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 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task.
its called education and critical thinking
On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote: 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.
2nd amendment cough cough
On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote: 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.
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
Ok, so lets regulate each layer of the revenue separately. Problem solved. My firm has several departments, they all have to deal with different rules. Facebook should be able to handle this easy. Hyperbole aside, facebook is not this new service that is beyond human relegation or conventional understanding.
But lets cut through the bad examples and just get down to pay dirt: Do you think the laws from 1996 could use an update after 20 years of internet?
On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task.
its called education and critical thinking
On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote: 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.
2nd amendment cough cough
On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote: 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.
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
Ok, so lets regulate each layer of the revenue separately. Problem solved. My firm has several departments, they all have to deal with different rules. Facebook should be able to handle this easy. Hyperbole aside, facebook is not this new service that is beyond human relegation or conventional understanding.
But lets cut through the bad examples and just get down to pay dirt: Do you think the laws from 1996 could use an update after 20 years of internet?
I'm not saying don't regulate it thoroughly, I'm just saying that insisting that it is an advertising platform is a mischaracterization. As for updating internet regulations, sure, if the regulations are good.
Advertising is also probably where Facebook is the least protected, and one of the parts of their business that they are directly responsible for. Sure, regulations suck for internet advertising, but this is where the least amount of legal or public resistance would be found.
That or data retention, where privacy regulations are already fairly hefty (though not in the US?).
On September 22 2017 00:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: Governments are struggling to find a way to stop people from lying or spreading false information, which isn't a remotely easy task.
its called education and critical thinking
On September 22 2017 01:06 zlefin wrote: 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.
2nd amendment cough cough
On September 22 2017 01:18 Plansix wrote: 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.
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
Ok, so lets regulate each layer of the revenue separately. Problem solved. My firm has several departments, they all have to deal with different rules. Facebook should be able to handle this easy. Hyperbole aside, facebook is not this new service that is beyond human relegation or conventional understanding.
But lets cut through the bad examples and just get down to pay dirt: Do you think the laws from 1996 could use an update after 20 years of internet?
I'm not saying don't regulate it thoroughly, I'm just saying that insisting that it is an advertising platform is a mischaracterization. As for updating internet regulations, sure, if the regulations are good.
I understand. My attempts to simplify facebook’s business model was in response to someone else saying they were like the phone company. Which was in response to saying that facebook wasn’t a media company. A lot of the discussion has centered around people trying to point out all the ways facebook and other social media cannot be regulated because we don’t know what they are?(maybe)
I wonder if Danglars is remotely familiar with the kind of stuff that circulates on facebook. The tweet he quoted seemed to suggest the problem was confined to opinions that liberals don't like. It's not. It's this stuff.
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
On September 22 2017 04:50 RealityIsKing wrote: What if Facebook decide to change its model and instead of relying on ads, the users pay for its operation?
Would you guys be interested in a service like that?
They make around $5/year/user. I think there are very few individuals who wouldn't be willing to pay that to have facebook purge their data and not collect any more. Hell, it's probably worth paying as a ransom, whether or not you want the service.
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
And they have been doing it for like three years and only now people are starting to realize that facebook might have the tiger by the tail.
On September 22 2017 04:50 RealityIsKing wrote: What if Facebook decide to change its model and instead of relying on ads, the users pay for its operation?
Would you guys be interested in a service like that?
It's not about what you're willing to pay, it's about how many other people are using it. And if it was a gated service, it probably wouldn't have reached the critical mass to make people care.
It is fascinating to read comments on right wing sites vs left wing sites on the recent leak of Lawrence ODonnell freaking out on set. (It is pretty funny but no OReilly "do it live". ) It is mostly an embarrassing video of a B/C list liberal celebrity being (possibly understandably) annoyed.
Anyways, huffpost m.huffpost.com has very few comments and they're either " I don't care" or "he apologized so it is OK" while right wing sites are mostly focused on him behaving like a lunatic while questioning Trump's stability and treating this as a big win. Just a site at random, yahoo Canada has mostly conservative reactions ca.news.yahoo.com
I dont think the the original video is actually threadworthy, but these varying reactions are all interesting to me as both sides seem wrong on it. Here it is for context :
On September 22 2017 02:43 dankobanana wrote: [quote]
its called education and critical thinking
[quote]
2nd amendment cough cough
[quote]
let me give you an apt comparison. Facebook is at its core user generated content. Like a phone company. They, like the phone company, provide a means of communication, and like the phone company don't own or are held responsible for content because it would be ludicrous. And unlike the phone company, Facebook actually does something about "bad content".
Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
Ok, so lets regulate each layer of the revenue separately. Problem solved. My firm has several departments, they all have to deal with different rules. Facebook should be able to handle this easy. Hyperbole aside, facebook is not this new service that is beyond human relegation or conventional understanding.
But lets cut through the bad examples and just get down to pay dirt: Do you think the laws from 1996 could use an update after 20 years of internet?
I'm not saying don't regulate it thoroughly, I'm just saying that insisting that it is an advertising platform is a mischaracterization. As for updating internet regulations, sure, if the regulations are good.
I understand. My attempts to simplify facebook’s business model was in response to someone else saying they were like the phone company. Which was in response to saying that facebook wasn’t a media company. A lot of the discussion has centered around people trying to point out all the ways facebook and other social media cannot be regulated because we don’t know what they are?(maybe)
Perhaps you should be more specific in what regulations you're looking for instead then. When you keep pushing back against user communication it seems like you want to regulate speech or think facebook should be liable for what their users post which is clearly not going to happen.
On September 22 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote: [quote] Your comparison is super bad on every level. Like stunningly bad. I’m sort of impressed. Facebook isn’t a means of communication, its an advertising platform. When AT&T starts reading me ads for neo nazi websites before they connect my calls, they might be similar.
People use Facebook to communicate and instead of paying a subscription fee, they get targeted ads. I don't think that makes Facebook an advertising platform. If I could get a phone line to my house that I could use by listening to an ad before I make a call instead of paying a monthly subscription I'd be a lot more interested in it.
Where does almost all of facebook’s revenue come from?
That argument doesn't necessarily follow. A communication service can make advertising revenue and still be a communication service. Why the users use it is to communicate. Why the sponsors use it is to advertise. Why the big data harvesting firms use it is to collect data.
It is a social network that sells its user data to advertising firms and offers ads on its network. It also has communication hooks, but that is only to assure users continue to use the service. The user’s are facebook’s product, which they sell to advertisers and other groups. The people using the site to communicate have never been its customers.
It's not possible to narrow it down in the way you are trying to do. You might as well say that the chickens at a chicken farm have never been customers and so calling it a chicken raising facility (or chicken farm) is wrong.
Facebook has a multilayered revenue generation system. They provide a service to individuals who pay for it with their attention and data. They then sell that attention on directly to advertisers and process the data themselves to create marketable information for third parties.
You're attempting to argue "it's not only A, therefore it must be B" and it's just not working.
Ok, so lets regulate each layer of the revenue separately. Problem solved. My firm has several departments, they all have to deal with different rules. Facebook should be able to handle this easy. Hyperbole aside, facebook is not this new service that is beyond human relegation or conventional understanding.
But lets cut through the bad examples and just get down to pay dirt: Do you think the laws from 1996 could use an update after 20 years of internet?
I'm not saying don't regulate it thoroughly, I'm just saying that insisting that it is an advertising platform is a mischaracterization. As for updating internet regulations, sure, if the regulations are good.
I understand. My attempts to simplify facebook’s business model was in response to someone else saying they were like the phone company. Which was in response to saying that facebook wasn’t a media company. A lot of the discussion has centered around people trying to point out all the ways facebook and other social media cannot be regulated because we don’t know what they are?(maybe)
Perhaps you should be more specific in what regulations you're looking for instead then. When you keep pushing back against user communication it seems like you want to regulate speech or think facebook should be liable for what their users post which is clearly not going to happen.
If I gave that impression it was not my intent. I also find that all discussions about regulating any part of the internet degrade to the point where people make the argument about regulating speech.
When this discussion started it was in response to facebook using software for targeted ads. Which lead to Nazis being able to target jews and people who didn’t like jews. And make up companies being able to target girls who felt they were “worthless”. That was clearly a software problem, but it’s in a long string of problems with facebook and its inability to control the monster it created. The one before that was Russia buying ads in the US election, which is super not legal.
I don’t want to limit free speech or destroy facebook. Just want the laws that were written when AOL dominated the internet to be updated after 20 years. That is a big leap for some people, because companies like facebook might have to hire humans to decide which companies gets to post stuff on their service. And review groups that traffic in stuff like the thing Kwark posted above.
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
Ahh, you remind me that I forgot to put "and sees all sorts of conservative groups as hate groups and all kinds of inconvenient news as fake news." The false cause for action goes hand in hand with all these authoritarian policies for the fix.
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
Ahh, you remind me that I forgot to put "and sees all sorts of conservative groups as hate groups and all kinds of inconvenient news as fake news." The false cause for action goes hand in hand with all these authoritarian policies for the fix.
Are you unable to distinguish between fake news and news which is inconvenient to liberals?
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
Ahh, you remind me that I forgot to put "and sees all sorts of conservative groups as hate groups and all kinds of inconvenient news as fake news." The false cause for action goes hand in hand with all these authoritarian policies for the fix.
We are talking about stuff like "The pope endorsed Trump"
I know that right wing folks believe in alternate facts, but even then some things are just simply not correct. It takes me 30 seconds to make up random shit:
"Donald Trump and Angela Merkel were dating in the 80s"
If i had any talent, it would then take me maybe 3-4 hours to make a semi-legitimate looking web page that runs this "story" that i totally pulled out of my ass. It then takes me maybe a few more hours to make up other semi-legitimate looking sites that support this story.
If i place this random shit on facebook, it goes viral, i get ad money, and everyone is more stupid. At some point, someone will factcheck that, but because "weird story is not actually true" is boring, no one cares. Half the people who read my initial BS still believe that Trump was dating Merkel.
This is a problem. And right-wing people employ this very liberally, though some left-wing people are also very quick to propagate stuff without even basic factchecking if it fits their world view. The world would be better without this stuff. This can all be prevented by some basic factchecking early on. It just needs a "This is bullshit" stamp before it gets to people who will never hear the counterstory.
Fun fact, i actually just deleted another part of this post because i couldn't actually figure out quickly whether it was true or not. It was about the "fox news makes you less informed" stuff.
On September 22 2017 04:50 Danglars wrote: The twitter link was attesting that it's usually the left/liberals that are asking for these kinds of things.
The left complains about it because the right is the main source of fake news and hate groups...
Ahh, you remind me that I forgot to put "and sees all sorts of conservative groups as hate groups and all kinds of inconvenient news as fake news." The false cause for action goes hand in hand with all these authoritarian policies for the fix.
We are talking about stuff like "The pope endorsed Trump"
I know that right wing folks believe in alternate facts, but even then some things are just simply not correct. It takes me 30 seconds to make up random shit:
"Donald Trump and Angela Merkel were dating in the 80s"
If i had any talent, it would then take me maybe 3-4 hours to make a semi-legitimate looking web page that runs this "story" that i totally pulled out of my ass. It then takes me maybe a few more hours to make up other semi-legitimate looking sites that support this story.
If i place this random shit on facebook, it goes viral, i get ad money, and everyone is more stupid. At some point, someone will factcheck that, but because "weird story is not actually true" is boring, no one cares. Half the people who read my initial BS still believe that Trump was dating Merkel.
This is a problem. And right-wing people employ this very liberally, though some left-wing people are also very quick to propagate stuff without even basic factchecking if it fits their world view. The world would be better without this stuff. This can all be prevented by some basic factchecking early on. It just needs a "This is bullshit" stamp before it gets to people who will never hear the counterstory.
Fun fact, i actually just deleted another part of this post because i couldn't actually figure out quickly whether it was true or not. It was about the "fox news makes you less informed" stuff.
My extremely conservative Fox News loving MiL told me that there is no way that this historical event happened because if it had happened the liberal media would have been all over it because they hate America and would leap at any chance to make America look bad. She didn't recall that happening so case closed.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/MkXqDtoOxp9jb_WY7Qcf2mHuLH86HqCtmkLi_u8BCnVo7ncef7-SG2evMjGadzq6gNKot9ECyOJN6gthyjWSbiZj6uRleVQIZS2bJDTqFOndOJUjxCbOMrsoUM5vVh7MG_nPtPWR)
