Facebook are evil

[ohmyliver]

What is Slack exactly? Ive had a look at the website but nonethewiser

Imagine if MSN Messenger and LinkedIn had a baby....

It's actually not a bad workplace chat tool, so long as you're using the full version, as it basically creates a searchable archive of chats you've had, which is handy if you're slack about taking notes.

 

[NoXion]

When I was first introduced to Slack I was like, "oh, so it's Discord for businesses".

 

[hitmouse]

Facebook’s first ever drop in daily users prompts Meta shares to tumble

Mark Zuckerberg says company faces tough competition for attention from rivals such as TikTok

www.theguardian.com

I know share prices are made up nonsense and that but still, $200 billion!

 

[hitmouse]

Oh please

Meta warns it may shut down Facebook and Instagram in Europe

The drama continues for Mark Zuckerberg whose company last week reported it lost daily active users for the first time in its history.

www.euronews.com

Thinking about it, does Brexit mean that we'd miss out on Mexit, or do we still count as European for that purpose?

 

[Chilli.s]

Just stopped using Google as a search engine in chrome and now Duckduckgo, it blocks all the extra tracking arsebook do that I didn't notice, including quite a few things that get posted here on U75. Did that a few weeks ago so I like to think that I'm responsible for that drop in share value

 

[magneze]

Facebook allows posts with violent speech toward Russian soldiers in specific countries

Facebook’s policy exception applies in Ukraine

www.theverge.com

We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.).

Who makes these decisions? Is it Nick Clegg?

 

[strung out]

Facebook allows posts with violent speech toward Russian soldiers in specific countries

Facebook’s policy exception applies in Ukraine

www.theverge.com

Who makes these decisions? Is it Nick Clegg?

It's a pragmatic decision. How on earth would they be able to moderate people's discussion of resistance against Russian invasion otherwise?

 

[magneze]

It's a pragmatic decision. How on earth would they be able to moderate people's discussion of resistance against Russian invasion otherwise?

Maybe read it?

 

[strung out]

Maybe read it?

Sorry, I just don't give a shit if facebook wants to allow people in Ukraine and other countries nearby to discuss resisting Russian invaders with violence.

 

[magneze]

Sorry, I just don't give a shit if facebook wants to allow people in Ukraine and other countries nearby to discuss resisting Russian invaders with violence.

That's not what's allowed though.

We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it’s clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.).

It seems like violent speech against all Russians is now allowed in nearby countries.

Those that will have large but minority Russian populations.

Think about the potential consequences of this on a platform with the reach of Facebook.

Think about how this will be spun within Russia in order to further prop up Putin.

The fact you don't give a shit about this speaks volumes. It's potentially catastrophic but yeah, who gives a shit.

 

[strung out]

That's not what's allowed though.

It seems like violent speech against all Russians is now allowed in nearby countries.

Those that will have large but minority Russian populations.

Think about the potential consequences of this on a platform with the reach of Facebook.

Think about how this will be spun within Russia in order to further prop up Putin.

The fact you don't give a shit about this speaks volumes. It's potentially catastrophic but yeah, who gives a shit.

It doesn't say that, it says Russians where the context is clearly the Russian invasion of Ukraine, e.g. self defense.

Like I said, it's a pragmatic approach to stop them having to moderate tens of thousands of comments that will be talking about the defense of their countries against Russian aggression.

Fuck Facebook, obviously, but also fuck censorship of mean words against Russian soldiers and Russian invaders.

 

[magneze]

Missing the point again. It's not just soldiers.

 

[strung out]

Missing the point again. It's not just soldiers.

Yeah, it's also Russians in the context of self defense and Russian invasion.

 

[magneze]

Yep, no grey area here. It's all fine.

 

[two sheds]

Would it be allowed to say "I want to bomb the Russians like Russia's bombing Ukrainians" for example?

 

[strung out]

Yep, no grey area here. It's all fine.

Sometimes life has grey areas.

I recognise it's shit, but on balance it's better that those under threat of Russian force have the freedom to talk about violent resistance to that force (either in practical terms or in the abstract), than to ban all violent speech completely from those threatened peoples.

 

[magneze]

I can't force you to read it, but I would like you to try again because it's incredibly problematic for the reasons I've already stated.

Note, for example, the countries outside of Ukraine that are included: Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

 

[strung out]

I can't force you to read it, but I would like you to try again because it's incredibly problematic for the reasons I've already stated.

Note, for example, the countries outside of Ukraine that are included: Russia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.

I did read it. Yes, those are the countries that are directly impacted by Russian aggression and/or contain large numbers of Ukrainian refugees. I think they should have the right to discuss violent resistance against their occupiers or those who are threatening it. You don't think they should, in case innocent Russians get caught up in the consequences of those discussions. Neither solution is perfect, but I think free speech and supporting victims/potential victims of Russian aggression is important enough in this case to allow it.

 

[magneze]

I did read it. Yes, those are the countries that are directly impacted by Russian aggression and/or contain large numbers of Ukrainian refugees. I think they should have the right to discuss violent resistance against their occupiers or those who are threatening it. You don't think they should, in case innocent Russians get caught up in the consequences of those discussions. Neither solution is perfect, but I think free speech and supporting victims/potential victims of Russian aggression is important enough in this case to allow it.

Let's hope it doesn't end up like this: Rohingya sue Facebook for £150bn over Myanmar genocide

 

[On Fire]

Facebook are not getting so much bad publicity recently.

 

[magneze]

Facebook Employees Flag Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers. The Company’s Response Is Weak, Documents Show.

Employees raised alarms about how the site is used in developing countries, where its user base is already huge and expanding. In many instances Facebook’s response is inadequate or nothing at all.

www.wsj.com

Yep, Facebook is all fixed now. Apart from the death squads, human trafficking and organ selling.

 

[welovebadgers]

Facebook are not getting so much bad publicity recently.

To be fair, there have been other more pressing events occupying the media Right now.

 

[magneze]

Update on the allowed violent content. Not allowed for Putin, just the soldiers, many of whom will be conscripts and normal Russians. What a ridiculous knot they've put themselves in.

Facebook and Instagram users not allowed to call for death of Putin

Update from parent company Meta says ‘calls for the death of a head of state’ are banned

www.theguardian.com

 

[magneze]

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed suit against The Artist Formerly Known As Facebook over its publication of ads allegedly featuring celebrities peddling a supposedly surefire-route to cryptocurrency riches.

The regulator has gone after Meta under Oz consumer law that prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive conduct, and under investment laws.

The ads in question featured celebs, TV hosts, and politicians seemingly hyping up cryptocurrency and other money-making schemes. None of the people depicted had given permission, and the ads were fraudulent, we're told. Those unlucky enough to fall for the fake ads were contacted by scammers that the ACCC claimed "used high pressure tactics, such as repeated phone calls, to convince users to deposit funds into the fake schemes."

The regulator alleges Facebook (as it was then) knew about the situation and was even alerted by some of the public figures falsely depicted as fronting the scheme, but still did not act to stop the ads appearing.

Meta sued for 'aiding and abetting' cryptocurrency scammers

Watchdog claims Facebook parent sat on its hands as fake ads fleeced netizens

www.theregister.com

 

[rubbershoes]

One good thing is that FB has stopped suggesting random anti-vaxxers and Trumpers as friends

 

[hitmouse]

Say what you like about facebook, but at least they're cracking down on discrimination against... landlords?

 

[Throbbing Angel]

Say what you like about facebook, but at least they're cracking down on discrimination against... landlords?

FFS

I'm off to retweet that

 

[two sheds]

Fair point though - landlords being genetic condition is the nearest on that list.

 

[RubyToogood]

That's most likely an algorithm-generated decision and is equally unlikely to be reviewed by a human.

When my (entirely free) knitting group experimented with having an extra meeting every month I was suddenly prevented from inviting anyone other than my personal friends to any of the meetings at all. Couldn't invite any of the other members of the group. I was a spammer and that was that. It's made promoting it very difficult. In theory GDPR gives you a right of appeal against algorithmic decisions but in practice... LOL.

 

[magneze]

Facebook Doesn’t Know What It Does With Your Data, Or Where It Goes: Leaked Document​

“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data,” Facebook engineers say in leaked document.

Facebook is facing what it describes internally as a “tsunami” of privacy regulations all over the world, which will force the company to dramatically change how it deals with users’ personal data. And the “fundamental” problem, the company admits, is that Facebook has no idea where all of its user data goes, or what it’s doing with it, according to a leaked internal document obtained by Motherboard.

“We’ve built systems with open borders. The result of these open systems and open culture is well described with an analogy: Imagine you hold a bottle of ink in your hand. This bottle of ink is a mixture of all kinds of user data (3PD, 1PD, SCD, Europe, etc.) You pour that ink into a lake of water (our open data systems; our open culture) … and it flows … everywhere,” the document read. “How do you put that ink back in the bottle? How do you organize it again, such that it only flows to the allowed places in the lake?”

(3PD means third-party data; 1PD means first-party data; SCD means sensitive categories data.)

Facebook Doesn’t Know What It Does With Your Data, Or Where It Goes: Leaked Document

“We do not have an adequate level of control and explainability over how our systems use data,” Facebook engineers say in leaked document.

www.vice.com

Which kind of begs the question that I think might have been asked earlier in the thread ... what if Facebook can't be fixed?