Facebook will label newsworthy posts that break rules as ad boycott widens

[CrunchWrapSupreme]

On 6/27/2020 at 8:45 AM, Mama Noodle said:

 

Facebook is run by lefties, same as Twitter & Google. 

I have friends who live around these companies. Many still live with their parents, or had to go to back to them after adulthood didn't work out, because of low salaries and high rent. Many have to share living spaces with several roommates. Many have high level degrees they can't gain suitable positions with, and thus have been stuck working retail. One of them occasionally lives out of his car. He has many neighbors where he parks and sleeps, staying in their cars, vans, and RVs. Not far from Google in Mountain View is a well known park surrounded by RVs. And the growing homeless problem goes without saying.

 

The rent is out of control. The infrastructure is horrible, in terms of both housing and transportation. This is one of the richest places on Earth. So, what are those benevolent tech giants doing? Surely they give back to the community. Yeah, there are a few hospitals bearing their names. In terms of taxes, hah, they do whatever they can to get out of them, with their lawyers and offshore shell companies. But surely they're creating jobs, right? Certainly, if you're Chinese or Indian coming in on an H-1B, accepting an underpaid position, becoming one of their slaves.

 

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it relates in that this is my biggest issue with the Left, more than any of their media or political positions. This is the side of politics supposedly fighting the good fight, caring about real people. Wow, so now they're after hate speech. Great. Are they handing out jobs, to Americans? Building housing? Sparing a bit of that ridiculous wealth? Latte, limousine liberals. The by far greatest hypocrisy, and their greatest flaw.

Edited June 28, 2020 by CrunchWrapSupreme

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Not that you care but explaining to you how it actually is as your post was misinformed.

You just confirmed what I wrote before, except that you needed five paragraphs and the usual hogwash about lefties and a cultural war. 

 

10 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

FB started off defending the right of people to say what they want and I liked that. However come Monday morning I am out.

Has Infowars ipo’ed yet? 

 

[Mama Noodle]

2 hours ago, samran said:

If the wingnuts want to go and start up their own ubiquitous social media platform on which to air their views, no one is stopping them.

 

This is capitalism at its finest. 

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

12 minutes ago, CrunchWrapSupreme said:

Many have high level degrees they can't gain suitable positions with, and thus have been stuck working retail. (...) Certainly, if you're Chinese or Indian coming in on an H-1B, accepting an underpaid position, becoming one of their slaves.

Maybe their degrees (and other track record) aren’t that “high level” when the best companies in the country need to hire people from abroad? And you definitely haven’t worked at any of the places you’re ranting about if you consider the people working there  “underpaid” and “slaves”.

[welovesundaysatspace]

10 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

There is no censorship. You should look up the word before posting nonsense. 

[Phoenix Rising]

20 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

But that's not right, is it. Limiting nutters' (of all persuasions) ability to spread their filth and lies just makes common sense and has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.

 

"they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits."

What are you, a communist?

Edited June 28, 2020 by Phoenix Rising

[welovesundaysatspace]

11 hours ago, torturedsole said:

Really?  Can you elaborate as to why white people don't have reason to extol WLM.

Because they are not the object of racism. They’re often the subject. 

[simple1]

4 hours ago, CrunchWrapSupreme said:

I have friends who live around these companies. Many still live with their parents, or had to go to back to them after adulthood didn't work out, because of low salaries and high rent. Many have to share living spaces with several roommates. Many have high level degrees they can't gain suitable positions with, and thus have been stuck working retail. One of them occasionally lives out of his car. He has many neighbors where he parks and sleeps, staying in their cars, vans, and RVs. Not far from Google in Mountain View is a well known park surrounded by RVs. And the growing homeless problem goes without saying.

 

The rent is out of control. The infrastructure is horrible, in terms of both housing and transportation. This is one of the richest places on Earth. So, what are those benevolent tech giants doing? Surely they give back to the community. Yeah, there are a few hospitals bearing their names. In terms of taxes, hah, they do whatever they can to get out of them, with their lawyers and offshore shell companies. But surely they're creating jobs, right? Certainly, if you're Chinese or Indian coming in on an H-1B, accepting an underpaid position, becoming one of their slaves.

 

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it relates in that this is my biggest issue with the Left, more than any of their media or political positions. This is the side of politics supposedly fighting the good fight, caring about real people. Wow, so now they're after hate speech. Great. Are they handing out jobs, to Americans? Building housing? Sparing a bit of that ridiculous wealth? Latte, limousine liberals. The by far greatest hypocrisy, and their greatest flaw.

Next time before posting it would be a good idea to do some basic research - it only took me a few minutes to identify donations in the billions of dollars, people such as Zuckerberg have donated to charities, medical research and other causes and yes, some housing development.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-net-worth-priscilla-chan-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

 

BTW the average annual base salary at Facebook is $120,000, while the average total compensation comes in around $155,000.

 

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/how-facebook-decides-employee-salary-earnings-how-much-money-pays-formula.html#:~:text=According to the job site,compensation comes in around %24155%2C000.

 

 

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

"hard left viewpoints"?  Are policies against racism, hate speech, incitement to violence and misinformation left wing? 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

No, I think "Black Lives Matter" is in response to many incidents which indicate that some police don't think black lives matter very much. 

 

To begin with, sure. But now? Somewhat wider and deeper than that. Clinging to the original message, and citing it as if that's the only current ticket....alrighty.

 

I think it can be said about most (if not all) movements, that when they start to get some traction they also tend to evolve (well, some could say devolve too), change or expand goals or be hijacked. This can manifest itself with regard to public support, too. Some groups might feel disillusioned and distanced themselves, while other groups may come on board.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

Already in-place for a number of years and look at the evil that pervades such platforms e.g. 4chan. Wonder how many TV members use such platforms...

 

At least a couple, not including yours truly. Why? Because if you're not focused on the hype and garbage, there's some interesting and useful stuff there, for some purposes (example, gaming). Even if one wishes to address only the nastiness and the political bits, it's also not bad, in my opinion, to know what sort of ideas and people one is up against, up close.

 

"such platforms...." lol

[JensenZ]

On 6/27/2020 at 5:57 AM, rooster59 said:

Facebook Inc said on Friday it will start labeling newsworthy content that violates the social media company's policies,

How can content that violates their policies be "newsworthy"?

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

 

Yeah, maybe. But then, you and many other right-wing posters tend to label any view that disagrees or fails to align with your agenda or Trump-worship as "hard left", "extreme left", "communist" and such. It makes taking the point (such as it is) seriously.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Because they are not the object of racism. They’re often the subject. 

 

The sort of "argument" one would expect from the likes of that "expert in postcolonial literature" mentioned in this or one of the parallel topics. White people are not the object of racism? Not even trying to qualify this statement?

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

At least a couple, not including yours truly. Why? Because if you're not focused on the hype and garbage, there's some interesting and useful stuff there, for some purposes (example, gaming). Even if one wishes to address only the nastiness and the political bits, it's also not bad, in my opinion, to know what sort of ideas and people one is up against, up close.

 

"such platforms...." lol

Agree with your first paragraph conclusion - must be quite useful for intelligence agencies.

 

"such platforms...." lol

 

Don't get your comment...

 

 

[from the home of CC]

that phony zillionaire is finding out his 'book of face' is not as important as his bankbook, lol..

[Morch]

22 hours ago, stevenl said:

Just do a search what black lives matter stands for.

 

Posts like yours show one thing very clearly, the blm message is not coming through.

 

Well, if the message isn't coming through, as you claim, it might be due to the manner of its broadcast. Or to the original message being loaded with wider agendas. Kinda doubt that shouting louder or laying all the blame on the receiving end will contribute much to the "coming through" bit.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Agree with your first paragraph conclusion - must be quite useful for intelligence agencies.

 

"such platforms...." lol

 

Don't get your comment...

 

 

 

I'm not an "intelligence agency", and still find it useful, for some things - mostly nothing to do with politics or the vileness that's indeed prevalent on parts of such venues. I find it good to know how some people think or to which lows they sink, because it's sometimes hard to grasp or accept. As in yeah, there are really people like that out there....

 

The followup comment was just to sum things. Treating some platforms and venues based on what one reads on the news, especially in political context isn't always the best choice. Granted, there are some that are overtly dedicated to certain positions, ideas and issues where relying on second hand reports would be relevant. In the case of 4chan, less so. To balance that, though, sent a friend to look up this or that there, she came back saying the place was disgusting on so many levels, that's it's hard to pinpoint how it's disgusting. There's that too, sure.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed. 

[samran]

7 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

But that’s not right is it. The right getting censored out of the “national conversation” by internet monopolies with hard left viewpoints. 
 

they need to be split up and have laws drawn up that if you are a platform, ya gotta have equal viewpoints - or face lawsuits. 

Wow, I thought you were a paid up member of the right?
 

And here you are advocating government interference in business independence. That’s what scummy hippy socialists want. 
 

Strange, very strange indeed. Sure you aren’t a hippy? 
 

There is nothing inherently monopolistic about Facebook. It’s having its technological day in the sun, and it will eventually be replaced by something else. Just like every other dominant technology that came before it. 
 

A monopoly means there are barriers to entry to do what you do. There is no law nor unreasonable cost imposed from you trying to emulate them. 
 

And that is market forces - you know, the thing you are supposed to be an advocate of?

[candide]

21 minutes ago, samran said:

Wow, I thought you were a paid up member of the right?
 

And here you are advocating government interference in business independence. That’s what scummy hippy socialists want. 
 

Strange, very strange indeed. Sure you aren’t a hippy? 
 

There is nothing inherently monopolistic about Facebook. It’s having its technological day in the sun, and it will eventually be replaced by something else. Just like every other dominant technology that came before it. 
 

A monopoly means there are barriers to entry to do what you do. There is no law nor unreasonable cost imposed from you trying to emulate them. 
 

And that is market forces - you know, the thing you are supposed to be an advocate of?

I strongly disagree (for once). Network effects and economies of scale naturally lead to monopolies for platforms, unless the market is very segmented. A network with more members has more value, and there is also a high share of fixed cost. 

 

[samran]

2 hours ago, candide said:

I strongly disagree (for once). Network effects and economies of scale naturally lead to monopolies for platforms, unless the market is very segmented. A network with more members has more value, and there is also a high share of fixed cost. 

 

All good points. Except that history proves that these network effects can quickly erode. Faster than the dominance of any fixed bricks and mortar  ‘natural monopoly’ infrastructure, where I agree, you do need regulation. 

 

Network effects were a central argument in the DOJs prosecution of Microsoft in the late 90s arguing that Windows was a OS monopoly and that forcing internet explorer as a gateway to the internet was a misuse of market power. 
 

And for a time it was, but then fast forward 5 years and Steve Jobs put paid to that with the iPhone and the Mac, Facebook came along and all of a sudden Microsoft is turning into a cloud company. 
 

I don’t know what it will be, but something will come along to dislodge Facebook. My kids don’t use it and laugh that is for the boomers. Even Instagram is too unhip for them. So it will change and the monopoly is temporary. 
 

By the time you legislate, it will already be not fit for purpose.

 

As such, I’m a big supporter of these types of initiatives which force companies to consider where they direct their advertising. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by samran

[dundee48]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2020 at 3:45 AM, welovesundaysatspace said:

Yes, it is hate speech. You can call an elephant a bicycle. It’s still an elephant. 

That`s racist against bicycles,you should be ashamed of yourself.

[BobBKK]

On 6/27/2020 at 8:58 AM, crobe said:

Anyone who really believed that all lives matter would support the BLM movement as it tries to ensure that ALL people are treated fairly in terms of authorities, opportunities etc.

Some people hide behind "All lives matter" slogans when they really mean they do not want to see change and feel threatened by people actually being equal

No it doesn't it breeds discrimination and identity politics.  Singling out one colour is RACIST. 

[Sujo]

49 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

No it doesn't it breeds discrimination and identity politics.  Singling out one colour is RACIST. 

Which it is. That colour also has the authority to enforce that racist bias.

 

Complaining of racialism does not make one racist. But some do constantly complain. Tell me, when where you the subject of racial bias.

[BritManToo]

Just now, Sujo said:

Tell me, when where you the subject of racial bias.

Almost every time I've tried to enter a Thai national park (through the front door).