|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn.
And the right sees this and wonders how many looneys think misappropriation/misuse of bodega is a huge thing and how much is the echo chamber feeding and feeding back outrage.
|
On September 21 2017 23:36 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:22 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 23:13 ticklishmusic wrote:
i think uber's a shitty company for a lot of reasons, but in all honesty the taxi industry was in some ways an even shittier industry. One of those is a shitty local industry controlled by local regulators. They employ local attorneys who have other clients that same community and likely don’t work or the highest price firm in the area. I can bring a complaint to my local elected official to either have the regulators or have new laws passed if there is a problem. The other one is a billion dollar multi-national company with zero investment in the community. Nothing short of a class action lawsuit will make them care. So when picking between two shitty industries, I’ll pick normal taxi industry. But really the ultimate solution is for the cities to develop their own Uber style apps and provide it to the taxi companies for a service fee. It might not be as good as uber, but it would deal with the worst part of the taxi service. What stops you from bringing complaints about Uber to your local elected official? Uber/Lyft are far superior to taxi services, from a consumer standpoint, in every european and american city I've been to in the past few years. I don't see what other local benefit the taxi service systems bring that could possibly compare with the massive consumer benefit from Uber. Meanwhile, taxi services have developed local apps, and in some countries taxis are able to drive on Uber too I believe. The problem is that this kind of customer facing app benefits from scale (when landing in Kuala Lumpur, I have no idea what the local taxi app is). We should be praising Silicon Valley, they're burning 2 billion dollars a year in Uber in order to give us a better transportation service.
There are some small benefits to a taxi service, they face more restrictions about what fares they can decline depending on local laws (i.e. they may not be able to refuse a fare to the airport or a fare that's within a certain destination). Though these rules are hard to enforce.
I'd probably take mostly taxis if they drove smoothly.
On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn.
Well you also need to calibrate? Like 10s of thousands of people's attention for a day is... nothing. Like it's enough to get a mention here and there or show up in your feed maybe, but it's not surprising that a pretty small group of people will be interested in a story for a day then move on?
Like out of ~300 million Twitter users, 10k of them really liking their corner store or really hating tech bros is not at all surprising.
|
On September 21 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn. And the right sees this and wonders how many looneys think misappropriation/misuse of bodega is a huge thing and how much is the echo chamber feeding and feeding back outrage.
It is perhaps notable that both Obama and Hillary are ridiculously fond of Silicon Valley and blind to its tendency to be a farce. A big black mark on Obama for riding that dick and a much more visible and blatant one for Hillary since she failed and went sore loser about it.
|
On September 21 2017 23:50 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn. And the right sees this and wonders how many looneys think misappropriation/misuse of bodega is a huge thing and how much is the echo chamber feeding and feeding back outrage. It is perhaps notable that both Obama and Hillary are ridiculously fond of Silicon Valley and blind to its tendency to be a farce. A big black mark on Obama for riding that dick and a much more visible and blatant one for Hillary since she failed and went sore loser about it.
I agree Obama didn’t push congress to regulate that industry enough, but I also blame congress for doing nothing. The warning signs about the entire tech industry have been there for years, but they have been happy just let them peddle bullshit and snake oil.
|
On September 21 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn. And the right sees this and wonders how many looneys think misappropriation/misuse of bodega is a huge thing and how much is the echo chamber feeding and feeding back outrage.
Twitter is a place people get publicly roasted. I think people sometimes mistake insults for rage. Another aspect is that there is sometimes a lot of rage, but the rage isn't at something like "Bodegas" it's at deeper issues and bodegas is just the day's catalyst.
I'm sure most people can relate to misplaced raging. Like getting pwned online and then taking it out on something disproportionately in RL or vice versa.
Bodegas aren't big where I'm at so I don't personally relate one way or the other, but I seriously doubt that this represents the substance of the overwhelming majority of people who react negatively to things like this.
|
On September 22 2017 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote:On September 21 2017 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
One more thing on the Bodega bullshit: It is hilarious to me to see how many of these tweets have 10s of thousands of retweets or reactions or whatever. These people are feeling like they are leading some sort of revolution because it is all an echo chamber. There is this core group of people who listen for, and react to, benign events and blow them up into some bullshit civil rights movement. Despite my generally liberal environment, I never even heard about this Bodega shit. So this kind of activism clearly just kinda of blows up for a day and then maybe has secondary tremors.
Bodegas don't matter. God damn. And the right sees this and wonders how many looneys think misappropriation/misuse of bodega is a huge thing and how much is the echo chamber feeding and feeding back outrage. Twitter is a place people get publicly roasted. I think people sometimes mistake insults for rage. Another aspect is that there is sometimes a lot of rage, but the rage isn't at something like "Bodegas" it's at deeper issues and bodegas is just the day's catalyst. I'm sure most people can relate to misplaced raging. Like getting pwned online and then taking it out on something disproportionately in RL or vice versa. Bodegas aren't big where I'm at so I don't personally relate one way or the other, but I seriously doubt that this represents the substance of the overwhelming majority of people who react negatively to things like this.
There's clearly a lot of rage directed at Tech Bros/Silicon Valley for a wide variety of issues so yeah of course people are going to jump on them at any chance. Whether it's bodegas themselves or deeper issues like income inequality, a blind eye to harassment on their platforms (like Twitter), or their effect on the Bay Area housing economy. It's not surprising when people jump on opportunities to criticize.
|
Twitter is the land of Hot Takes and bad discussions. Looking for quality discourse on that service is a waste of time. But if you want to confirm you beliefs about something or a group you don’t like, it will provide you with the exact evidence you are looking for.
It also had @Dog_rates, who almost justifies the entire service on its own, even with Trump using it.
|
On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt on this. given the scale of their operation, i think it's more likely that whatever algo or tool they have generating the categories did it with zero human intervention, and that their filter just didn't catch it for one reason or another. That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. On September 21 2017 12:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On September 21 2017 12:10 Plansix wrote:
Like, do they think we are that stupid? These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet."
The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules.
Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task.
And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around).
|
On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt on this. given the scale of their operation, i think it's more likely that whatever algo or tool they have generating the categories did it with zero human intervention, and that their filter just didn't catch it for one reason or another. That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. On September 21 2017 12:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote:These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around).
Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about.
And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
|
The Nicaraguan government is preparing to join the Paris climate agreement, making Syria the only country not to be a party to the deal and the United States the only nation determined to pull out of it.
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega told local media this week that the country is preparing to sign the deal, under which nations determine individual greenhouse gas reduction plans.
“We will soon adhere, we will sign the Paris Agreement,” he said, according to Nicaraguan newspaper El Nuevo Diario.
Once Nicaragua signs the climate accord, it will leave Syria, in the midst of a civil war, as the only country not involved in the Paris deal. But the United Staes could join that group as soon as 2020: President Trump has said the accord is a “bad deal” for the U.S. and has filed paperwork with the United Nations to pull out of it within four years.
Trump is also the only world leader not to acknowledge the scientific consensus of climate change, according to a Sierra Club survey last year.
Nicaragua initially resisted the Paris deal because its negotiators said the accord's goals were too weak.
International officials negotiating the deal have enshrined within it a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. But the individual greenhouse gas reduction targets in the agreement won’t be enough to reach that mark, and most negotiators consider Paris the first step toward more aggressive decarbonization efforts in the future.
Nicaragua gets more than half its energy from renewable sources, and it’s aiming to produce up to 90 percent renewable power by 2020.
Source
|
On September 22 2017 00:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Nicaraguan government is preparing to join the Paris climate agreement, making Syria the only country not to be a party to the deal and the United States the only nation determined to pull out of it.
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega told local media this week that the country is preparing to sign the deal, under which nations determine individual greenhouse gas reduction plans.
“We will soon adhere, we will sign the Paris Agreement,” he said, according to Nicaraguan newspaper El Nuevo Diario.
Once Nicaragua signs the climate accord, it will leave Syria, in the midst of a civil war, as the only country not involved in the Paris deal. But the United Staes could join that group as soon as 2020: President Trump has said the accord is a “bad deal” for the U.S. and has filed paperwork with the United Nations to pull out of it within four years.
Trump is also the only world leader not to acknowledge the scientific consensus of climate change, according to a Sierra Club survey last year.
Nicaragua initially resisted the Paris deal because its negotiators said the accord's goals were too weak.
International officials negotiating the deal have enshrined within it a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. But the individual greenhouse gas reduction targets in the agreement won’t be enough to reach that mark, and most negotiators consider Paris the first step toward more aggressive decarbonization efforts in the future.
Nicaragua gets more than half its energy from renewable sources, and it’s aiming to produce up to 90 percent renewable power by 2020. Source
Finally. It completely baffled me as to why they didn't join. Why would you say no because it's too weak? Why not just join and outshine the rest of the countries anyway? It's not like there is another agreement to decarbonize that is tougher and doesn't accept you if you're in the Paris agreement.
|
On September 22 2017 00:34 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The Nicaraguan government is preparing to join the Paris climate agreement, making Syria the only country not to be a party to the deal and the United States the only nation determined to pull out of it.
Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega told local media this week that the country is preparing to sign the deal, under which nations determine individual greenhouse gas reduction plans.
“We will soon adhere, we will sign the Paris Agreement,” he said, according to Nicaraguan newspaper El Nuevo Diario.
Once Nicaragua signs the climate accord, it will leave Syria, in the midst of a civil war, as the only country not involved in the Paris deal. But the United Staes could join that group as soon as 2020: President Trump has said the accord is a “bad deal” for the U.S. and has filed paperwork with the United Nations to pull out of it within four years.
Trump is also the only world leader not to acknowledge the scientific consensus of climate change, according to a Sierra Club survey last year.
Nicaragua initially resisted the Paris deal because its negotiators said the accord's goals were too weak.
International officials negotiating the deal have enshrined within it a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. But the individual greenhouse gas reduction targets in the agreement won’t be enough to reach that mark, and most negotiators consider Paris the first step toward more aggressive decarbonization efforts in the future.
Nicaragua gets more than half its energy from renewable sources, and it’s aiming to produce up to 90 percent renewable power by 2020. Source Finally. It completely baffled me as to why they didn't join. Why would you say no because it's too weak? Why not just join and outshine the rest of the countries anyway? It's not like there is another agreement to decarbonize that is tougher and doesn't accept you if you're in the Paris agreement.
Because you could always do exactly what they did and protest it awhile for attention to the issue, then join a little later anyways.
|
On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt on this. given the scale of their operation, i think it's more likely that whatever algo or tool they have generating the categories did it with zero human intervention, and that their filter just didn't catch it for one reason or another. That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. On September 21 2017 12:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote:These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch).
It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it.
|
On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 12:33 ticklishmusic wrote:
yeah, i'm willing to give FB the benefit of the doubt on this. given the scale of their operation, i think it's more likely that whatever algo or tool they have generating the categories did it with zero human intervention, and that their filter just didn't catch it for one reason or another. That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem. On September 21 2017 12:25 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
[quote]
These keywords about Jewish people are not created by Facebook employees directly. These lists of advertising keywords are automatically curated by algorithms from what people post on the website. It's possible that Facebook actually had no idea that these keywords had been selected to be publicly offered for anyone to target. It's also possible that Facebook knew and didn't care as long as no one found out. Honestly, I find the second hypothesis unlikely, simply because the audience for those keywords is really, really tiny, as the article explains. Anyone with a brain would understand the potential PR backlash from "Facebook sells ads to literal Nazis" would be a million times worse than the pennies Facebook might make off said Nazis selling ads. I wouldn't jump to conclusions just yet about Facebook from this story. My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it.
But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny.
|
while I may disagree with some of your particular proposals ot updtae things; I strongly agree with the principle of updating laws to account for changes that have occurred since then. There's a general problem in governmetn with failing to keep laws up to date.
|
On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 21 2017 12:50 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That is where you lose me. They created a system they cannot manage and then claim they have no idea stuff like this happens. They had an idea. This topic came up. They know hate groups use their services. They just assumed it would be a while until it became a problem.
[quote]
My general opinion of Facebook is they know their product it to large to be managed without humans, but don't want to spend the money to do it. They know hate groups use their services and are more than happy to make money off of them. Just like reddit. Just like twitter. Just like youtube. Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else. They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny.
Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either.
|
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all. And considering how easy to use a FB profile as an advertisement mechanism...
|
On September 22 2017 01:08 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2017 01:00 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 22 2017 00:19 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 23:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 21 2017 21:57 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 14:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 21 2017 13:29 Plansix wrote:On September 21 2017 13:14 Nevuk wrote:
[quote]Facebook had humans managing things like fake news but conservatives complained it was biased and Facebook got rid of them. I think Facebook avoids having employees manage things like this to avoid that situation rather than anything else.
They could just be a real media company and have an editorial staff, but that would get in the way of them soaking up ad dollars. I really have zero sympathy for companies that build their buisness on disrupting established industries. The networks and media facebook would be out of buisness if they ran white nationalist news stories. No paper in the country could function for long shilling the 14 words. But facebook, reddit and twitter convinced everyone that they can't moderate their own services, so its just the price of free speech to have nazis use their sites. And if they happen to make money off the hate groups. Well that isn't their fault either, since they are so big. Except Facebook, while always intended as a disruptive business, was never built to disrupt the news industry. Not because of a lack of desire, I doubt, but because no one could have predicted that these internet services would overtake the entire news industry. And part of that is the news industry's complete lack of foresight or motivation to update themselves to an internet era. And part of that is everyone underestimating how willing people are to intentionally blinder themselves outside of their established worldviews. But one way or another, people would rather have information fed to them through a social circle instead of a informed source, so these tech companies are playing catch-up to improve a service they didn't know they'd be providing. Also, probably importantly, I doubt 20 or 15 years ago people would've thought Nazi groups were genuinely a "thing". Yes, there is some vague sentiment of people like that still being out there, and they'd occasionally pop up in the news as a reminder. But it's really the information propagation of these social media services that these groups have properly entered public consciousness again. Which is the catch 22 of only knowing there's a problem that needs addressing, only after you've exposed it. It also isn’t a level playing field. Facebook and others on the internet have complete liability protection that no TV network or news paper enjoys. They don’t need fact checkers because they can’t be sued if the facts on their site or incorrect. They are also not under the same regulatory scrutiny, since they don’t have provide or keep public records of political ads bought on the serve or details as to how they were distributed. Disruptive is just a buzz word for “dodging regulations”. The news industry has plenty of faults, I’m not buying into the tech industry’s PR just providing a better service. They entered the field with an unfair advantage due to lack of regulation and act like it was a meritocracy the whole time. Which is complete bullshit. As for the hate groups and Nazis, people have been complaining to facebook about that for years. And reddit. And youtube. All the way back to 2014 and earlier. There is no way they didn’t know about this, people have been telling them for years. Yep, you just need to look at Uber to see how "disruption" can boil down to "avoiding the spirit of the law because the letter of it hasn't caught up to tech yet." The difference between Uber and these web services is that Uber is actually violating laws and regulations that were in place. Governments are just selectively ignoring those rules. Facebook, Reddit, etc. are all completed uncharted territory when it comes to regulating. P6 talks about liability for incorrect facts, except those sites and those organizations are not posting those facts. Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task. And as for advertising, those regulations haven't changed since 2006. Facebook, Reddit and Twitter had only just entered the market in 2006. And it's not lobbying that prevented regulation, because these internet tech giants only started spending huge lobbying dollars in the new tens (when things like SOPA started getting pushed around). Again, I don’t have a lot of reverence for companies that built their entire product on a liability protection handed on in the mid 1990s. They entire business model is built on a law that was pretty outdated at the time Facebook was founded. There is no way they would use software or crowd sourcing to moderate their sites if they didn’t have this liability protection. Their business model is built on not having to worry about things out media companies worry about. And just for everyone’s information, the tech industry lobbies constantly to assure that regulation never gets updated. They love that liability protection. They know it’s the cornerstone of their industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act Yeah...while I understand why people might hate Section 230, it (or similar laws in other countries) is also the reason why everything I ever use on the internet exists (including Liquid and Twitch). It's a regulation that could be updated, but not to the extent that you probably want. At least not without breaking the internet and almost everything you enjoy about it. But it doesn’t need to be stripped or destroyed. Just updated once in 20 years. Maybe publically listed companies like facebook might not enjoy the same protection as TL? Maybe reddit and twitter should be held accountable for being unable to stop people from creating harassment campaigns on their service? Maybe sites like TL should still have that protection, because they are tiny. Except no other industry is responsible for stopping any of that, either.
News papers and magazines are not responsible for what is printed on their pages? They can’t create some sort of blind submission program that automatically ads articles to the next issue and say “not our fault if it calls for people harass someone. This system allows everyone to speak.” The same with personal ads in the news paper or letters to the editor. Only the internet receives the magical protection where you profit off of other peoples articles, but not be responsible for the content of those articles. And its not even all of the internet. Buzzfeed doesn’t get this protection, because they employee writers and a editorial staff.
On September 22 2017 01:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I mean, I'm pretty sure if you sell a billboard space to a harassment billboard you can be held liable. Though it's actually surprisingly difficult to find that information when I tried to dig into it. And ad space on TL/Facebook is about as different from billboards as taxi services are from Uber, which is to say not at all
That applies almost every industry that isn't facebook and others. Movie theaters can be held responsible for the movies they show, if those movies break some law. They can’t blame the company that made the movie and wash their hands, while also keeping the money from tickets.
|
|
|
I also saw that this morning and assume it was from some crazed neo nazi. I was disappointed to find out it was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
