Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Needs To Protect Human Rights Issue, Civil Groups Say (cnet.com)
Facebook needs to be more forthcoming about the kinds of content it takes down. That's according to 73 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Black Lives Matter, SumOfUs and more, who signed a letter sent to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. From a report on CNET: The group asks for more clarity on the social networking giant's position on removing video and other content that highlight civil rights issues at the behest of authorities. The growing importance of Facebook in your life means it plays a central role in the news, video and content you see. That was made horrifyingly clear over the summer when its Facebook Live streaming video tool was used to broadcast the shooting of a black man by a police officer in Minnesota. The next day, the medium was used to broadcast a sniper firing shots at police officer at another civil rights demonstration. "With the onset of Facebook Live, your company is taking on an increasingly central role in controlling media that circulates through the public sphere," the letter said. "News is not just getting shared on Facebook: it's getting broken there."
"News is not just getting shared on Facebook: it's getting broken there." That sounds like a quote from the news industry not real people. The news gets broken when it goes to the networks, everyone knows it yet here we are talking about facebook again.
I'm waiting for what feels like will soon be Facebook becoming passe. Does anyone care about the Facebook live garbage? Does anyone find ANY useful content there at all?
Sure, there's a place for your cousin's kids' Halloween pics, but the content you mildly care about is drowned in a sea of garbage, political nonsense, rants and raves, and a news feed that is almost exclusively "XXX shared XXX" anymore. (Facebook is suffering from many maladies, not the least of which is being ruined by "Shared" the way the RT ruined Twitter)
It's ironic - like parents dressing like teenagers and adopting (what they think is) current slang, the more Facebook tries to be relevant the less relevant it becomes.
I believe we need to hold Facebook to the same high standards of Journalism (Accuracy, objectivity, ethics, unbiased and verified) as we do the major media outlets like Fox, CNN, NYT, NPR, and Rolling Stone Magazine.
(Thank goodness nobody can see my face as I typed that)
We wouldn't need to make a company do the people's bidding if people made use of the Internet instead of Zuckernet. Stop putting everything behind those walls.
Hey look, 18 friends are on Facebook Live at the same time! Everybody wants to be a rockstar!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It would be really nice if Facebook would do more to protect and promote civil rights but they're under no obligation to under the law. They're a private, for profit corporation, and as such, they're not required to protect civil rights. The only legal requirements that corporation has are that it not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity, and age.
Well, yes and no.
The children and hipster types will have long since moved on, but it is still massively used for older folks (25 yrs and up) to keep in touch with their family members... and that much-higher-disposable-income demographic is probably much more to Facebook's liking insofar as advertising revenue is concerned.
Given that, I don't think Facebook particularly cares right now if the kids think it's passe', because even the younger crowd will likely still keep an account handy, if only to talk to their parents, siblings, (maybe) cousins, etc.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The irony is that many of those same SJW's want Facebook, Twitter, et. al. to take down content that disagrees with them ("disagrees with my position = "hate speech" in SJW-World, of course). So, a more accurate summary might be "SJW's demand to know what content Facebook is taking down so they can make sure that they're is only taking down anti-SJW content."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Plenty of people in the world choose not to participate in this "social network" - that is what these groups should be campaigning against. They have no impetus as a private company to do anything except make money for their shareholders. People hold the power because they are producing free content on a daily basis to Facebook, but they'd rather be vain and self centered than pull themselves away from the site.
That list of organizations reminds me of the "Life of Brian". "The People's Front of Judea" belongs on that list along with "Students for Justice in Palestine" and "Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights"
"The growing importance of Facebook in your life means it plays a central role in the news, video and content you see." (aka they have too much power over what you see so we want some of it too)
And just go with the legal requirements of the jurisdiction. Facebook gives us plenty of control over what we see. If a friend of yours is offensive you have plenty of options ranging from blocking news sources from a friend to defriending the person. Social media companies should be far more neutral and just tell people to STFU when they complain about content they're seeing because they provide the tools needed to block content you don't want to see.
Facebook Needs To Protect Human Rights Issue, Civil Groups Say
That headline seems to have got a bit garbled. They're not being told to protect "a human rights issue", whatever that means, but just "human rights."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"this firsthand evidence does not support my mental narrative! It's bigoted and hate-filled!"
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
"I have a right not to be offended!"
News Flash - SJWs think Facebook should push their causes more.
I am a bit astonished someone might rely on FB for news at all. It's ancillary at best for that. And, like the article states, they lie left and right about what is important.
There are lots of web sites out there with much better (and even biased in your way or non-biased) news on them. No need to rely on the one.
Twitter and Youtube are rather lousy in this regard too...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
News Flash - SJWs think Facebook should push their causes more.
I am a bit astonished someone might rely on FB for news at all.
Are you really astonished, when so many people rely on Stephen Colbert, whatever they're calling The Daley Show now, and Saturday Night Live for news?
I am a bit astonished someone might rely on FB for news at all.
Why? - Every news organisation on the planet has a FB page.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle, he is the poster boy for what used to be called "useful idiots".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Back to theocracies, monarchies, kingdoms flooding US social media with their cash for access.
Users think they are using a free, protected US platform.
Or will a clean up of any negative comments be policy to keep the easy funding flowing?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"