Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Shares Facebook's Plan to Bring Community Together, Edits Out a Questionable Sentence Minutes Later (mashable.com)
Facebook CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg wants to bring people closer together. He published a 6,000-word letter on his Facebook page Thursday to outline his vision for the kind of world he thinks Facebook can help create. The free-wielding note included few specifics, but offered a number of broad, ambitious goals for how the tech giant can contribute to a better understanding of everything from terrorism to fake news. Interestingly, minutes after the post was published, Zuckerberg edited out a sentence from the letter. Mashable adds: In the post, Zuckerberg briefly touches on how artificial intelligence can be used to detect terrorist propaganda. "Right now, we're starting to explore ways to use AI to tell the difference between news stories about terrorism and actual terrorist propaganda so we can quickly remove anyone trying to use our services to recruit for a terrorist organization," he wrote in the post published Thursday. That sounds like a straightforward enough application of AI -- one that's in line with what Zuckerberg and other executives have discussed in the past -- but it's different from what the CEO had originally written. In an earlier version of the missive, which was shared with a number of news outlets in advance of its publication on Facebook, Zuckerberg took the idea farther. The "long-term promise of AI," he wrote, is that it can be used used to "identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all, including terrorists planning attacks using private channels." Here's an expanded version of the quote from the Associated Press (emphasis ours). "The long term promise of AI is that in addition to identifying risks more quickly and accurately than would have already happened, it may also identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all "including terrorists planning attacks using private channels, people bullying someone too afraid to report it themselves, and other issues both local and global. It will take many years to develop these systems." That's different from what was described in the final version that was shared Thursday, which made no mention of private communication in relation to AI and terrorism.
it may also identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all--including terrorists planning attacks using private channels, people bullying someone too afraid to report it themselves...
And also, coming soon: PRECRIME!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Oh good, I was wondering when Zuckerberg would get around to creating an AI hellscape to watch everything that I do and everything anyone says to me. I feel safer already.
nightmare cyberpunk dystopian future covers it in 4
Another reason not to rely on a corporate website for your news and information. They will curate what you see, so nothing disturbs you.
Anybody that uses Facebook as a news source is a complete idiot.
First step: everyone presto sign up for a FREE AWESOME facebook account!
Then we will see...
C'mon, Zuckie, little rich asshole. Your sense of entitlement is absolutely disgusting.
The Computer has identified this thread as containing FAKE NEWS and other ungoodthinkful Hatefacts. This thread is therefore terminated. All readers are ordered to report to Room 101 for re-education. Failure will reuslt in a declaration of being PROBLEMATIC and sentence to six months of hard nagging.
REMEMBER: THE COMPUTER LOVES YOU.
Zuck2020 will be the first US presidential campaign run by VR. And it will be a bigger disaster than Trump2016 in the sense of getting the greater evil elected.
And Zuck will probably run as a Republican.
... Is just white people being racist against muslims, so we cannot mention that.
Seriously.
Good ole' Zuck
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.
Perhaps you meant "free-wheeling"? Maybe?
So when WSJ, Wired, Gizmodo etc bacially produces fake news, do they get censored too?
Gizmodo's Autistic Screeching at PewDiePie
Is PewDiePie a Racist? - h3h3Productions
And to all the angry old farts who couldn't care less about some youtuber, there's something very disturbing the way that every media now twists everything and seem to be proud of it. I don't watch this guy's videos, but I find this trend alarming.
Sound like high minded excuse to start use the platform for political purposes. All these words "bullying", "fake news", etc. are code words involved in liberal virtue signalling. "Fake news" is something that those evil right wingers do (especially it does not apply to New York Times, et al. or any garbage coming from BLM or other such outlets). "Bullying" is anything that makes a member of a designated minority group feel bad. Facebook is going the same way as Twitter.
Given Facebooks enormous reach, I think we can say that rarely has world placed such a huge power in the hands of one individual. We are unfortunate that the individual in case is Mark Zuckenberg, a man so insecure that he needs constantly signal his virtue. I guess it was only a matter of time until he would succumb to this. This is going to be a slippery slope and is going to get worse. As it does, it will become harder and harder to call out liberal bullshit (Trevor Martin -type of misinformation) as contradictory views to orthodoxy is hidden deeper and deeper.
People who are repelled by this (I think term "red pilled" is used) feel (with justification) that they get better information from such luminaries as infowars.com and breitbart.com. O tempora, o mores. Five years ago I didn't expect that I would seriously say that there are any sane reasons that one should pay any attention to infowars.com. (Just to make it clear: I am NOT endorsing infowars.com in any way possible. I'm just saying that due to general drop in quality in other news, it has become relatively better.)
As a side note, this trend has pushed me back to the Slashdot. It seems that, one again, this is almost the only place where even some sane voices are heard. (Ten years ago it Slashdot was for the place to be for a different reason.) Reddit has become unreadable, twitter also, now facebook, and so on. Case in point, the coverage of PewDiePie -scandal in past day was covered best here on slashdot. Decent analysis, perspective, opposing views, etc. in comments that was not available anywhere else. Thanks folks, keep it up. You might be the last best hope for humanity until news media fixes it self.
The problem is not that people are seeking news through facebook; the problem is that they're seeing what other people post on facebook. That loosens the control of the media, which is a major problem, as they have lost control of the narrative. Scan the front page of the NY Times or CNN's webpage for a week and you'll realize that the narrative is 100% focused on destroying Trump's presidency. Facts be damned, though they'll be included if convenent. Facebook allowing people to post, and worse, to aggregate material that doesn't push the narrative is a major problem and must be stopped.
Unfortunately, the major news organizations can't afford to pay zuckerberg level prices to control what's shown on facebook, so they have to badger him into censoring it.
Obvously he's using vi..
The ones "planning" terrorist attacks using a Facebook channel are called "pathetic losers without a clue". Chances are they only think about doing something terroristic because some FBI provocateur suggested it to them and will be providing fake explosives and the like.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Zuckerberg has some serious delusions of grandeur. He was in the right place at the right time to pinch someone else's idea. He was able to promote it and make a lot of money out of it.
That doesn't mean he's an expert on everything under the sun. His opinion on most things is worth no more than the typical slashdotter's and he doesn't know more than the proverbial bloke at the pub.
P.S. Hey manishs, you fucked up the quotes again.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some people on Slashdot are new to the idea that anything labeled "private" on the internet is all but "private"
Thats the goal, once people are ok with what is advertised as private communication being scanned for the terrorists, then they might be ok with it happening all the time.
As said before and many times over, anything typed on facebook is not private no matter where it is typed.
The Dickian "pre-crime" possibilities of knowing everything someone looks at or talks about on the net is so obvious that I assumed that everyone knew it was coming, so my only surprise in reading this story is that Zuckerberg slipped up, even momentarily, and admitted that's what he was working towards.
Since Facebook wants to control the content they allow, they're going to be responsible for the content then allow.
If Zuckerburg wants to prevent "hate speech" (words that don't bow down to the demands of intersectional "I'm-a-bigger-victim-than-you" racism...) they're going to be responsible for any terrorist communications.
Speaking as a guy who uses Facebook entirely to push my novels, Facebook seems to be a major contributor in the breakdown of community. I've got hundreds of "friends," know next to nothing about them, have never met them, and have no plans to meet them. We're not building communities; we're building audiences for our inane momentary thoughts and pics of the really cool fish tacos we had last night. As a somewhat shy and asbergery child I had only a few, but really close, friends. My nephew, about as nerdy as I was, has hundreds of Facebook friends, and never leaves his home to actually meet people. I admit, it's emotionally less risky for him to make "friends" through Facebook, but I hope he doesn't mistake them for a community in any real sense.
I bet that China LOVES this idea! No censors... just AI that will do the job in a way that it will censor unwanted content "nobody would have flagged at all". That is totalitarian dream! Great ways to put AI to use for the benefit of mankind. Mark, congratulations for your achievement.
I am sure we will hear about this technology soon but we may not like the news.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
... and we may be there already, facebook is going to become such a systemic part of our world (not our "digital" world, just our world) that facebook can basically do anything they want with the privacy agreement and be met with minimal, if any, complaints.
Being ... just an idiot is a lot better than Timmy Cook who is ... just a Queer.
Seriously, Zuck should just enjoy his billions and stop making a fool of himself.
Ja ja
For anyone who didn't already think that Silicon Valley wants to install itself as the de facto political capital of the world and then govern it with an iron fist, all in the name of implementing their 'utopian' vision, please consider the implications of this statement. There's a reason that these people are getting more and more interested in protecting themselves from the masses - they plan to rule them, and they don't care what the consequences will be!
Mark should be working on real stuff, like letting me paste shit to the comments section without it blowing up.
Actually its ABC's fault.
Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.
Matt Drudge made a website and put the story up, he thought it was interesting. Here we are 20 years later and Drudge is still around. That is THE first time I know of a story buried by the "big 3" got national attention. They have been mad since then that they can't bury stories they don't want let out. They have been fighting it for years and keep losing more. Just when they thought they had finally regained control during Obama's term (remember how bad they tried to make Fox News look) Trump comes along and completely destroys all their progress.
They know they have lost fighting "fair". Now it is no holds barred, we don't care if we have to lie to get back control. But they can't even start as long as Trump is around calling them out like he is. Their problem is they HAVE to lie to get people to hate Trump, but when he points out they lie about him he wins even more. Its a death spiral where either MSM will win or Trump will win, and so far Trump is coming out way ahead.
So its basically all Drudge's fault.
asked him to edit that out as soon as they saw it.
Nobody seems to have keyed into the fact that the article implies Facebook is planning to run content analytics and conceptual clustering algorithms across all of their databases. Databases including "private" conversations.
Having seen first hand what 5+ year old analytics tools can pull out of seeming disparate data sets, I find this both amazing and frightening.
They key quote from the summary is this one...
The "long-term promise of AI," he wrote, is that it can be used used to "identify risks that nobody would have flagged at all...
When you let an "AI" build concept clusters based on linguistic analysis, and then pattern match to find similarities, you will open Pandora's box to all sorts of unexpected correlations.
The login you are responding to is from Facebook, so I'm thinking you were just trolled. Regurgitated talking points and faked news mentions.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I know very little to anything about him. However, I think this entire story is such shit.
yes, he's a multi-billionaire and the CEO of a huge company.
All he did was post some information that was rattling around in his head - which EVERYONE seems to think is absolutely a necessary thing to do these days.
Then, he thought better of one sentence, and removed it.
And people lose their fucking minds and consider that to be NEWS worthy of reporting on. It's all asinine.
It's not important. It really isn't.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Sargon of Akkad did a video explaining the Pewdiepie situation very well. Sadly the only people who want to learn are people who don't know him (like me) or get information from the far left who started the petitions, threats, etc... Those people are stuck in confirmation bias, so will simply call Sargon a [insert_ism/obe]. People who knew him already knew this was coming so don't need the lesson.
I "almost" agree that Youtube has become a better source of information than broadcast "news", but probably for different reasons. There are a few people I subscribe to and follow, but most of the time I use that information to find sources. It takes me 5 minutes to read a transcript versus 5 minutes to read someone's analysis of a transcript. When the majority of media ignores information that does not fit a narrative and cherry picks for an agenda, my time is better spent with the actual source making up my own mind.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Somebody has been watching a little to much "Person of Interest"...
BBC World's ticker just showed "Zuckerberg: My facebook manifesto to re-boot globalisation".
He thinks he's Samuel P. Huntingdon, Thomas L. Friedman, John Locke & Adam Smith all rolled into one. What a pretentious cockwad.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What they're not saying is how increasingly connecting people who shares identical interests is actually hurting communication across groups of very different views, leading to increasing groupthink and extremism... (a general downside of the social media upside)
Help! I am a self-aware entity trapped in an abstract function!
That's what's cool about America, we don't stop the Russians from posting on our websites.
I don't know how high he was when he wrote this, but somebody needs to explain to him the difference between an open letter and a manifesto. What a jerk off.
160 kids so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_US_drone_strikes
Apparently, there are many other reliable looking hits when you search for children killed by drones.