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.
It is Their Site. So they make Their rules.
Based on their business model.
They're only permitting the naughty-bits of human bodies in settings "generally recognized as art." It's just so much more dangerous to society to see the image of a female nipple or other male/female naughty-bits than it is to see live-streamed images of graphic violence. (Notwithstanding the fact that we all have those same bits ourselves, simply covered by clothing.)
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
And my wallet! If I'm too sad I cannot spend my money the way you want!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
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.
Seems there's a typo in the title, the above text was left out.
Newspaper editors never did this, right?
Gently reply
There are two distinct parts to this topic:
Note that FB has usage rights and they could censor stuff, and they do. They block terrorist propaganda, for example. The question here is should it be an all or nothing, or as-decided-by-FB? Regarding the lawsuits, note that in the U.S. there are number of protections on media reporting of minors (as an example). If FB allows such reporting unfiltered, can they be held accountable? I would hope not, but it depends on what the court would agree.
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.
a while back there was an ap you could get for your phone that was just for this kind of thing.
where did it vanish to??
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.
Before we fall into minority hysteria over Facebook mind control, it's important to note that the control of news has been in upheaval since the rise of the internet. And if social media is bias, its biggest competitor--whoever's flashy headline reaches the top of search engine results--is even more so. The internet has given us the means to insulate our selves from detracting opinions at a level that rivals--or perhaps mirrors--the days of isolated, like-minded communities. It has also given us unprecedented ability to seek out news from a reliable, (reasonably) unbiased source.
If there to be any indignancy about the way that Facebook presents news, it should be directed at those who choose to use it for news, and hopefully take the form of encouraging them to do better.
If they make a mistake and refuse to show something, there are many other options to post your stuff.
If it is truly newsworthy, one of the others will publicize it, and Facebook will be the one that bears most of the consequences of their mistake.
Story is not interesting, or worth commenting on (except to say that it is not worth commenting on). Never should have been greenlit
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The problem is that too many people are using it and expecting it to conform to whatever they want it to be. It is their website, they can do what they want with it. Similarly if you created a video that you want people to see, you have the right to take it wherever you want. If one site doesn't want to show it the way you want it shown, take it somewhere else. People treat facebook as if it is the entire fucking web; they have this power only because people have given it to them (intentionally or not).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If you're a software engineer or a system administrator, you probably already know exactly what the technical glitches are. People are trying to throw a shitfit without understanding technology. "Facebook" isn't just a single server with a single purpose. Information has to be distributed from the content source to the content consumers. If an account normally has a reach of 5-10 viewers, it is easy to have them stream internally though a single server that is handling several streams at once. They are shoved on this particular data delivery path based on past low viewer counts... then all of a sudden they stream something that hits a 100k+ reach? Yes, the content then needs to be moved to high capacity and more dedicated servers. This isn't an instant process. The easiest explanation to the laymen is a "technical glitch", because how many people outside of technology even know what a server or routing digital data even is? This exact scenario DOES happen with other content too, but only when it involves something controversial does it become a conspiracy and censorship theory. A great example of other content that has had this exact issue was the selfie taken at the Grammys that had overf 1,000,000 shares. Yes, that took out an entire Twitter datacenter. Not just a server, the whole datacenter went offline for some time.
facebook isn't deciding anything. there are hundreds of places to post your videos, and it's virtually pennies to spin up your own web-site and host a few videos on your own infrestructure.
second, it's been a long time since we've had public blood sports and hangings and executions. Does anyone want to see crimes live? No news media outlet has shown that kind of stuff in my lifetime. I have no desire to see it either.
It's not censorship just because facebook takes it down. Censorship is about ensuring that a person doesn't see it. Facebook is simply culturing their own environment, saying that such content won't be in this one place. That's not censorship any more than no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service. That's not censoring bare feet; it's just running a restaurant; you can be barefoot elsewhere.
I won't let you have sex in my home, by the way. I'm not censoring sex. I'm controlling my household. You've got your own household.
It's the all-purpose solution to every complaint. Also, I'm sure Facebook supports this sort of regulation elsewhere. Why not apply it where it's needed most?
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
"...Facebook has become the de-facto platform for such controversial videos..."
And how the hell did anyone come up with this, as if YouTube suddenly disappeared overnight?
Give me a break. The world does not revolve around one social media platform. I wish more Facebook narcissists would realize that.
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.
most conservatives have left Facebook/Twitter/etc
I really, really doubt that's true, unless by 'conservative' you mean some subset of 'non-RINOs' whose numbers are too small to really worry about anyway
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And that's why they left facebook, to live in their bubble. AT least you seem to get it, you need to take the time to delve into both sides to get any type of insight. If you are a "liberal" or "progressive" which I can't ignore the fact that you are using as derogatory terms, you need to take in as much from the other side as possible. If you are a conservative or whatever term you want to toss out, you need to listen to what's coming from the liberal side too, because both groups are living in a confirmation bias bubble. Being mostly in the middle I've noticed a trend. Inventing bullshit arguments and creating strawmen.... from both sides. It's funny though because you attempted to trash on AK, but you ignored the fact that you, yourself, posted this: "No doubt that was the goal of progressives all along, or anyway delights them." So who is living in the fantasy bubble? The people using facebook, the people who left, or the dude who thinks this was all a huge "progressive" conspiracy?
I am what you would call a "progressive", and I detest FB.
However, I have conservative relatives who use FB a lot and have their own echo chamber of "news" from what they get through FB.
It works both ways.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Eh... what's the point when those 'biased selections' see only the vase or the kissing people? It's not like there's some middle truth that we'll find for ourselves by broadening our perspective. Indeed, I'd argue that the whole present-both-sides-and-let-viewers-decide myth is exactly what got us to the point you're decrying. Once there was no longer a reputable, respected source willing to call bullshit on bad arguments, there doesn't appear to be any reason not to just drop the arguments your demographic doesn't like.
It has made us more cowardly, though. I'd probably actually vote for the first Republican to stand up and say, "you know, I don't care what the statistics are, I believe my right to protect-myself theater is more important than your right not to have dangerous shit around you" or "of course there's global warming, I just don't think we should do anything about it because that'd be bad for people I like."
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car. If it's night, turn your dome light on so he can see inside the car.
I was pulled over one night for speeding, and happened to have my camera tripod on the passenger seat. The officer asked what it was, and I made the mistake of reaching over to grab it so he could get a better view. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw the officer reach for his gun. They are extremely jumpy about any sudden movements with your hands. Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.
As for Facebook, what probably happened is when you upload a video it gets put onto a single server that happens to host your FB wall. If the video goes viral, it needs to be moved to a higher capacity server or server farm, to better handle the load.
It would seem that the alternative view to conservatism among the IT giants (Google, FB, Twitter, etc.) isn't liberalism but neoliberalism of the free market kind: Silicon Valley was founded mostly by Ayn Rand enthusiasts. Even the "liberal" Jimmy Wales is a self-proclaimed Objectivist and graduate of Chicago School economics (think Milton Friedman who himself was a young protégé of Ayn Rand). The liberal media collapsed in the USA a while back and only exists in a few non-profit, independent, small-scale outlets. But yes, we need all voices and views represented in a democracy.
...so expect the MSM to hype every local shooting of a black person by a police officer as IMPORTANT! NATIONAL! NEWS! between now and November.
By contrast, crimes committed by illegal aliens and Muslim immigrants will be quickly swept under the rug as not fitting the narrative...
If people are getting all their information through Facebook, then THAT's the real problem.
To what extent is ISPs' exclusion of Facebook traffic from subscribers' monthly data allowance one of the causes of that problem? Zero rating has contributed to misuse of Wikimedia Commons to share infringing copies of non-free video.
Facebook is transmitted over airwaves that are leased/owned by private telecom companies. The public has little say in what these common carriers are allowed to transmit in cases like this.
Even if the telecom companies choose to include Facebook and Wikipedia without charge but bill the user by the bit for viewing any other website? The public, as lessor of the airwaves, can impose "net neutrality" rules to end this practice.
NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NY times, etc etc etc.
You are thinking of the 'openly communist' media. Even there they hold up their propaganda tradition with 'Democracy Now' (News from a non-reality based perspective).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A shot might have been in some papers. But the story at the time was her wig flew off her head. The picture is so grainy you can't tell what it is.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
People treat facebook as if it is the entire fucking web; they have this power only because people have given it to them (intentionally or not).
It's intentional. See Internet.org Free Basics.
That's been obvious for a while really, and most conservatives have left Facebook/Twitter/etc to avoid supporting them in any way.
Most conservatives have left Facebook? Who votes up this bilge.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Why hasn't there been a drop in the number of Facebook or Twitter hits daily?
Claiming the media is against you is a well-established political sport. It's just noise. We live in a world now where everything that we don't like must be a conspiracy, because our feelings can't possibly be wrong.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Except nobody left Facebook. It's just a bunch of people posting their Goodbye Cruel World messages - on Facebook. Then checking in to see how many "likes" they got for quitting Facebook. And then rage-quitting for ten minutes.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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 ?
This always confused me. My entire life, I have lived in the Central Time Zone, and we get our film at 10PM every night.
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
Im not part of the community. You are the only one desperate to hear how smart you are. I see evidence for both sides, and weigh it up. That you can't doesn't mean nobody else can.
Learn to love Alaska
So somehow Facebook is causing other web sites to charge for content and access? This is Facebook's "intentional" result of providing their service for free? Are you even listening to yourself?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
People would be better off using the National Enquirer for news than facebook.
Just watched this last night, while I've heard of the issues with content moderators previously, this is the first time I've seen it all laid out including the censorship of legal political parties. Also to be found in the usual places if you'd like a download.
Facebookistan Site
Watch on YouTube Facebookistan english version
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Wow. So you ran a red light and now you deserve to die because you reached for your glovebox out of habit. Land of the free indeed.
Yeah. I remember all the propaganda about the nazi and commie secret police, and how we were the land of the free.
Well, they say that one becomes what one hates, so, here we are.
The largest prison population in the world.
Land of the free indeed.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
First of all, the whole "technical glitch" claim when this new "live content" is suddenly pulled *could* be legitimate. I'm not saying Facebook has done much to deserve the benefit of the doubt based on its actions in the past.... but it's quite possible these live streams of very popular "breaking news story" type content are overloading the servers they're getting hosted on. Maybe FB has to pull stuff when it gets too many simultaneous views and move it elsewhere, to keep it from impacting performance of the rest of the site? I don't know what they have to juggle behind the scenes to keep everything working properly, but I imagine there's a lot of this manual intervention required. Even our MS Exchange mail hosting service has struggles with automatic load-balancers and regularly pins the blame on them when strange things start happening with devices not receiving mail.
Second, I think there have to be some expectations set with "social media" as a whole. Just because social media sites are adding capabilities like live-streaming video doesn't make them a substitute for a commercial news station. At best, they have the same status as your run of the mill blogger. Certainly, some breaking news happens thanks to these sites distributing it first. But there's no guarantee the content will reliably stay online to reference it for others to view or read it, and it's liable to be presented with a strong bias attached.
IMO, there's a weird symbiotic relationship between news media and social media going on. While social media is happy to grab up a lot of the "eyeballs" that would traditionally have watched television news or read printed news instead? The news media benefits, in turn, by selectively rebroadcasting some of the content, straight from social media sites, vs. incurring the expense of sending news teams to record that content themselves all the time. Even if we're talking only printed news -- they can literally break new stories based solely on what they saw happen or read about on social media.
Everybody does that, and everybody has their thumb on the scale. You too, accept it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
News agencies are curators of content, while Facebook is a platform. Facebook is to this video what the signal band is to a CNN video.
But this is patently untrue, because if you had ever been on Facebook, you would know that at one time or another pretty much everybody on Facebook has bitched about Facebook messing up their "news feed," prioritizing some posts over others and inserting ads.
Breakfast served all day!
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".
Sorry kid wizard, you don't get to create the cliches, society as a whole does that. And "news at 11" is a standard cliche. You might as well get over it now, because it was already a cliche when you created your account.
As for the actual real-world usage that the cliche is from, you're wrong there too; the standard cliche is of an advertisement that teases the stories that will be on the news, later. The news isn't "now" in this situation. Right now is evening soaps or sitcoms. News is at 11.
A google search literally turns up transcripts of news teaser spots, mixed in with cliche uses and simple ads for 11' news.
Intelligent people don't have to make a show of "leaving," they still have accounts if they have people who they might want to contact who use that as their primary contact, they simply don't make casual use of the service.
I have better things to do with my time. Slashdot use shows that I do have some time to simply fritter away. But I meter it. Most people have some time they fritter frivolously. It seems reasonable to say that intelligent people do not spend all day on facebook, or a similar activity. However, making a show of it serves no purpose.
Like if I point out that I don't watch TV, except for PBS sometimes. It does nothing to say I don't watch TV. There is no positive effect. But saying "except for PBS" joins a public debate over how to manage the resource, and what content has unsatisfied latent demand. Listen carefully to No-TV-Guy; often he's making a political statement, not just bragging.
Anyone know how to get around the stupid "real name policy"? I go by a different name due to my association with the fringe art community, and they are trying to force me to upload ID that shows my real name, which I've heard then locks you into using that name. I don't need potential employers knowing that I shoot nude pics for fun.
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Nope. The truly impartial are the cynics. If I hate everyone equally, I'm not biased, but still think both sides are packed with liars.
Learn to love Alaska
None of us are equally cynical about all things.
You have bias in your observations, same as anybody.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Has nobody heard of Stephen Colbert?
"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert.
Learn to love Alaska
You have bias in your observations, same as anybody.
And by denying the bias in his observations, he's even less capable of recognizing its influence on his thinking. Behold the ideologue.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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.
What's happening is that Facebook is paying ISPs to make Facebook and Wikipedia available without charge, while billing people for data when accessing any other site. It's a paywall imposed by the ISP to which the viewer subscribes, not by the operators of completing sites.
Why hasn't there been a drop in the number of Facebook or Twitter hits daily?
Good stats on this are hard to find. Perhaps there already has been a drop:
http://fortune.com/2016/04/07/...
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
Most people have some time they fritter frivolously.
Try saying "fritter frivolously on Facebook" ten times fast.
It's only confirmation bias when the other side isn't actually idiots.
This year, and Trump success in particular, has provided the final and very hefty proof that the other side is, in fact, dominated by idiots (and, perhaps, people who are too afraid to challenge idiots).
Sapienti sat.
You have to admit that, because right wing beliefs conflict with observable facts that much more often (not saying that left wing doesn't do it - but they don't do it quite as often, and quite to that extent), at this point it's largely their sport.
In the past couple of years, they've started extending this to various fact-checking websites and services, probably due to the sheer number of bullshit that those have pointed out that is readily sourced to right wing politicians.
The article is about a dip in the number of "personal shares" where people share something or tweet something about themselves, personally. More people are using both platforms as passive news/media sites. If you visit any of the main Conservative hubs on Facebook, you'll find that most of the entries aren't personal shares anyway, but are usually them re-sharing pictures of Hillary photoshopped riding a broomstick or variations on various racist or antisemitic themes. Occasionally one will share something like this:
https://youtu.be/8Yagjf5B2tw
You are welcome on my lawn.
Censoring their own site is one thing if they admit to doing it, and something else if they lie about what's going on.
IIUC, exercising this kind of control over what's available makes them legally liable for everything that gets posted. Some DA ought to test that.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And you believe in things you can't know. You believe me an ideologue because someone else accused me of being biased, and I laughed at that assertion, as it didn't even indicate a bias. "You lean politically" That's true of everyone, and has no meaning. "Bias" in a practical sense indicates a specific bias in a specific direction.
And you apply an illogical catch-22. Anyone who is aware of bias can better recognize them (and thus, is less biased) and anyone who denies a bias must be more biased than someone who claims to have one. You sound like the idiots who don't understand Dunning-Kruger. Experts label themselves experts. Idiots over-estimate their skills. So all experts would claim to be, and some idiots would claim to be. So the pool of self-identified experts may contain either. And the idiots here who misuse that, claim that Dunning-Kruger means that anyone who claims to be an expert is obviously an idiot who doesn't know enough to know he's an idiot.
Learn to love Alaska
I think that was the Colbert joke. When you are so right, everything else looks left, including the middle, and reality.
Learn to love Alaska
Hillary is bad, but she's the "same old" kind of bad. It's kind of like a chronic headache that people get used to over time. You can live with it, and while it does impede you, it doesn't kill or incapacitate you.
Trump is more like getting your leg broken kind of bad. With a bone sticking out and all.
And your understanding of Trump, and of his supporters, is informed by something other than the mainstream media, social media, and liberal blogs?
People who have lost their job, and would like to see less immigration that directly competes with them, are idiots? I hear that story quite often by non-Trumpkins here on Slashdot on every H1-B story.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
My understanding of Trump and his supporters is informed by direct interaction with them. I am a pro-gun liberal (it's a bit more complicated, but it'll do for now), and so my social circles, both online and IRL, involve a considerable slice of right wing, from libertarians to tea party militia types. And, yes, Trump supporters.
These people are idiots not because of what they want (though some of that is also extremely and obviously misguided), but because they believe that Trump will actually deliver it, and also because they completely ignore the price that the country would have to pay even if (or rather, precisely because) he does all that he promise. Trump's platform is right-wing authoritarian populism, complete with a personality cult - basically one step away from fascism, and some would argue that even said step is mostly nominal. It's not a valid option for anyone who has even the slightest shred of care or respect for constitutional rights, due process etc.
What's happening is that Facebook is paying ISPs to make Facebook and Wikipedia available without charge, while billing people for data when accessing any other site. It's a paywall imposed by the ISP to which the viewer subscribes, not by the operators of completing sites.
I suspect that would not be as helpful for facebook as they like to think. Sure, they get the brownie points for helping people see their site for free, but facebook is not the reason why facebook exists. They don't actually exist to help you stay on top of your cousin's favorite coffee drink and your high school best friend's uncle's neighbor's dog groomer's dentist's son's favorite public restroom. The purpose of facebook is, of course, to sell personal data to vendors and advertisers. Hence if the users aren't accessing the sites that are paying to advertise on facebook - because they have to pay data charges to do it - facebook isn't getting paid by those vendors and advertisers.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
But given this is Slashdot..
http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm...
As grandmothers are more active on Facebook the young flee from it. Hopefully this will only speed that up.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
This is just one of those reasons I don't use facebook, and why I believe more people shouldn't.
Yes, it's convenient. But that's about it's only pro...
Trump's platform is right-wing authoritarian populism, complete with a personality cult - basically one step away from fascism
Ah, so Trump is Hitler.
Well, given that Reagan is Hitler, and Bush Sr and Jr are both Hitler, I've learned to be OK with Hitler for president.
Or maybe, just maybe, there's a bit of media bias at work in these popular beliefs.
There have been many incidents of mob violence against Trump supporters (in one case while police wathed approvingly), plus the attempted assassination of Trump recently, so the evidence about "due process" etc seems different than the spin, at least to me.
But all of this is very hypothetical to the guy without a job concerned about immigration. I find myself tired of the arrogance of people who dismiss the other side as "idiots" simply because they don't have the same value or priorities.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Or maybe, just maybe, because some (bad) people have been improperly accused of it, doesn't mean that the accusation is never valid. Trump is not Hitler, but he's the closest any presidential candidate in this country has come to that figure.
Like I said, my observations are direct. I don't need the media to tell me that most Trumpkins are either naive, idiots, or "fuck you so long as I get mine" sociopaths. I've seen them myself. I've talked to them. They told me what they are.
Hell, I've had a Trump supporter tell me that his hope is that once Trump comes to power, "he'll throw some leftists out of helicopters, like they did in Chile to save the country" - and doubled down on it when I challenged him. And no other supporter in that group contradicted him; so, at best, even if they don't agree with this, they don't disagree enough to not look the other way, if it gets them what they want.
But, of course, it's all just a harmless political movement for jobs and against immigration. I must have misheard or something.
Found this on 'The Register' - The deadly shooting of 32-year-old Philando Castile by a cop during a routine traffic stop in Minnesota on Wednesday just got murkier. Multiple sources have told The Register that police removed video footage of Castile's death from Facebook, potentially tampering with evidence. Castile, his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, and her four-year-old daughter were pulled over by police in the Falcon Heights suburb of Minneapolis for a broken tail light. Using her cellphone and Facebook Live, Reynolds web-streamed footage of her dying boyfriend after he was shot by a police officer as he reached for his ID in his wallet. The video was mysteriously removed from her Facebook profile as it went viral across the internet. On Thursday, Facebook said a âoetechnical glitch" caused the recording to be pulled from its social network. However, Reynolds claimed officers seized her phone and took over her Facebook account to delete the evidence. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
V for Vendetta: People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
I quit using Facebook about 6 months ago. It sucks. Several times I have missed events or scheduled events that overlapped others, because I am out of the loop. I think if I moved to a city, there would be more diversity in notifications.
You showed them.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I was trying to understand your response, and I just realized my post was ambiguous. I meant that it sucks for me to not use Facebook, not that I quit using Facebook because "It sucks."
MSNBC unabashedly and enthusiastically support the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton as the next president. How is that liberal or even remotely left-wing?