Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Decides Which Killings We're Allowed to See
Minutes after a police shooting took place in the Falcon Heights suburbs of Minnesota, a Facebook Live video was published on the social juggernaut website. The death of Philando Castile, 32, was documented in harrowing detail thanks to the live streaming tool offered by the social media giant. The 10-minute video was streamed via smartphone by a woman identified in media reports as Diamond Reynolds. She narrates the video with a mix of eerie calm and anguish. The video was removed from Facebook due to, as company says, a "technical glitch." The video has since been restored, but with a "Warning -- Graphic Video," disclaimer. Motherboard notes that Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos, and that there's a pattern in these so called glitches -- as they happen very often time after a questionable content is streamed. This makes one wonder whether it is up to Facebook to decide which kind of controversial videos one should be able to watch The publication writes: As Facebook continues to build out its Live video platform, the world's most popular social network has become the de-facto choice for important, breaking, and controversial videos. Several times, Facebook has blocked political or newsworthy content only to later say that the removal was a "technical glitch" or an "error." Nearly two-thirds of Americans get their news from social media, and two thirds of Facebook users say they use the site to get news. If Facebook is going to become the middleman that delivers the world's most popular news events to the masses, technical glitches and erroneous content removals could be devastating to information dissemination efforts. More importantly, Facebook has become the self-appointed gatekeeper for what is acceptable content to show the public, which is an incredibly important and powerful position to be in. By censoring anything, Facebook has created the expectation that there are rules for using its platform (most would agree that some rules are necessary). But because the public relies on the website so much, Facebook's rules and judgments have an outsized impact on public debate.
Facebook is a private company. Facebook users' data (i.e., the "people catalog" data) are the product it sells. Facebook can do whatever it wants, and allow whatever it wants to be shown on its site.
Newspapers can decline to cover whatever stories they wish. TV news can decline to show whatever footage they wish. Facebook is a private company, and can block whatever content it chooses to block.
The only really scary thing here is the fact that "two thirds of Americans get their news from social media". No wonder the country is so fucked up.
Facebook is not the entire internet. Facebook is not even a significant percentage of the entire internet. It's also free to make up whatever the fuck it wants for rules. You're also free to choose whether or not to use it. Hell, you can use it and, brace yourselves now, also use other websites. I'll wait for your head to stop spinning.
News at 11: CNN, Reuters, ABC, WashPo, Huffington, Faux News, and every other news source also decide which killings, rapes, assaults, incidents, political mishaps and weather event to report.
Companies back biased reporting. News at 11
The phrase is "film at eleven" - you're hearing this on the news, so the news is now".
But yes, we've already seen Facebook uses their platform to support their political objectives. That's been obvious for a while really, and most conservatives have left Facebook/Twitter/etc to avoid supporting them in any way. No doubt that was the goal of progressives all along, or anyway delights them.
But an echo chamber that feeds directly into your selection bias is harmful to everyone. Sadly, that's all we seem to have these days, in both new media and old - it's on you to read both conservative and liberal blogs (or, for the elderly, both listen to talk radio and read the paper). Just realize that social media is a progressive echo chamber these days, so you're not going to find perspective if all you consume is social media, MSNBC, and liberal blogs.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
so comcast can do DPI and remove bad review on there ISP link right?
Reality has a liberal bias, so the conservatives fled Facebook because they are unhappy with reality. They went to actual walled gardens to hide from the truth, and Facebook, recognizing the users left, displayed a "bias" towards their customers.
Learn to love Alaska
Reality has a liberal bias, so the conservatives fled Facebook because they are unhappy with reality.
This is what confirmation bias looks like. When you're part of the "community-based reality", everything your read or hear shows how smart you are, and what idiots the fools on the other side must be - after all, you never see evidence to the contrary!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
I can tell you what's out of balance because I've said it here before. Facebook, Twitter, and friends have become the new AOL. The younger generation has precious little concept of the "internet." For them, the "internet" is their news feed on Facebook. I know a bunch of people that don't even bother to use Google anymore even though Google is a household name. I hear uninformed people talk about the "dark web," and they aren't referring to tor sites, they're referring to anything outside of the smartphone apps that constitute their walled garden social media experience.
This is Slashdot, so the audience here is a little older and more technically minded than most. For me, my first exposure to the internet was Usenet, then IRC, both completely uncensored mediums with no corporate agenda. That's what we think of when we think of the internet but we're squarely in the minority. Hell, even sites like Slashdot have occasionally had to censor comments and that was before they had corporate overlords to answer to.
It's not that Facebook is inherently evil, it's just that it's a large for-profit corporation; they started by censoring what's politically popular to censor, hate speech, ISIS videos, and the like, because they don't want their name tarnished by the association. Then they expanded to censoring other things -- firearms are no longer allowed to be sold in their marketplaces -- that have limited mainstream appeal, because they concluded that the cost benefit wasn't there for them.
In theory, what they do with hate speech is no different than Applebee's declining to host the local KKK's meet and greet, but in practice they've become so large that they're essentially a gatekeeper to the online community, and as noted it's hardly limited to hate speech. Once you decide that you're going to censor your platform -- and the motivations are too strong to resist for a for-profit enterprise -- it's obvious that you're not going to be able to stop at "hate speech," however defined.
I don't know what the solution to this is but it does sadden me when I think of how we escaped AOL only to replace it with Facebook and Twitter.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
How about we stop having panicky gunmen micromanage everyone's driving?
Why can Facebook decide to pull a video but a baker can't decide not to bake a cake?
Usually it's not the baking that's the issue, it's the delivery... But you have a good point..
If Facebook was pulling videos based upon the poster's expressed sexual preference he might have a good point. But as far as I can tell, they don't, so he doesn't.
If the glitch is due to a video being slashdotted, then the complaint becomes Facebook's lack of transparency about the cause. I imagine that a notice to the following effect might have been better received: "This video has become incredibly popular. Please wait a moment while we prepare to handle the crowd."
How is this any different from what the newspapers and or TV news used to do ? Editors and in some cases for TV the FCC always ruled over what could and would be published, and often it took a day or 2 before that happened. In the age of instant gratification people expect the news to be available seconds after it happened, or as it happens but that doesn't allow for any sort of verification or fact checking. The power of social media can be wonderful or terrible, it has shown great and horrible things, but without clarification we've seen what a misunderstanding can do to someone's life, and I think we can see that kind of instant publicity often drives what some people can and will do. In some cases it is better not give the bad guys what they want but to sensor some details to aid in criminal investigation and preserve the privacy and dignity of victims or families. I think there is certainly room for discussion and some rules need to be established for what can and will be seen. There are other ways to publish video content, e.g. YouTube and if Facebook becomes undependable or tyrannical then some other source of app will fill in the gap.
Note : I don't use Facebook but manage to keep abreast of current events.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
It is all pretty straightforward.
(1) Media make money when they hide nudity.
(2) Media make money when they show violence.
These two rules are used over and over again because...
(3) Companies want to maximize profit and have not the slightest care nor concern for human beings
I come here for the love
Is that a reasonable assumption? For the first couple of years I lived in the US I don't think it was obvious to me that I should even stay in the car when pulled over. When if my wallet was in my bag in the back of the car? No reason to take it into the front just in case I'm pulled over, after all, especially when you come from a part of the world that has no requirement to carry identification in the car in the first place. Certainly back in the UK I wouldn't assume I couldn't leave the car. This peculiar interaction where the driver has to follow careful rules that are only practically spread through word of mouth and watching TV shows, just in case the cop gets nervous, isn't really optimal, and I don't think assuming that "everyone knows" is a reasonable view of the world..
You can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual preference. You can discriminate based on whether or not somebody decides to wear a shirt. This is the way it is because at large, we deem it to be fair and prevent people from being discriminated against based on characteristics that are fundamental to living as they want or were born.
We don't deem being able to live your entire life without wearing a shirt to be fundamental to living your life freely. Pretty fucking simple.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Put yourself in the Cop's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.
1. Limit movements as much as possible when the cop is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your license, insurance card and registration out onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio.
2. Make sure the officer can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, roll down your tinted windows.
3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Sir, my insurance card is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my insurance card out of the center console now."
4. No matter what the cop tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the cop is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any searches, refuse the 'may I look in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No officer, I do not consent to a search of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the officer is in the wrong, complain LATER.
5. Remember that the officer usually just wants to walk away from the traffic stop alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the officer feeling safe, by showing your hands, moving slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. An officer who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.
I remember a time when I got pulled over in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was I got pulled over). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my driver's license out while sitting in the car so I explained to the officer the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my wallet from my back pocket and my license from it. I showed him both hands before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his weapon in hand. I let him approach me to get the license. Where I think I deserved the ticket, he didn't write one. But I could have been easily been shot because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor cops, dead of night, car full of people, some 6'6" guy in a long coat reaching into his back pocket. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How much are you willing to bet that Facebook doesn't receive National Security Letters with a gag order instructing them to voluntarily remove dangerous content? Just because Facebook can legally censor, doesn't mean that the censorship Facebook is doing is in fact legal, and even if it were it doesn't mean we have to approve of it.
Legality =/= Morality
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Lowering the windows is especially important if your state allows you to tint all of the side windows."
This is a good suggestion, and I will incorporate it into my submission routine.
Too bad there's no way to remove the tint from our skins during a traffic stop.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Put yourself in the Rapists's shoes and THINK about what they are concerned about, preferably in advance, and don't do anything stupid and you are very unlikely to get shot. Here are my rules.
1. Limit movements as much as possible when the rapist is near the car (both you and your passengers). Get your panties, bra, and pants off onto the dash if you can before they arrive but be sure to be ready to sit still and spread your legs open before they approach. Have EVERYBODY in the car put their empty hands in their laps and sit quietly. STAY IN THE CAR, unless instructed otherwise and turn off that radio if it's playing anything other than sweet sweet Luther Van Dross.
2. Make sure the rapist can see as much as possible. Turn on interior lights, but don't roll down your tinted windows. It let's the stank out.
3. IF you need to move or reach for something, ASK PERMISSION. "Master, my lube is in the center console. May I reach for it?" Then announce what you are doing "OK, I'm going to get my lube out of the center console now."
4. No matter what the rapist tells you to do, COMPLY, even if you don't think the rapist is acting lawfully. If you are one of those who has purposed not to consent to any rapings, refuse the 'may I put my dick in your trunk?" requests with a polite "No Papi, I do not consent to a penetration of my trunk" but ALWAYS be respectful, nonthreatening and compliant as much as you can. If you really believe the rapist is in the wrong, complain NEVER.
5. Remember that the rapist usually just wants to walk away from the raping alive. And that this is one of the most dangerous thing they do. If you go out of your way to keep the rapist feeling safe, by showing your tits, gyrating slow and not being threatening in your attitude you will make their day that much easier. A rapist who is more relaxed is more likely to let you go with a warning too, so who knows, all your efforts may pay off.
I remember a time when I got pulled over by a rapist in the dead of night with 5 people in a 69VW Bug. I stopped, turned on the dome light and had to tell a girl in the back to keep quiet (she was going off about how unfair it was that I was gonna get raped). It was cold and I had my winter jacket on. There was no way I was going to get my pants off while sitting in the car so I explained to the rapist the issue. I asked if I could get out of my car. He gave me permission and I got out, stood facing away from him and pulled my jeans and thong down. I showed him both holes before I turned around and wasn't surprised that he had his cock in hand. I let him approach me to get the pussy. Where I think I deserved the raping, he didn't gimme one. But I could have been easily been shot and raped because that kind of stop is incredibly dangerous tor rapists, dead of night, car full of people, some 5'6" gal in a long coat reaching towards his zipper. I kept him as comfortable as I could by being as non-threatening as I could and I think it paid off for me.