Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox Business)   Zuck will not be bullied by corporations, plans to keep Facebook as a haven for hate speech. Figures the ad money will return if he can help shape another election by spreading misinformation to older voters   (foxbusiness.com) divider line
    More: Repeat, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, newsworthy label, Facebook spokesperson, policy changes, kind of content, President Trump  
•       •       •

1576 clicks; posted to Main » and Business » on 02 Jul 2020 at 10:16 AM (21 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-07-02 9:41:04 AM  
30 votes:
The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.
 
2020-07-02 10:24:24 AM  
13 votes:
TFA headline: Zuckerberg says advertising boycott won't change Facebook's principles

Can't change what you don't have.
 
2020-07-02 10:24:11 AM  
11 votes:
I"m sure russia and china will happily continue to shovel him money to drive a wedge between our citizens. Not that we need a lot of help.
 
2020-07-02 10:31:01 AM  
9 votes:

BFletch651: Arguing on Facebook is its own punishment.

Unlike arguing on FARK.


I've learned a LOT over the years, arguing on Fark. We have some really smart, educated folks around these parts.

And - no exaggeration - those conversations over the years were a key part of me deciding to no longer be a "conservative" Republican as I'd been raised, and instead work my way in to where I am today on the political left somewhere on the spectrum of the left around Bernie Sanders.
 
2020-07-02 10:26:33 AM  
8 votes:

jso2897: Fox News has become like a big, stupid St. Bernard puppy that comes galumphing in excitedly with every dead animal it finds.


Don't farking insult St. Bernards like that. They're a million times better than fox will ever be.
 
2020-07-02 10:24:56 AM  
7 votes:

UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.


So like Fark?
 
2020-07-02 10:23:03 AM  
7 votes:
Hatebook
 
2020-07-02 10:23:14 AM  
6 votes:
Arguing on Facebook is its own punishment.

Unlike arguing on FARK.
 
2020-07-02 10:46:53 AM  
4 votes:

altomah: waxbeans: Sumo Surfer: Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China

Hate is not speech we've just convinced ourselves that is



Facebook is the worlds largest publisher.

I can't buy a radio spot claiming that the doctors in my city are lying to the public to implant a microchip into out children.  The radio station won't sell me that ad because it's libellous.

I can't buy a TV ad to proclaim the superiority of the white race and call for white people to put down protesters like dogs in the street - they won't sell me that ad because it invites violence.

But Facebook will sell you that ad. They are pretending they are not the worlds largest publisher....while selling ads in the worlds largest publication.

They need tot be held to the same laws as every Publisher and hold them legally accountable for the contnt they publish.
 
2020-07-02 10:42:26 AM  
4 votes:
Facebook is an echo chamber, not a think tank. Zuck's right about the advertisers returning. They're playing the virtue signaling game to keep activists off their a$$e$ for a month while they save some money on digital ad spends. All of this will be smoke by mid-July.
 
2020-07-02 10:32:32 AM  
4 votes:

halifaxdatageek: The thing is, Facebook isn't reliant on big businesses to advertise with them. Literally on the order of 80% of their money comes from small businesses that have nowhere else to turn.

Good work if you can get it.


Went and got the specific numbers:
- $70bn in ads
- 8m advertisers
- Top 100 responsible for less than 20% of revenue (as compared to, say, network television, where the top 100 provide closer to 70%)

https://espresso.economist.com/77e86f​5​489a21d225ec448dce1fec3a7
 
2020-07-02 10:31:05 AM  
4 votes:

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: TFA headline: Zuckerberg says advertising boycott won't change Facebook's principles

Can't change what you don't have.


If you're a corporation in America making money you have no principles
 
2020-07-02 10:29:24 AM  
4 votes:
American Teenagers don't use the FaceBooks any more. The company knows it doesn't have a long-term strategy for growth in the West, so they need to milk the elderly and the gullible who click, click, click the bullshiat fake news while they still can. Of course, gullible young people in foreign countries (India?) are a huge cash cow for the foreseeable future. They love their fake news there, too.
 
2020-07-02 10:28:15 AM  
4 votes:
The thing is, Facebook isn't reliant on big businesses to advertise with them. Literally on the order of 80% of their money comes from small businesses that have nowhere else to turn.

Good work if you can get it.
 
2020-07-02 10:23:46 AM  
4 votes:
Either Zuckerberg is correct and the advertisers will be back or the advertisers will realize that all the money spent on Facebook ads was just a waste of money. If that happens look for more companies to wise up about how they spend their advertising dollars, how effective ads are, and whether these companies really need a presence on Facebook.
 
2020-07-02 2:36:53 PM  
3 votes:

AmbassadorBooze: Because people are still on face book. If all the good people deleted their accounts, Facebook would crumble. So, since Facebook still exists, it must mean good people don't know they can just delete their accounts. Facebook is a tool of faciasts, billionaires, mega corps, and the trump. Good people should delete their accounts, maybe they just don't know it is possible. Like people who think "I have to be in credit card debt up to my eyeballs because if the Joneses see that I don't have 13 jet skis, they might not like me".


Can you define for me who these "good people" are that you are talking about and by who's definition are you labeling them "good"?  The Christian definition, Muslim, Socialist, Capitalist?

Everybody will have a different definition of "good" based upon their individual experience and what they deem more valuable and moral to them. Which person are you claiming has the ultimate moral authority to define "good" so that you feel justified in telling the entire site of Fark what to do and what to think?

Do you believe your mindset in any way demonstrates just a whiff of Authoritarianism?
 
2020-07-02 10:54:35 AM  
3 votes:
"Increasingly, we're getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. I think it kind of feels like the list of things that you are not allowed to say socially keeps on growing. And I'm not really okay with that," he said in January at the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit. "We're going to take down the content that's really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point."


I despise Facebook for a number of reasons and deleted my account a while ago but I actually agree with him on this. I'm very anti-censorship, always have been and always will be. Celebrating banned books week and all that. I think that intent and context needs to be considered in all situations. If a group is out there actually inciting hate or spreading lies based on gender or race than go on and taken them down. But if someone is posting something that is clearly mocking racists or uses questionable language because it's an academic essay discussing how language changes over the centuries, no. Also, some of the things people want labeled as hate speech are getting absolutely ridiculous. A friend of mine got a 3 day ban because she used the word "weirdo" to describe a rude woman she'd witnessed yelling at a cashier and someone reported it as ableist language. There has to be a line. A vague "we want you to ban hate speech" without a very clearly established definition of what that means is kind of uncomfortable when words that have nothing to do with race, gender, health or age suddenly become problematic.
 
2020-07-02 10:43:32 AM  
3 votes:

UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.


Early intervention can help.  At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, one of my friends shared two Facebook posts, one claiming that we were being lied to because certain cleaning products released prior to the pandemic claimed to kill coronaviruses, another arguing that the lockdown was the first step toward making people voluntarily surrender their freedom.  Fortunately, several of her friends (including me) called her out on those posts, and none of her other friends came to her defense.  She now rarely posts about COVID-19, but the few things she's posted since then have all been grounded in reality.

The problem is that most people start going down the proverbial rabbit hole long before they start openly talking about it.  One could spend months or even years reading e.g. Breitbart and becoming radicalized without telling anyone, and by the time they feel comfortable publicly sharing it, it's too late to change their minds with facts.
 
2020-07-02 10:43:05 AM  
3 votes:
So many news rooms are dead because Facebook lied about their numbers to advertisers and they had a pittance of a fine for it
 
2020-07-02 10:41:27 AM  
3 votes:

Random Anonymous Blackmail: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.

So like Fark?


There are plenty of people who are on-the-edge because of issues unrelated to politics or hate.  Facebook helps these people empathize with other people who are going through similar things.  The problem is these "friends" created scapegoats for their problems.  If their having trouble with their wife, it's because things were better when women didn't work.  That turns into a belief that women are inferior.  Like guns?  Well guess what?  You can justify yourself by pointing out how someone you only learned about because someone copied and pasted their story on Facebook, was robbed by a Black man and wouldn't have been if they had a modified AR-15.  Suddenly, Black people are a problem than needs to be controlled with LAW AND ORDER!!!

Facebook makes money when their users interact with ads and when their is a perception that advertising on Facebook helps create awareness.  Facebook has identified conservatives as easy marks.  So, it amplifies the amount of extremist content they see.  How do you sell a "TRUMP 2020:  NO MORE BULLSHIAT" flag?  You convince someone to go to the All Lives Matter counter protest and sell them one at your booth.  The deeper the divisions, the more energized the users will be about spending money to support their side.  I won't buy a MAGA hat, but I'll buy one with a thin blue line and a Punisher logo because I saw a meme that said "Nobody ever got arrested for not doing anything illegal." - which on it's surface is bullshiat, but the division is so great the conservatives are blind to it's ridiculousness.
 
2020-07-02 10:33:09 AM  
3 votes:
Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China
 
2020-07-02 10:29:32 AM  
3 votes:
So you guys all realize this is a fake narrative right? Facebook has been notorious for disenfranchising the right on their platform. Now they're being accused of helping the right and disenfranchising the left? Something isn't right here. We are being lied to our faces. Who can really sit here and feel confident that these corporations really have us in mind, especially after keeping up with recent news cycles that have been contradictory to this manufactured narrative.
 
2020-07-02 2:51:33 PM  
2 votes:

bostonguy: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.

My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.


Offering myself and my story up here as a counter point to illustrate that this brainwashing goes both ways. It has a lot to do with Facebook's algorithms and the fact that social media tends to be an echo chamber.

I have always been a primarily left leaning independent person. I'm a feminist that grew up in a middle class multi racial family and I'm not straight. Science, equality and tolerance  were very big deals in my house. Healthcare is probably my number one issue. I'm sick of seeing people bankrupt because they get sick.

Facebook started turning me into a very mean person that I didn't like. Because I'm obviously against incels and misogyny, I had joined a few groups that were fairly anti-male. These groups posts started showing up on my timeline more and more. This started to feed into my offline life where instead of just being a normal feminist wanting equality, I was becoming unnecessarily mean and prejudice against men in my daily life. Even ones I knew were good people.

I also began getting more active in anti-Trump movements. I'm still anti-Trump but I found myself more and more getting my news from obviously biased left news sites and memes instead of sites like Reuters that tend to just report straight facts without emotional language. I began getting increasingly angry and lashing out at people who were moderate, undecided voters or third party people who were truly conflicted (almost all of whom have now decided to choose Biden).

I did not like the irrational person I was becoming. I wasn't making choices with my brain anymore, I was becoming reactionary with my emotions just like the right wingers I was so against.

There is a right way and a wrong way to end up on the correct side of history. You don't persuade people to your side by name calling, angrily accusing them of things they maybe didn't do (or at least intend to do),  and otherwise giving them excuses to go on the defensive. Most things aren't that black and white. The shades of grey are where progress is made. Have conversations, educate people, try to understand perspectives and context and realize that you are never going to see eye to eye with everyone all the time. You'd be amazed how willing people can be to open up to things when you present it calmly and rationally; during my time on FB, I somehow got a bunch of animal rights folks/rescuers to change their perspective on the use of real fur in coats (by talking about recycling vintage ones or only using animals that died naturally or accidentally.) And most of all, pick your battles. You can usually tell who is a troll and who is just clueless.

Anyway, leaving social media, I started seeking my news from the most bland sources possible and started finding myself thinking more, jumping to fewer conclusions and becoming less angry.
 
2020-07-02 1:54:08 PM  
2 votes:

Ketchuponsteak: Sumo Surfer: Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China

People who are to moronic to understand a simple concept like Free Speech, are in fact, morons, like you.


It would sit better with me if Facebook made these changes voluntarily. Multi-billion dollar corporations holding another public company ransom until they literally 'meet your demands' is no way to approach a civilized conversation. Nobody wants to live in that world, I hope.

Zuckerberg doesn't like being held at dollar-point apparently. Ironically, money is the last thing on his mind - nothing can hurt him financially at this point. With complete control of the company, whatever he says, goes. A single person running a platform of billions, and being able to manipulate those people (as they've publicly admitted) scares the shiat out of me, but its better than the highest bidder being in charge.

I applaud them for not selling out to pressure from extortionists.
 
2020-07-02 1:40:39 PM  
2 votes:
Given that the definition of "hate speech" has been tortured to the point of meaninglessness, mainly by people with short attention spans, he's probably on to something.
 
2020-07-02 12:43:03 PM  
2 votes:
I find the ideas of free speach and the label of hate speech to be mutually exclusive.

If we do have free speech then all speech is just perfectly equally the same free speech, so go  pack your judgements and shove them back in your ass.

IF we have some speech that is bad ot have that is hate and needs to be labeled in away to say, the fook we want none of that....well then it's not exactly free to speak it, so you ain't giving the right to freely speech, which means we don't have the right to that then.

If Uncle sam won't put you in the house of pain for what you say, but you still wind up jobless or friendless or publicly ridiculed for what you said. then  the fook you don;t have no right to speak freely at all.
The govt not giving you the stick for what you say is only half the way to freedom of speech.
To actually have the right to freely speak HAS TO BE GIVEN BY EVERYONE AROUND YOU.


Don't get me wrong here, i'm not advocating ror the hate speech. i am saying the stupid monkey bairns don;t have the mental faculties to uphold the responsibility of granting that freedom to others or using that freedom themselves responsibly.

I think anyone that asks facebook/twitter/private corporation ____, to refuse the freedom of speech to some on their platform, while they would claim the govt can't interfere in the freedom of speech. WTF if that? You're just a total chicken shiat jack rag if you hide behind a corporate banner while you attempt to deny others the same freedom of speech you expect to have there.


Either be real and openly say: we should not have the right in the first place.
Or stop judging and trying to censor/supress what you do not like.

but this fooking bs of pretending to support with freedom of speech while you explicitly attempt to interfere with access to the freedom of speech tools, is some lame ass chit that makes it so i can;t tell the difference between a true trumper and any other rando authoritarian a hole.
 
2020-07-02 12:35:45 PM  
2 votes:

UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.


My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.
 
2020-07-02 12:30:41 PM  
2 votes:

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: TFA headline: Zuckerberg says advertising boycott won't change Facebook's principles

Can't change what you don't have.


Zuck stated his principles quite clearly in 2004:

"You can be unethical and still be legal; that's the way I live my life." - Mark Zuckerberg
 
2020-07-02 12:15:00 PM  
2 votes:

AmbassadorBooze: Time to stop using face book.  If you are anti trump, and you should be, you MUST delete your Facebook account.  And if you are in a state like CA, have FB erase your data.


Is there a reason your natural inclination was to tell everyone else what to do and how they should be thinking instead of just expressing your view and assuming everyone else on this site has their own agency and can make decisions on their own?
 
2020-07-02 12:01:17 PM  
2 votes:
Facebook is well on its way to being the next MySpace... good riddance.
 
2020-07-02 11:53:46 AM  
2 votes:

DevilGirlFromMars: "Increasingly, we're getting called to censor a lot of different kinds of content that makes me really uncomfortable. I think it kind of feels like the list of things that you are not allowed to say socially keeps on growing. And I'm not really okay with that," he said in January at the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit. "We're going to take down the content that's really harmful, but the line needs to be held at some point."


I despise Facebook for a number of reasons and deleted my account a while ago but I actually agree with him on this. I'm very anti-censorship, always have been and always will be. Celebrating banned books week and all that. I think that intent and context needs to be considered in all situations. If a group is out there actually inciting hate or spreading lies based on gender or race than go on and taken them down. But if someone is posting something that is clearly mocking racists or uses questionable language because it's an academic essay discussing how language changes over the centuries, no. Also, some of the things people want labeled as hate speech are getting absolutely ridiculous. A friend of mine got a 3 day ban because she used the word "weirdo" to describe a rude woman she'd witnessed yelling at a cashier and someone reported it as ableist language. There has to be a line. A vague "we want you to ban hate speech" without a very clearly established definition of what that means is kind of uncomfortable when words that have nothing to do with race, gender, health or age suddenly become problematic.


I agree with you on this and I applaud Facebook for taking a stand on this issue, regardless of how I feel about them in any other sense.

I've learned that, in my opinion, the problem with the debate today is that very few people truly understand what it is they are talking about and so we end up talking about two very different things. This is why when I begin a debate one of the first questions I will ask is:

Do you believe that Science is the search for the truth, or do you believe Science is the search to disprove the truth?

This question is fundamental in developing a common framework to have the current debate and most people I encounter don't even understand why that is. This, to me is sad because the entire premise of their argument is based upon how they answer this question and if that question is truly examined, I have a feeling they might  answer it differently.

With the ever widening definition of what constitutes "hate speech" and the social media platforms beginning to enforce them in their censorship, it almost forces us to talk and yell over each other because we cannot establish a common framework from which to debate.
 
2020-07-02 11:00:55 AM  
2 votes:
I cannot farking wait for his principals to collide with shareholder interest & actual farking profits.  If I was in any position to control a large marketing budget, I would keep my money off facebook just for the sake of forcing Zuckerberg to eat his words. He's not operating on some vision quest, he's mining user data to sell advertising space. He's not a farking profit. Christ, what an asshole.

/end rant
 
2020-07-02 10:50:45 AM  
2 votes:
Shady product marketers know if they want to get their advertising in front of the dumbest, most credulous simpletons out there, Facebook is by far the best way to go.  Even better than Fox News, and that's saying something.
 
2020-07-02 10:39:17 AM  
2 votes:
Wait, let me understand this, Clinton won nearly 3 million MORE votes than Trump, and yet FB swayed the election?  Seems like Hillary was a little weak in her Electoral College strategy.

After COVID, I wonder if the dense (in both ways) Blue Cities will start thinning out, redistributing Blue voters across the states?

If those nearly 3 million votes (most of the extra votes being in CA, as 50%+1 was all that was needed for 54 EVs) were dropped into Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, Clinton would be President.

But of course it was the fault of Russia, Ukraine, Facebook.
 
2020-07-02 10:38:02 AM  
2 votes:

waxbeans: Artist: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.

Aaannnddd......this always comes to mind......

[Fark user image image 850x637]

The collective from Star wars next generation


"Star wars next generation"?  That's either matter-antimatter level trolling, or else one of the best brainfarts ever!
 
2020-07-02 10:32:05 AM  
2 votes:

Alwysadydrmr: jso2897: Fox News has become like a big, stupid St. Bernard puppy that comes galumphing in excitedly with every dead animal it finds.

Don't farking insult St. Bernards like that. They're a million times better than fox will ever be.


Especially the ones with little barrels of booze
 
2020-07-02 10:24:22 AM  
2 votes:
Fox News has become like a big, stupid St. Bernard puppy that comes galumphing in excitedly with every dead animal it finds.
 
2020-07-02 4:35:17 PM  
1 vote:
Awww, farkers can't haz safe space...
 
2020-07-02 3:17:45 PM  
1 vote:

DevilGirlFromMars: bostonguy: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.

My parents were traditional conservatives in the George W. Bush variety. But they only became Trumpers after constant, repeated exposure to crap in their Facebook filter bubble. They were slowly pushed further and further right over the years and now believe crap that they had never believed before.

Constant exposure to propaganda over the long-term has a definite effect on people. Just see the documentary The Brainwashing of My Dad on how someone went from supporting Barack Obama to becoming insane after too much Fox News and the like.

Offering myself and my story up here as a counter point to illustrate that this brainwashing goes both ways. It has a lot to do with Facebook's algorithms and the fact that social media tends to be an echo chamber.

I have always been a primarily left leaning independent person. I'm a feminist that grew up in a middle class multi racial family and I'm not straight. Science, equality and tolerance  were very big deals in my house. Healthcare is probably my number one issue. I'm sick of seeing people bankrupt because they get sick.

Facebook started turning me into a very mean person that I didn't like. Because I'm obviously against incels and misogyny, I had joined a few groups that were fairly anti-male. These groups posts started showing up on my timeline more and more. This started to feed into my offline life where instead of just being a normal feminist wanting equality, I was becoming unnecessarily mean and prejudice against men in my daily life. Even ones I knew were good people.

I also began getting more active in anti-Trump movements. I'm still anti-Trump but I found myself more and more getting my news from obviously biased left news sites and memes instead of sites like Reuters that tend to just report straight facts without emotional language. I began getting increasingly angry ...


Thank you for sharing your story. Yes, it's true that the far left and far right have their own filter bubbles now.

The saddest thing is that, once upon a time, we had a collective agreement on the facts. If, say, the NYT or WP reported something, everyone accepted it. But now, everyone has their own media outlets that are biased. There is no agreement on the facts. We all live in different realities.

I don't know how we fix that.
 
2020-07-02 3:12:37 PM  
1 vote:

DevilGirlFromMars: Anyway, leaving social media, I started seeking my news from the most bland sources possible and started finding myself thinking more, jumping to fewer conclusions and becoming less angry.


To me Social Media is a double edged sword because with it we do tend to gravitate towards echo chambers, but if we resist that urge and challenge our own opinions it can also be an amazing way of communicating ideas. To me the bigger problem is people not being willing to have their own beliefs challenged which allows them to reach those beliefs without having fully rationalized them out.

A hair stylist who some consider a philosopher recently stated "There's no safe spaces in self reflection" and that struck me as a pretty relevant statement in today's culture.

On the topic of "brain washing", have you noticed how the word "equality" has subtly been replaced with the word "equity" recently?   - Just some food for thought :)

In my opinion it is none of our places to tell each other what to think or even how to think, but I do believe it's important to remind people, well, to think.
 
2020-07-02 12:59:57 PM  
1 vote:

PvtStash: I find the ideas of free speach and the label of hate speech to be mutually exclusive.

If we do have free speech then all speech is just perfectly equally the same free speech, so go  pack your judgements and shove them back in your ass.

IF we have some speech that is bad ot have that is hate and needs to be labeled in away to say, the fook we want none of that....well then it's not exactly free to speak it, so you ain't giving the right to freely speech, which means we don't have the right to that then.

If Uncle sam won't put you in the house of pain for what you say, but you still wind up jobless or friendless or publicly ridiculed for what you said. then  the fook you don;t have no right to speak freely at all.
The govt not giving you the stick for what you say is only half the way to freedom of speech.
To actually have the right to freely speak HAS TO BE GIVEN BY EVERYONE AROUND YOU.


Don't get me wrong here, i'm not advocating ror the hate speech. i am saying the stupid monkey bairns don;t have the mental faculties to uphold the responsibility of granting that freedom to others or using that freedom themselves responsibly.

I think anyone that asks facebook/twitter/private corporation ____, to refuse the freedom of speech to some on their platform, while they would claim the govt can't interfere in the freedom of speech. WTF if that? You're just a total chicken shiat jack rag if you hide behind a corporate banner while you attempt to deny others the same freedom of speech you expect to have there.


Either be real and openly say: we should not have the right in the first place.
Or stop judging and trying to censor/supress what you do not like.

but this fooking bs of pretending to support with freedom of speech while you explicitly attempt to interfere with access to the freedom of speech tools, is some lame ass chit that makes it so i can;t tell the difference between a true trumper and any other rando authoritarian a hole.


This confused me a little because you seem to be all over the place on this one. Please help me understand your position better.

You are correct in that currently the US abides by the First Amendment and does not have a legal definition of "Hate Speech" - whether something like that truly exists is a debatable exercise but irrelevant to the conversation because Social Media companies are A: Multi-National and B: Do not feel a need to base their terms of service around US Constitutional Law.

This is where the debate between Platform and Publisher begins...

The companies involved do not claim to support Free Speech, and this is why I am confused by your position. The companies involved are asking for Facebook to broaden their definition of "Hate Speech" so as to censor those ideas\arguments that they do not like. We saw this earlier this week when the other social media platforms took the sickle and hammer  (See what I did there) to their sites and banned a whole slew of content.

To be fair, many of those companies backed away simply because the atmosphere was too divisive and they didn't want to lose any portion of market share by being seen as actually taking a side, but it had the same effect.

So the two questions at hand are:

1: Do you believe there should be a legal definition of "Hate Speech"?
I say no.

2: Do you believe Social media platforms should be legally looked at as Publishers or Platforms?
A: I would like to see them both act and be treated as Platforms, but if they continue to censor based upon rules outside of the First Amendment then they are acting as Publishers and should be treated legally as such.

It is in this context that I support Facebook's stance on this issue.

What is your position?
 
2020-07-02 12:55:39 PM  
1 vote:
I haven't been on the book in a couple years, but back then the hate spewed by the right and left was getting pretty bad. I can only imagine it is much worse now.
 
2020-07-02 12:17:38 PM  
1 vote:
The Zook's handlers have been trying to teach him how to smile normally.
Fark user imageView Full Size

Thus far they have been unsuccessful.
Still the Dark Prince of The Uncanny Valley.
 
2020-07-02 12:15:14 PM  
1 vote:

firefly212: Facebook is well on its way to being the next MySpace... good riddance.


I swear the invisible hand of the market is mentally challenged
 
2020-07-02 12:05:58 PM  
1 vote:
Time to stop using face book.  If you are anti trump, and you should be, you MUST delete your Facebook account.  And if you are in a state like CA, have FB erase your data.
 
2020-07-02 11:38:44 AM  
1 vote:

inglixthemad: That's a nice brave act boyo. We'll see if you keep saying that when the share price is going down hard. My guess is you'll knuckle under to stay rich.


I hope the Board of Directors will step in soon.  FB has already lost something like $60B in market capital, and the BoD has a fiduciary duty to rein in a rogue CEO.  They don't act, they get sued by the other shareholders.  Zuck won't pay; the Directors will.

Oh, to see Zuck booted as the CEO of his baby...
 
2020-07-02 11:29:51 AM  
1 vote:

Sumo Surfer: Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China


People who are to moronic to understand a simple concept like Free Speech, are in fact, morons, like you.
 
2020-07-02 10:42:41 AM  
1 vote:

baronm: waxbeans: Artist: UberDave: The thing is, with most people, I don't think Facebook is "convincing" them of anything they didn't already subscribe to.  It just allows people with dip-shiat, emotionally driven beliefs to group together and embolden each other.  And that group becomes so solid that no actual facts or proof or logic will penetrate it.  Even if one of them, a family member, friend from high school, whatever, is arguing the negative against five people in a news feed, they *know* the group is there for them to fall back to.

Aaannnddd......this always comes to mind......

[Fark user image image 850x637]

The collective from Star wars next generation

"Star wars next generation"?  That's either matter-antimatter level trolling, or else one of the best brainfarts ever!


All of the above.
About to be 10 am my time.
Got a good buzz going.
I use voice to text.
Meant to say Star trek.
I'm pretty sure I did say Star trek.
Saw that it  was Star wars

But not soon enough
And part of me was meh
 
2020-07-02 10:35:47 AM  
1 vote:

Sumo Surfer: Good. The liberal left has broadened their definition of "hate speech" to the point of absurdity, and freedom of speech is only okay as long as you agree with them.

I don't use Facebook nor care for Zuckerburg, but kudos to him for standing up against the stupidity and supporting free speech. He is correct and advertisers will be back. They certainly don't have a problem advertising in countries like China


Hate is not speech we've just convinced ourselves that is
 
2020-07-02 10:33:50 AM  
1 vote:

ThieveryCorp: So you guys all realize this is a fake narrative right? Facebook has been notorious for disenfranchising the right on their platform. Now they're being accused of helping the right and disenfranchising the left? Something isn't right here. We are being lied to our faces. Who can really sit here and feel confident that these corporations really have us in mind, especially after keeping up with recent news cycles that have been contradictory to this manufactured narrative.


Money money baller baller bling bling
America is about capitalism
There's no left or right

There's

second quarter earnings
 
2020-07-02 10:30:28 AM  
1 vote:

holdmybones: I"m sure russia and china will happily continue to shovel him money to drive a wedge between our citizens. Not that we need a lot of help.


Oh yeah I'd so make friends with racist white people if it wasn't for Facebook
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.