posts, but you won’t see theirs. I’ve unfollowed quite a lot of my friends because of various crap they tend to post. My feed is relatively free of bullshit - the only stuff that’s there is sponsored (somehow recently they figured out how to get around AdBLockPLus with the sponsored content).
I don’t know. Is it a bad thing? Why is it a bad thing?
The thread title should be “Facebook, you zuck”. Turn asshole’s name into its proper epithet.
I only use FB to play Mutants Genetic Gladiators. Friends send me dirty videos sometimes.
I don’t like how clicking “Like” automatically opens up notifications of any app or product that have some keyword in common. I also don’t like how there’s no one button to turn off all those notifications. You have to find all the sections and subsections and disable every single button.
Zuck equating FB dislike with anti-semitism is really really stupid and offends my intelligence. But that’s par for the course with 45, so it’s just another example of idiocy I have to wait out.
Because the making of George Soros the bugaboo of the right wing is all about anti-Semitism.
Because, apparently, nearly everyone has lost the ability to read anything critically and make a reasonable judgment with regard to the source’s reputation for balance and accuracy. If the Flat Earth Society managed to spam FB for a day, then nearly everyone would agree with them a day later.
No one has lost the ability. Many never had it. And many of us who do have it only turn it on in certain contexts. Nobody is skeptical 24/7. And if that context is not one you’ve been trained to suspect, you can still be misled.
In fact, I’d go on to say that, if you think you can’t be manipulated, then you already have been.
What makes it seem like a bigger deal is how the Internet allows more access to information. First off, we have more info about people who are credulous. Second, people who have trained themselves to spot certain signs are having to relearn those signs. Third, all of us have so much more access to information, making it harder to sort out. Fourth, more info makes it easier to stick to your own echo chamber or bubble.
But the biggest is that companies have much more access to the credulous, and can more easily target them specifically without alerting others. Facebook, for example, is completely integrated into people’s social lives. Being on Facebook feels different than, say, reading a newspaper. It’s easier to let your guard down.
Facebook also has a lot of data on exactly what sort of things will work to change people’s minds. No one, even those who pride themselves on being skeptical, is immune to psychological tricks. Facebook can easily, say, weight anti-Soros articles higher than the pro-Soros articles, making it feel like there is more credibility. They can isolate people already predisposed to believing what they say, making them less likely to fact check. They can push content from their friends who they trust more.
We also are missing a lot of the safeguards we had just a few decades ago, and the science of deception only marches on. Having something that is so important to so many people trying to manipulating them will mean they will be manipulated.
But, even then–why should it matter how well they can do it? The answer for why people are upset is that Facebook is trying to manipulate people, period. Even if you fail, that’s a bad thing to do. And one way we discourage that is by getting angry when we find out about it.
If you don’t get upset, then companies have no reason to not keep doing what they are doing, or even seeing how much further they can push the envelope.
Posts like this really don’t help your cause de jour. George Soros is hated by the right wing for being a purse string holder of the Democratic party, not for being a Jew
But this is the part I don’t get. Facebook isn’t pushing me anything. I see posts from people who I’ve already friended, not random propaganda stuff pushed by Facebook.
I’m pretty sure it is both.
’ “We’re sorry this happened,” Facebook said in a statement. ’
As indicated by the utter lap of overlap or similarity between evil-banker tropes and anti-Semitic tropes.
Several giant tech companies had/have access to Facebook users’ private messages.
All the consent that was required was to sign in with your Facebook account to give several giant tech companies access to your private messages.
The giant tech companies include Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix and Spotify.