Slashdot Mirror


Mark Zuckerberg's Real Campaign: Save Facebook (axios.com)

From an Axios report: Mark Zuckerberg started 2017 scoffing at the idea of Russia election manipulation on Facebook, and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency. Facebook's CEO ends 2017 a very changed man: scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists, and to save the most powerful platform in human history. A Facebook exec tells us: "This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."

158 comments

  1. Save that Thing we KNOW.... by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 1

    Is Damaging Society and Personal Relationships ACROSS THE GLOBE! (Cough, Cough, Bullshit) LET IT BURN! Go OUTSIDE and see your Friends FACE TO FACE!

    1. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fuck you, Zuckerburger.

      Start by changing your stupid Hr department, who routinely discriminate against age, and keep black lists of people critical about HR SJW practices.

      That's my real personal experience.

    2. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by gnick · · Score: 0

      Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.

      [citation needed]

      Why do you think FB users hate it? They seem to have a pretty dedicated following. Most of the FB hate I see is from people who've decided that FB users are too stupid to set their own privacy limits. I have an account and find it useful and entertaining. It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content. I follow legitimate news sources, so I see legitimate news, and I'm friends with intelligent people so I have intelligent discussions.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the "legitimate" sources are buried under zillion tons of pure crap. Why would I waste my time browsing through ad-riddled pages of FB when I can get better structured and better presented articles elsewhere?
      In case you wonder, FB mobile webpage is purposefully slow as shit, to force you into their app with no adblock.

    4. Re:Save that Thing we KNOW.... by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      You only say that because you want to sell your games.
      However my Facebook messages are mostly around the following.
      a: What time are we around for a game of GURPS?
      b: Actually I am not ready for a GURPS session, how about if we play munchkin.
      a: That sounds good, I am free Saturday
      b: Saturday works how about you c
      c: Yea Saturday works

      The real problem is that people seem to want to friend everyone, including toxic people for them. So other then friendly communication you are bombarded with political rambling, or baby pictures, or photos of all their travels.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Well, the "legitimate" sources are buried under zillion tons of pure crap.

      The same could be said of news sources in general. If you look for crap, you'll find it, but good sources aren't hard to find. I follow CNN, CNN International, and BBC News. I trust them and have not seen a headline from any of them that I'd call "fake".

      Why would I waste my time browsing through ad-riddled pages of FB when I can get better structured and better presented articles elsewhere?

      I often see posts from my news sources that aren't featured on their main pages but are interesting to me. Note that these headlines in my FB feed are in addition to what I see on their sites, not a replacement.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by Ranbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people detest facebook, even those who use it.

      ...They seem to have a pretty dedicated following. ...It is entirely what you make of it. If you friend mostly idiots that just post pics of their dinner, you'll just see a bunch of dinner pics. If you friend informative sources, you'll see informative content.....

      Agreed. Facebook is what you make of it. People blame Facebook instead of evaluating their own behavior and interactions that make Facebook what it is.

      Human nature/psychology is more likely to react to, respond, and share inane, extreme, and negative stuff than it is to intelligent, moderate, nuanced stuff, so naturally the former floats to the top of many Facebook users "experience." This phenomenon is not unique to Facebook though... Just look at the Slashdot commentary and note how often the negative, angry, and sometimes unabashed trolling comments generate the most responses [like the original post in this very discussion]. Humanity's fundamental fascination with conflict and cat pictures won't be cured by destroying Facebook. Killing Facebook would be like cutting off the head of a hydra, where two [or more] options would arise in its place fulfill people's desire for conflict and cat pictures, whether they are aware of their desires or not.

    7. Re:Save that Thing we KNOW.... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Facebook is not only unnecessary for that use case, it's hard to for me to see what value it brings that exceeds the cost of using Facebook.

    8. Re:Save that Thing we KNOW.... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that people seem to want to friend everyone, including toxic people for them. So other then friendly communication you are bombarded with political rambling, or baby pictures, or photos of all their travels.

      Some (many?) certainly do. But just like reading no lower than 2 on Slashdot, I can unfollow friends on Facebook and no one gets booboo feelings. They are still friends, I just don't have to read their rants unless they address me.

      However - I had to go Facebook for what I am working on. It really sucks, so my viewpoint is probably non-standard.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Most people are too stupid to realize they hate it. Only after someone they trust and respect suggests that they remove it from their phone do they consider the possibility of doing so and after removing do they experience the freedom of not being mindfucked more than usual. Facebook use was recently classified as a mental heath disorder.

      https://games.slashdot.org/sto...

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    10. Re: Save that Thing we KNOW.... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Most people are too stupid to realize they hate it.

      There are all KINDS of things I think I enjoy. Which ones am I too dumb to realize I don't like? If I find out that I hate ice cream and orgasms I'll be crushed!

      Facebook use was recently classified as a mental heath disorder.

      https://games.slashdot.org/sto...

      Facebook is not a video game. Even if it was, use is not necessarily excessive use.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. most powerful platform in human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most powerful platform in human history

    1. Re: most powerful platform in human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that made me lol too

    2. Re: most powerful platform in human history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double lol. Presidency? They clearly smoke some good (or maybe really bad!) shit in the valley. I don't know who they think gives a rat's ass.

    3. Re: most powerful platform in human history by ale2011 · · Score: 1

      I recently quit expecting someone to be appreciable just because people elected him POTUS

  3. Most powerful? No. Quickest? Yes by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 0

    the most powerful platform in human history

    I would say religions have been and still are far more powerful (yes religion is a "platform", just not a technological one). FB is just faster, but certainly not more powerful.

    I agree with none of these platforms.

    1. Re:Most powerful? No. Quickest? Yes by sittingnut · · Score: 0

      ... religion is a "platform"..

      I agree with none of these platforms.

      you seem to love your ability not to "agree" irrelevantly about vague terms like "religion" and "platform" . if you were more rational and informed, you would define those terms and then state your disagreement specifically in a forum that was discussing them.
      but to ask that from you would be unfair. huh?

    2. Re:Most powerful? No. Quickest? Yes by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      But then think about this. You really think that ALL of Facebook has the same opinion? That anything published on Facebook becomes unanimous thought? FB is a big collection of trolls, clickbaits and, sometimes, real influencers. But there is no way in hell a unique point of view on Facebook.

      Each religious current can differ slightly, but they tend to agree on some general principles. And MOST religious currents tend to have some very well positionned influencers in governments, police and law enforcement agencies. Sometimes they even run the government (mostly in middleeast countries) This is what makes them extremely powerful, compared to the small FB folks who tend to disappear after short lived glory.

      Power does not mean majority. Look at who's REALLY deciding about what's going on in your life. Banks, governments, big businesses. Yes FB can have a little influence, but "The most powerful platform in human history"? This gave me a good laugh.

    3. Re:Most powerful? No. Quickest? Yes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I don't take that point as a given either.

      and to save the most powerful platform in human history.

      If that's what Zuckerwhateverhisnameis actually believes, then a couple of Ayatollahs, several Muftis, a Bodhisatva or two, the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Orthodox church are waiting in a dark alley for him with baseball bats. After a re-education at their hands (and slippers, and censers), they'll throw his pain-wracked self into the Pit of Protestants, where numbers and insecurity will really make him seriously at-risk.

      Many people want to hide themselves in a crowd - which is what platforms are for. It's also why they're becoming increasingly eroded, as the cult of the Overinflated Ego becomes the working paradigm for more and more people. Facebook may well be a major player to the overinflation of egos, but it's far from entering an empty playing field, and the competition have centuries more practice at practical human psychology.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Decided on a Facebook hiatus this month. Frankly, I don’t really feel I miss much and I posted frequently. Sometimes, you think “this is cool, I should share it”. That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes. I conclude that it really wasn’t that important then.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    1. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      60 days facebook free. Deleted my account and will never look back.

    2. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, you think “this is cool, I should share it”. That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes.

      I keep a "temp.doc" open to jot down my witticisms before posting them to FB. Most of them never get copied out of that document because I decide they weren't that interesting after coming back for a second reflection. On /. I just post whatever nonsense pops into my head.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a plan to me!

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    4. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      28 and counting ;-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    5. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Most people who get off of Fakebook and TWITter find that they don't miss them at all. People can maintain contact with relatives and friends just as well through email, voice chat etc... These data mining sites need to be shut down, and all data erased from their servers. These so called "social media" sites will always be abused to collect and sell people's private data. What we really need is for data collection and tracking people's internet usage to be outlawed, with triple digit mandatory jail sentences with no possibility of parol, and mandatory 7 digit fines for breaking those laws!!

    6. Re: Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      End of 2008 for me. Recently used it through my partners account to see a particular group page for a recent Kickstarter I backed and was at first reconsidering joining again, but after only a short time I realised it was not a good idea.

    7. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax. You won't need it anymore.

      My advice: create a new account with no friends, full privacy, everything "ME" because you will eventually need to check on Companies that only "exist" online via Facebook.

      In march it's gonna be three (3) years since I deleted my account.

      There is NOTHING interesting or worth it on Facebook, trust me.
      Distant family I contact via a whatsapp Group when needed.

    8. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know this was a Facebook Anonymous meeting.

      Good thing I posted AC

      Oh, and while I'm here, everybody's talking about 'Russian' influence. What about the girlies, eh?

      My team helps candidates, political parties, elected officials and governments around the globe use Facebook effectively to engage with people in those countries. The Politics and Government Outreach team has grown from three to seven in the last two years. We are globally focused and have worked extensively, for example, on elections in the UK this year, as well as the 2014 elections in India, Brazil, Indonesia and the U.S.

      Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
      They leave the West behind
      And Moscow girls make me sing and shout
      That Georgia's always on my mind

    9. Re: Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      I deleted my Facebook account five or six years ago, and I've been happy about that decision ever since.

      Any organization (Kickstarter-based or not) that has Facebook as the only means of contacting them is an organization that I am not engaging with. No loss to me.

    10. Re: Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      I see your point but it wasn't clear the main user group would be a Facebook based forum at the time. There is a technical non Facebook forum but it's a bit dry.

    11. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not delete my account. But I just do not go there anymore. Around 2012 the interface did what I wanted it to. Then like youtube they A/B tested the thing into what their high engagement users do. At that point my feeds became dominated by 3-5 high volume people I know. They live on the thing. They goto the bank, Facebook post. They ate an amazing dinner, Facebook post. They are listening to some CD from the early 80s, Facebook post. Their candidate is losing/winning, Facebook post. Some political drivel about how evil someone is for liking something they do not like (hey I Iike that guess I am evil), facebook post. I then remember *WHY* I stopped hanging around these people. Well facebook connected me again to them. Well I stopped hanging with them again which means not using facebook. That is Facebooks problem not really mine.

      Facebook thinks if they can just filter out 'bad things' people will come back. It is not what they post. It is who is posting their drivel again. Facebook can not control that. When I connect to them on the next platform (and there will be a next one) they will do the same thing.

    12. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Decided on a slashdot hiatus this month. Frankly, I don't really feel I miss much and I RTFS frequently. Sometimes, you think "this is news for nerds, I should comment on it." That feeling usually drops away after 10 minutes. I conclude that it really wasn't that important then.

      Dammit...

    13. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so true. deleted my facebook for 3 years as well as LinkedIn. no real change noticed other than a lot of free time to enjoy looking around outside, walking, libraries, planting stuff, watering and mowing, exercise, .. came back and restored my profile the way I really wanted it.. more matured, more understanding, more simple.

      check FB like once per month now.. LinkedIn about once every two or three weeks.. dang.. i am getting a lot done too.. ps. don't watch tv, but love youtube and watching documentaries.. hulu is pretty cool for a bit.. netflix... so-so.... until all the good marvel comics and dc comics shows got pulled..

      happy new year! less facebook. less internet. read up on the BCP 38 Tragedy of the Commons - a good read.. edge being perfect and core being in chaos.. N to 1/N to 1/N^2 -- good stuff..

      -drew jackson

    14. Re:Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People can maintain contact with relatives and friends just as well through email, voice chat etc...

      Some of my friends abandoned email in favor of Facebook. It's a lot easier to use Facebook than to use a slow and synchronous medium rather than a fast and asynchronous one. Some of my relatives post things on Facebook that I wouldn't get in other ways.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re: Decided on a Facebook hiatus... by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Recently used it through my partners account to see a particular group page for a recent Kickstarter I backed and was at first reconsidering joining again, but after only a short time I realised it was not a good idea.

      FWIW, my father has a Facebook account that he only uses to follow a handful of Facebook groups and he has purposely not added any "friends". His hobby is bird-watching and some birding organizations he is involved with mainly use Facebook for announcements, so that's what pushed him there, but I think he has joined or liked a few other Facebook pages since. If you don't add friends to your account, then the Facebook feed is like a very customizable news aggregator.

  5. The world would be a better place without FB by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The world would be a better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would result in less outrage politics, less radicalization of loaners, less keeping up with Jonses, less depressed people, less echo chambers, safer roads, better sleep. If deleting Facebook and Twitter was a pill, we would all be taking it instead of vitamins.

    1. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      The world would be a better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would result in less outrage politics, less radicalization of loaners, less keeping up with Jonses, less depressed people, less echo chambers, safer roads, better sleep. If deleting Facebook and Twitter was a pill, we would all be taking it instead of vitamins.

      So, is less radicalization of bankers a good or a bad thing?

      Tim S.

      "less radicalization of loaners"

    2. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so snide to your lessors.

    3. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by DaMattster · · Score: 2

      The world would be a better place without Facebook and Twitter. It would result in less outrage politics, less radicalization of loaners, less keeping up with Jonses, less depressed people, less echo chambers, safer roads, better sleep. If deleting Facebook and Twitter was a pill, we would all be taking it instead of vitamins.

      Thank you! The world will be an infinitely better place without Facebook and Twitter.

    4. Re: The world would be a better place without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radical bankers are known to be dangerous. Just think of George Bailey.

    5. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      If someone want to speak like a miner, they will be replied to like a miner.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      "Loners", by the way.

      Nice for once to not be the first person to say all this. Don't forget 'millennials-and-younger people learning ACTUAL social skills'.
      Die, Facebook, die, die, die. And nothing of value was lost.

    7. Re:The world would be a better place without FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the person with an obviously aged Slashdot account.
       
      Seriously, the same things you're complaining about there are just as rampant here (maybe even more so) with just a smaller audience.

  6. President by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

    and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency

    Until he figured out that he's one of the most hated people in the world, even among the heaviest of Facebook users.

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    1. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Trump is hated only by a tiny, noisy, vacuous group of snowflakes.

    2. Re:President by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No. His dangerous foreign politics, his abuse of the Department of Justice, his behavior towards women, and the same fiscal planning that have bankrupted him 4 times applied to the US budget are sources of profound loathing.

    3. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure that 60% of the US doesn't constitute a tiny group of snowflakes. Noisy and vacuous I'll grant you, but by and large most people hate the president.

    4. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      His foreign politics are great. He finally recognized Jerusalem as the proper capital of Israel. Hopefully next he pulls the US out of the UN. I should mention the move of the embassy was voted on by Congress long before Trump. My guess is most of this nonsense about President Trump comes from all the faux experts on Facebook talking to each other.

      Why is it that the UN spends 80% of their effort concerning Israel despite it being a very tiny country and the world is full of horrible dictators butchering their people?

    5. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we survives these 4 yrs, it proves that the most important jobs on this planet is not that important. Well worth it.

    6. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump is hated only by a tiny, noisy, vacuous group of snowflakes.

      Indeed. That Gallup poll showing his all time low of 33% job approval a couple of weeks ago is just Fake News.

      Maybe you should up your meds. Or pull your head out.

      http://news.gallup.com/poll/20...

    7. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go to fivethirtyeight click on the approval ratings then net approval then compare to all presidents.

      The only one that was even close by this time, and that was briefly, was President Clinton.

      If you extend the trend forward, Reagan. Carter, Truman, and W Bush touched that level of disapproval eventually. Of those four, the last three stayed down in those ranges once they got there. (Reagan's blip was fairly brief from what I saw, presumably tied to Iran Contra, but I didn't double check.) Bush had the economy fall a part on his watch. Truman's presidency had war, nuclear weapons, mcarthyism, scandal, and strikes. Carter's had inflation and recession, as well as an energy crisis.

      What is Trump's excuse?

      I actually half expect the economy to go back into recession eventually, possibly in Trump's reign. They threw gasoline on the tire fire with the tax cuts. It may burn brighter for awhile because of it, but sooner or later the bill is going to become due.

    8. Re:President by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its hard not to read posts like the grand parents and think anything other than anti-zionism/anti-semitism and or rabid anti-Trump hysteria is behind it. The whole Jerusalem embassy thing is crazy to be upset over.
      Its simply a recognition of facts.

      1) Israel is a sovereign nation.
      2) Israel physically controls Jerusalem
      3) Israel says Jerusalem is its capital and has government offices etc there.
      4) The PLO has zero chance of occupying and controlling Jerusalem now or in the forseable future.
      1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = Yes Jerusalem is the capital of Israel; disagreeing with that is just maintaining a silly fiction.
      5) Arafat and Abbas have been offered almost everything they want in the past and walked away; they don't want peace; their idea of negotiating is demanding everything while continuing to sow hatred and encourage terrorism toward Israel and its people.
      6) The peace "process" won't be hurt by this. Current Israeli politics are no where near putting Jerusalem on the barging table again ( even if it has been there in the past ). We have been trying to help negotiate a peace for 40 years! The previous "process" was not working, you can't undermine a process that is already hopeless!
      7) Half the Senators who went on the Sunday shows to criticize the move VOTED FOR IT. Literally NOTHING of substance has changed in the past 25 years as far PLO/Israeli peace situation except domestic political sentiment; Muslims have somehow been advanced in the victim hierarchy ahead of jews.

      Maybe the GP is upset about the NATO comments Trump made. Hmm well lets see he got a commitment form our EU allies to actually hold up their end of the bargain and make the defense investments the treaty requires. Oh how terrible.

      Maybe the GP is upset with Trump's China rhetoric. Hmm well its had little impact on US-China relations that I can see, maybe its engendered a little more cooperation regarding DPRK from them as an olive branch maybe they are just seeing the light on the hazards of letting the Kims keeping developing nukes. Who even knows? - I guarantee you nobody at the State Department; not Trump appointees or career diplomats.

      Maybe the GP is upset about all the territory ISIS has lost?

      Maybe the GP is upset about the fact that the Saudis are actually reforming their terror sponsoring ways?

      Face it Trump FP policy has been at WORST a wash. At best he has actually made some minor progress advancing American's interests; something the last two administrations both failed at almost entirely.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    9. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Treason charges"? WTF are you smoking?

      Flynn was charges with lying to FBI investigators over a perfectly legal phone conversation that the FBI already had a recording of. It was a setup, start to finish - notice how Strzok didn't make any recordings of this interview despite FBI rules requiring that every interview be recorded?
      He was stupid to talk to the FBI without an appointment and without a lawyer present. That's the worst crime he's committed so far.

      "Treason", FFS, has a specific definition that he does not meet. His behavior doesn't even meet the colloquial definition. However, you DO meet the definition of a TDS sufferer - you fucking stupid troll.

    10. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL. I'm as American as they come. Born and raised in a state you probably hate: Florida (in the blue parts, I now live in the red parts). I know, it's incomprehensible that in a country of 330 million people anyone could disagree with liberal politics. Therefore anyone who voted for or supports Trump must be a Russian tool.

      SJW logic at its finest.

    11. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really can't wait for this phony narrative to die

    12. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We found the DNC shill.

    13. Re:President by arth1 · · Score: 1

      (Reagan's blip was fairly brief from what I saw, presumably tied to Iran Contra, but I didn't double check.)

      The drop in his second term, yes, was largely linked to the Iran-Contra affair.
      The rapid rise during his first term was primarily due to getting shot, and the smaller rise at the end of his term due to his deterioration. Too many people can't keep sympathy separate from job approval.

    14. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only highly technical nerds are logical. They have to be to get bits and bytes to do what they want on a daily basis.

      Most people here do not hold technical positions or are so detached from necessary reasoning that they left whatever skill they had behind in college.

    15. Re: President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are creating a problem that doesn't exist.

      These aren't left leaning people who are posting This junk, it is trolls. And you fell for it hook line and sinker.

    16. Re:President by SlovakWakko · · Score: 1

      Be careful, the above points, applied to other cases, could lead to unintended results. Try it on Crimea... :)

    17. Re:President by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Crimea - Is pretty clearly a Russian territory right now. I'd go a head and update your maps if you have not yet done so.

      They conquered it and parts of Georgia fairly recently. There does not seem to be much chance of anyone 'freeing it' anytime soon.

      I admittedly don't know what things are like there on the ground. My understanding is most people in Crimea want to be part of Russia. The Ukraine does not seem to have the wherewithal to re-take it anytime soon. I don't think they will be pulled into NATO until they release their claims upon it because clearly the existing NATO members have no appetite for an armed conflict with Russia over the peninsula.

      1) Russia physically controls it
      2) 1 is likely to stay that way
      3) The locals voted to join Russia so ostensibly they want to remain and the governing bodies there are loyal to Moscow

      Based on pretty similar logic I conclude Crimea is part of Russia. I for one am okay with that. Its not might fight. I understand how some Ukrainians might feel differently; just as some Palestinians might; but facts don't have feelings.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    18. Re:President by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may not be Russian trolls but Trump fanatics certainly are repeating what Russian trolls say.

  7. Save Facebook From What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even with the PR disaster, what does it need saving from? People continue to use it in the absence of any real competitor (Twitter caters to a different crowd and Instagram is mostly owned by Facebook anyway) and the most complaint they ever see comes from interface fuckery that's been going on 10 years now. If anything, the world needs to be saved from Facebook.

  8. bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by sittingnut · · Score: 1

    "... scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists"
    facebook founder, users, employees, and critics, all seem to live in a bubble, spouting nonsense back and forth, about a non-incident, backed with no independently verifiable evidence, made up entirely of unverified allegations about, relatively minuscule ad spending by unidentified americans with, fuzzy at best, connections several nodes removed from anything real named kremlin.

    sad.

    1. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Accusations are today's proof of guilt.

      Prima facie rules our collective perception.

      I did a test on this in high school, because I recognized the phenomenon, though didn't know the word for it. I demanded my friend give me back my coat (his coat that he was wearing) in front of the teacher: "Hey, give me back my coat!". Despite my friend's claim that it was his coat, and without anything more from me, the teacher made him give me his coat. I explained later and returned his coat.

      One test does not prove anything, but one needn't look far to see more examples.

    2. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      "... scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists" facebook founder, users, employees, and critics, all seem to live in a bubble, spouting nonsense back and forth, about a non-incident, backed with no independently verifiable evidence, made up entirely of unverified allegations about, relatively minuscule ad spending by unidentified americans with, fuzzy at best, connections several nodes removed from anything real named kremlin.

      sad.

      Hmmm. Perhaps Zuckerberg is Presidential material.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re: bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really fear some day someone will take away my child with that kind of operation.

    4. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by link-error · · Score: 1

          https://www.theguardian.com/te...

          I'd say pretty evil shit. This is just the worst I could come up with off the top of my head in which they've admitted.

      --
      -Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
    5. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by epine · · Score: 1

      I did a test on this in high school, because I recognized the phenomenon, though didn't know the word for it. I demanded my friend give me back my coat (his coat that he was wearing) in front of the teacher: "Hey, give me back my coat!".

      Are you just stirring the shit, or did you really do that?

      Most teachers have read this ancient story about the boy who cried "Wolf!". The boy is initially trusted, but ends up becoming a leprous bum living on the outskirts of town.

      "What kind of person would deliberately emulate the boy who cried 'Wolf!'?" your teacher must have said inside, "so as to accelerate gaining the kind of reputation that leads to a person becomes a leprous bum living in a dumpster on the outskirts of town?"

      A just question, my liege.

      If this ever happened, you can bet that either A) the majority of the teachers in your school sat their on graduation day (were you present?) and said "don't let the door hit you on the way out", or B) "it's about time some asshole gave it to that edgy, excitable, judgemental bitch down the hall that we all hate, and now that that's done, don't let the door hit you on the way out".

      The thing is, in high school, a cynical teacher can always count on another asshole to show up and do the asshole thing. No need for sympathy, fondness, or crocodile tears.

      Perhaps the teachers were wrong about you, and you won't wind up living in a dumpster on the edge of town, but after thousands of dumpsters filled, your average cynical teacher will draw inspiration and willpower from the law of averages every damn time.

    6. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Are you just stirring the shit, or did you really do that?..."What kind of person would deliberately emulate the boy who cried 'Wolf!'?"

      I had a theory (people tend to believe the first thing (accusation) they hear)
      I set up an experiment (falsely accuse a friend of stealing my coat in front of someone)
      I ran the experiment.
      I analyzed the results. (One result is not definitive, but does provide food for thought.)

      It's called the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it.

      As to the rest of your post: nonsensical trite that doesn't apply.

    7. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Admittedly, it doesn't. I'm just stating and supporting the parent post's claim that for most people, the truth of it doesn't matter (at least that's how I interpreted it).

      I'm sure Russians did work to influence our election. I'm also sure they've been doing this for longer than I've been alive, and that we do the same. And other nations and other elections, and all directions. It's nothing new.

    8. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you just stirring the shit, or did you really do that?..."What kind of person would deliberately emulate the boy who cried 'Wolf!'?"

      I had a theory (people tend to believe the first thing (accusation) they hear) I set up an experiment (falsely accuse a friend of stealing my coat in front of someone) I ran the experiment. I analyzed the results. (One result is not definitive, but does provide food for thought.)

      It's called the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it.

      As to the rest of your post: nonsensical trite that doesn't apply.

      Not close. Scientific method requires test of hypothesis that can fail. A teacher could not just let that go and you probably knew that.

      (posting AC as I am modding this)

    9. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen "What's the Worst That Could Happen?"
       
      Ok-ish movie, this is basically a major plot point. Thief gets caught by rich guy during robbery of home, cops show up and the rich guy says that's my ring.

    10. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice anecdote, but what does it have to do with Russian interference? There is hard evidence for it

      What hard evidence? Show us.

      posts from Russian accounts that were pretending to be westerners that went viral and got millions of views.

      1. How do you know that the accounts originated in Russia?
      2. VPNs are very popular.
      3. There are westerners in Russia.
      4. Russians pretending to be westerners does not mean that they are employed by the Russian government.

      The evidence is very strong and clear.

      No. There is no evidence, only accusations.

      Not just on Facebook either. Even Slashdot has been affected. Search comments for "AntiFa Boston" (Google works well) to see how many people that fake account tricked. Check the number of links to RT, especially around election time.

      How is any of that hard evidence which is "very strong and clear"? If a Russian agent used BBC links would that be very strong and clear evidence they were British?

    11. Re:bubble founder and his equally bubble critics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One test does not prove anything ...

      It probably proves that presumption of guilt does exist and has a major effect on one's thinking. It confirms that people support the first narrative they hear, particularly when there's a lack of evidence. It's why fake news (propaganda) or declaring "I'm a victim" is so useful.

  9. Of course he would say that by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Mark Zuckerberg started 2017 scoffing at the idea of Russia election manipulation on Facebook...

    No transparent conflict of interest in that position... [/sarcasm] Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.

    ...and looked like he was contemplating his own possible run for the presidency.

    $diety save us!

    1. Re:Of course he would say that by RedK · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course that is what he would say. Otherwise he and his company are complicit in a crime.

      The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ? The fact is : the "Facebook election manipulation" thing ended being a big nothing burger. Once the actual meat came out, we found out that again, MSM was pushing a fake news narrative of "Facebook exploitation" that just didn't happen in the way they needed to in order to make Trump look bad. He again ended being right about the MSM only being out to attack him.

      If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    2. Re:Of course he would say that by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ? Which statute does that break exactly ?

      {SJW}

      Statute?? We don't need no stinking statute.

      {/SJW}

  10. Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by timholman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Facebook's CEO ends 2017 a very changed man: scrambling to curtail (some of) the manipulation he now acknowledges exists, and to save the most powerful platform in human history.

    Hmm .... reading between the lines, I would guess that Zuckerberg's real concern is that engagement metrics are falling for Facebook users. I can't imagine that he gives a flip one way or the other about "fake news" or manipulation, as long as people use Facebook.

    Just this morning, I unfollowed yet another friend who couldn't resist screaming at everyone with yet another political post. It's getting very, very tiring. Facebook has caused friends of mine to stop speaking (in person) to each other. It's a great platform for seeing family photos, but beyond that I no longer see much utility in using a platform that exists to promote and monetize "us vs. them" mindsets.

    Facebook can't die quickly enough.

    1. Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by ka9dgx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I too am quickly getting tired of the political diatribes that just irk me, as I agree with them but just don't want to waste time in such a futile way.

      What's needed is a platform where a post, or comment, can be tagged with any number of social network sourced flags, and you can filter out those flags.

    2. Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      FB is useful for two things, Photo sharing which you mention. It its sorta fun to see people react and comment to holiday photos and photos from sporting events etc. The other thing is event announcements and automated RSVP processing. Its a nice way to keep track of how many people are coming to your BBQ.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    3. Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I think Mark is more concerned Congress might decided social media needs 'regulating.'

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re: Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly this. Face has struggled to remain not myspace, but he may have found the clock is ticking and there is not alot they can do about it.

    5. Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need it to die? Just walk away and let others live life as they see fit. Yes, it's likely somewhere between counterproductive and self defeating but they need to see that themselves. You don't carry the weight of the world, stop acting like you do and you'll feel better for it.

    6. Re:Yes, there is definitely something "wrong" by hillbluffer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Install "Social Fixer" and have it hide all political posts. https://socialfixer.com/
      Saves my sanity every time I login to FB.

  11. I'd say this is good news by rmdingler · · Score: 2

    That The Facebook needs saving is encouraging news... that seems to indicate its popularity and influence is waning.

    Even if this is true, it's sad to realize the genie is out of the bottle on this type of social media platform, and something else will replace or compete with Zuck's digital progeny.

    Here's to hoping we don't get a replacement that's actually worse, on the order of trading Saddam Hussein for ISIS.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:I'd say this is good news by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"That The Facebook needs saving is encouraging news... that seems to indicate its popularity and influence is waning."

      I have never been more proud of never having had a Facebook login. I really hope Facebook falls and burns. Although it could do some good things, the bad is really bad. From bullying and harassment to invasion of privacy, fake news, tracking, and manipulation, it is probably the world's largest and most dangerous cesspool.

      I must close with my absolute favorite South Park link:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      And that was long before:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:I'd say this is good news by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't have a facebook account, but I LOVE facebook. Facebook keeps all of 'them' in one place, for easy filtering. Modern version of AOL.

      If Facebook shuts down, 'they' will be everywhere, figuratively jumping up and down going 'look at me, look at me!' Let them have their ghetto.

      Definitions of 'signal' and 'noise' vary. Facebooks keeps the 'noise' largely in one place, along with all the people who think it's 'signal'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:I'd say this is good news by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I have never been more proud of never having had a Facebook login

      I'd hope you've never been proud of it, because if you get your pride from not participating in something popular you must live a miserable life. Don't you have anything you've done that you can be proud of? You could be smug about it. That isn't great, but it's a lot better than being proud.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:I'd say this is good news by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe "proud" is not the correct word. Perhaps "validated"?

  12. no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is the year people will see that Zuckerberg is a pimple-faced teenager."

    -FTFY

  13. Hire more SJW to hide news by AHuxley · · Score: 0

    Just release more SJW all over social media. Just let them ban anything they don't like.
    Music, art, cartoons, blasphemy, comments about illegal migration, history, book reviews, movie reviews.
    SJW will report all reviews, comments, links. Ban accounts. Remove the comments, links.
    Social media will be so simple to use then as only a few trusted accounts will be allowed to comment.
    Only having a few sites to link from will make news so much more simple to control too.
    A perfect brand trusted by big governments, political leaders. The big brands ads and users who like big government and lots of ads.
    Positive movie reviews on all movies. Only selected books get reviews. Only linking to a few pre approved news sites.
    People will enjoy and really want to return to that kind of hard working social media brand.

    Please work hard and show us what SJW want to ban on social media.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Hire more SJW to hide news by maz2331 · · Score: 1

      It seems that the SJW crowd has jumped the proverbial shark one time too many, and has done grave damage to their own side. Their outrage machine has started to settle bar fights with grenades, and they are catching most of the resultant shrapnel.

  14. Go ahead, pull the other one by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Facebook absolutely depends on bad behavior in order to maintain the amount of power it has. The only "campaign to save Facebook" that we can realistically expect is a PR campaign. Actual positive change would harm FB's shareholders.

  15. Destroy Facebook and Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That should be your real goal.

  16. I have an idea by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember reading a story about a man who was Facebook mobbed by a woman who accused him of being a pedophile because her kids were in part of a selfie he took. She later apologized and admitted that she was an idiot. The best way to deal with a troll mob is really simple:

    1. Lock the account of EVERYONE who shared it.
    2. Force them to read a notice that they participated in a troll mob based on defamatory/abusive content.
    3. Threaten them that if it happens again within 90 days, they'll be locked out for 30 days.
    4. If it happens three times in a year they get a lifetime ban from all Facebook social networks and using Facebook Connect to login to third party services.

    1. Re: I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you preface the penalty with actual proof, and real identifiers, that sounds reasonable. FB needed to require proof of identity long ago. Sorry, i don't use the platform.

    2. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would facebook do this again? How does this help them retain users and sell more ads?

    3. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... a lifetime ban from all Facebook social networks

      Aw, that's cute: You think Facebook will evict a 'paying' customer. All those re-posts and trolling comments are how one consumes Facebook. Social networks, as Twitter has proven, need to find a balance between the hapless abuse of customers and ensuring customers provide repeat business so its user-base size is sufficiently large that no-one can offer a competing service.

    4. Re:I have an idea by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.

      2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.

      3) I don't know if you have noticed but FB share price and a lot of what they talk about at share holder meetings are "active users." That is what advertisers care about, and by extension investors. Kicking the worst trouble makers off the site who make it toxic is probably necessary, but that is going have to be reserved for a few serial offenders.

      4) Oh that's brilliant incentive third parties to continue to support alternative logon methods so that they don't cut off facebook users who did something stupid 10 years ago as teenagers. Sure that help keep FB where they want to be in the middle of every web request.

       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:I have an idea by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      FB is all about interaction and clicks. So 1) is out right a way. If you make people afraid their accounts get locked because they decided to share something they have not exhaustively researched. They will stop sharing anything, but photos of their own dog and cat.

      If this only applies to things like the pedo slander/troll mob? No, not really. It needs to penalize malicious behavior.

      2) This one *might* be doable but it won't really work. If you don't put teeth on it people will just click thru and not think anymore of it. You can't put teeth on it because it will drive people away from the site.

      And? They've actually gotten pretty good at ensuring that you've at least skimmed through the ToS. Do it in an engaging form, such as a short video with the click-through button only accessible at the end.

      3) I don't know if you have noticed but FB share price and a lot of what they talk about at share holder meetings are "active users." That is what advertisers care about, and by extension investors. Kicking the worst trouble makers off the site who make it toxic is probably necessary, but that is going have to be reserved for a few serial offenders.

      Agreed. There'd need to be a lot of stages involved and it probably should be run on a point system like driver's licenses sometimes are. You only get kicked off after you've proven that you're toxic, and it should be pretty indifferent to the beliefs underlying it.

      4) Oh that's brilliant incentive third parties to continue to support alternative logon methods so that they don't cut off facebook users who did something stupid 10 years ago as teenagers. Sure that help keep FB where they want to be in the middle of every web request.

      They're going to maintain alternative logons whatever because some people are going to not want to give them FB access. It should take longer/more to trigger a lifetime ban, though--three strikes in a year getting you a lifetime ban should take doing something impressive, along the lines of starting the internet lynch mob off and riling it up sufficiently that your target each time ended up dead.

  17. Pure garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Facebook is pure garbage. I've never created an account but I see lots of my friends waste huge piles of time on it. The best thing for Facebook would be to blank the filesystems of every server they have and use their massive amounts of equipment towards something more noble, like protein folding simulations which may actually cure disease.

    Mark Zuckerberg is a useless tool who will hopefully be a footnote in history and nothing more.

  18. what a scam artists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy gets rich off of you voluntary giving your personal information to him. And you don't even get paid. What suckers!

    1. Re:what a scam artists by thedavidcathey · · Score: 1

      "Mark Zuckerberg admits in a New Yorker profile that he mocked early Facebook users for trusting him with their personal information. A youthful indiscretion, the Facebook founder says he's much more mature now, at the ripe age of 26." http://gawker.com/5636765/face...

  19. Hello MySpace my old friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look forward to seeing face in the trash as well. To bad Murdock is running out of fun dollars to buy it's carcass. That was a great coffin nail for myspace.

  20. Save it? From self implosion? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    Hasn't it turned into MySpace? Only teens and olds posting pictures of their lunch? All the millennials seem to have departed for Reddit and Instagram.

  21. Zuck is out of touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He thinks his company is worth saving.

  22. Hopefully by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."

    Hopefully by going the MySpace way.

    1. Re:Hopefully by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      "This is the year people will see we get that there's real work to do. We have to change."

      Hopefully by going the MySpace way.

      I can only hope that people wake up from this slumber called social media. It will be great to watch Zuckerberg's financial empire implode overnight. It was built on abusing people's privacy, manipulating news, and encouraging social rifts.

  23. Facebook censorship must end... by SirTreveyan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails the free expression of conservative ideas. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.

    --

    SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

    0 rows returned

    1. Re:Facebook censorship must end... by minstrelmike · · Score: 0

      Determining what is hate speech is difficult.

      For example, Christian preachers can say you're going to burn in hellfire for eternity if you don't tithe or discriminate correctly, but that isn't termed 'hate speech.'

      And for people who desire a rational, scientific society, lying is the most despicable thing you can do.

    2. Re:Facebook censorship must end... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      The Christian preacher doesn't hate you when he's saying those things, if anything it's more of a warning. And he's probably (well possibly anyway) not lying either when he says he believes ....

      Hate speech is obvious by intent, alas the intent is not always obvious.

      It strikes me that this is really the problem that facebook et. al. will have.

    3. Re:Facebook censorship must end... by SirTreveyan · · Score: 1

      Obvious according to who???

      The problem with hate speech is that it can't be defined. It has the same definition as pornography years ago, "I cant explain it to you, but I know it when I see it!!!" That is where the problem lies. When drafting hate speech and hate crime laws, basic definitions fall to intent, not to actual content or execution of the act.

      When BLM supporters call for all "whiteys" to be killed, I would classify that as hate speech. To me it reeks of hate. But you never see any one who spouts that crap called out for their words. No, if anything they are praised in liberal media. As long as you talk against Liberal opponents you can get away with saying quite literally ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous.

      Now lets look at a conservative who says "ISIS should be exterminated". Since ISIS is engaging in what most civilized people would consider crimes against humanity you would not think that statement would not cause problems. Unfortunately, a conservative's words will be twisted. In this case the MSM and liberal politicians would morph these word into a statement of Muslim genocide. Oh, and never mind the fact that the Koran teaches "infidel genocide".

      Saying hate speech is obvious by intent is ludicrous, Speech is hateful if the person listening want to take it as hateful. "Hate speech" is a tool liberals use to pound down those whom they disagree. Just like crying "Racism", "hate speech" is a label to hide behind, to justify censoring those ideas and silencing those people you do not like.

      --

      SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0

      0 rows returned

  24. Both sides? by sjbe · · Score: 0

    The crime of selling 100k worth of ads, that promoted both sides ?

    "Both sides"? What side do Russians have in the US election? Last I checked they were neither democrats nor republicans. They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation of federal election laws.

    Which statute does that break exactly ?

    There are plenty of articles on this very topic.

    If anything, the ads just served as confirmation bias to people on either side, and were used more to sow discord than to actually influence the election one way or another.

    Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election. You are making a distinction without a difference.

    1. Re:Both sides? by RedK · · Score: 2

      They have no business being involved at all. If Facebook facilitated their actions then there is a good chance Facebook was complicit in attempted election rigging and quite possibly in violation of federal election laws.

      Your link points to donations or contributions to campaigns. None of this involves ads on Facebook. AKA : you're a purveyor of Fake news now.

      There are plenty of articles on this very topic.

      WaPo. LmAo. No seriously, again, state the statutes, not a vague link to "Donations by foreign nationals are prohibited". None occurred here and thus those statutes are irrelevant to the discussion.

      Russians buying ads is by definition an attempt to influence the election.

      Sure, but you're missing the point (which of course I expected of a biased individual out to "get Drumpf!"). They influenced BOTH SIDES. The goal was not to get a particular candidate elected, it was simply to create chaos. And you're now colluding with them, as you bought into their divisive rethoric and are the source of the chaos.

      I understand you desperately want the Trump presidency to be illegitimate. It's not. It's 100% legit. How about you start rooting for your country instead of trying to destroy its institutions from within ?

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
  25. Really? by bigdavex · · Score: 1

    . . . to save the most powerful platform in human history.

      Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed.

    --
    -Dave
  26. Good! by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let him scramble and let him fail. Facebook never did anything really innovative anyway. It's like one giant, topicless bulletin board where everyone posts shit about their lives most people don't want to read anyway. Facebook ruined the concept of friendship and relegated it to something far less meaningful and rich. Instead the platform has been divisive, promotes hatred, and promotes revisionist history. I'm now 60 days free from that giant clusterfuck known as Facebook. Facebook is psychologically toxic!

  27. Fake News is a Hard Problem by PineHall · · Score: 2

    Fake news spreads very fast. People will post things that they agree with (or find interesting) without thinking and checking to see if it is true. One harmless but false post that I recently seen on Facebook posted by a couple of my FB friends is that in 2018 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...12/12 will all occur on a Sunday. It is a fun fact if it was true, but with just a little bit of thinking it is easy to realize that it is false. Yet I have a couple of FB friends who posted it without thinking. Posting without thinking and checking is a problem Facebook can not solve.

    By the time a human looks at the post and determines it is fake news, the post has been reposted hundreds of times. An algorithm can find some fake news posts but how many false positives would there be. People would also figure ways around (or game) the algorithm, so it would be an ongoing battle. And what determines fake new? Is it one misleading statement? Does a slanted story with only one side counts as fake news? Is an opinion that is misleading fake news? It is hard.

    Then there is the issue of censorship. Is it right for Facebook to ban posts? Should Facebook mark posts as possible fake news and put it far down in its curated list of posts? I think something can be done, but it is not an easy problem to solve, and it will never be completely solved.

    1. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by MikeDataLink · · Score: 1

      "and it will never be completely solved."

      Exactly. Humans are too lazy to fact check on their own and will simply share things they WANT to be true.

      --
      Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    2. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      Then there is the issue of censorship. Is it right for Facebook to ban posts? Should Facebook mark posts as possible fake news and put it far down in its curated list of posts?

      Facebook is not a government entity, so is not subject to such things as the 1st amendment, therefore censorship is available to it; that said, the answer to these specific questions depend very much on the type of community that Facebook wants to foster. It doesn't make the questions any easier, but does put them into context towards an answer.

      Myself, I got tired of it all, so I quit visiting. I check about once a week to see if anything has changed...it hasn't. (not-so-interestingly, the people that really want to get hold of me have adapted to getting hold of me other ways)

      I wish more people would think critically.

      I believe the true answers to your questions will never be fully realized, they simply can't be, for the exact reasons you outlined.

    3. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      True. I have a good friend I have known for 50 years. We went all through school together and were roommates in college. We had many great conversations trying to solve all the worlds problems. He reads a lot and considers himself to be well informed and intelligent. BUT when it comes to social media he will buy anything hook line and sinker and share it if it matches his world view. I have discussed it with him in person as I never respond to a social media post concerning politic or religion. His response is that he does not care if it is true. He basically WANTS people to believe things even if he knows they are false if it promotes his world view. I.e. "it is true even if this specific post is not correct, the meaning is correct"

      He is leftist by the way but I don't think that matters. This is prevalent across all ideologies because people that consider themselves to be smart are convinced that everyone else is an idiot (mostly true) so why not use whatever tools are available to convince idiots to go along with your view.

    4. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook is a virtual country with a virtual government.

      As soon as you look at Facebook from that perspective it makes sense to also ensure that there are legislation involved - but it's Facebook legislation, not the legislation of a single country. Unless it's about things that can impact the right of Facebook to operate in a certain country.

    5. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What facebook needs is a retroactive false news/ fact flag or banner that can be put on posts that are officially determined to be false.

      In the example above about the post where "in 2018 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...12/12 will all occur on a Sunday" Once it has been shared by hundreds of thousands of idiots, When it get officially recognized as false a nice obvious banner could be put above every single shared post retroactively.

      Maybe if idiots get enough of these false news/fact banners in their own feed they will think twice before sharing something, It will also make idiots easy to identify when their timeline is full of these false news/fact banners.

    6. Re:Fake News is a Hard Problem by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Fake news spreads very fast. People will post things that they agree with (or find interesting) without thinking and checking to see if it is true. One harmless but false post that I recently seen on Facebook posted by a couple of my FB friends is that in 2018 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, ...12/12 will all occur on a Sunday. It is a fun fact if it was true...

      Excuse me, but are you conflating fake news with jokes or memes?

      Or are you suggesting that only by eliminating humour can we purge fake news from our feeds?

  28. FB is click bait by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Shoot, about 75% of the stuff I see are things like this: Apple will lose xxx share...click here for the details New campaign to take down xxxx politician, click for the details and on and on. Click bait, to get people to go to a website, in order to run up the click count, so the website can charge more for advertising.

    1. Re:FB is click bait by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      Shoot, about 75% of the stuff I see are things like this: Apple will lose xxx share...click here for the details New campaign to take down xxxx politician, click for the details and on and on. Click bait, to get people to go to a website, in order to run up the click count, so the website can charge more for advertising.

      Well I have never been on Facebook. I only use the regular world-wide web.
      But it doesn't sound like there's much difference ;-)
      Does one have more porn than the other?

  29. More bovine excrement about Russia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh! If only Jim Jones were alive today! He coulda done in over 60 million!

    I find your continued absolute faith and undivided attention to this narrative most disturbing. You're letting the whole world burn around you! The internet really shows off our dirty laundry hanging on the balcony there! This psychosis is epidemic in the extreme. I'm left to wonder if the entire physical universe is doomed to the same horrible fate. After all, everything that happens, everything we do, is all perfectly natural and logical. You can trace it all the way back to the *big bang*. If this is nature, the best thing to do is to move to the tropics and wait it out, and hope for better luck next life. It doesn't end, you know. There is no rest. One instant you're there, then you're not, then you are again... It sucks! Why doesn't somebody pull the plug?

  30. You can still share! Just do it on social media. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes, you think “this is cool, I should share it”.

    You still can. Just share it on social media, instead of giving it to Facebook. Email is still there. Slashdot and Reddit are still there. And all of those platforms are more powerful than Facebook anyway. Facebook doesn't even let you post a fucking hyperlink! Go ahead and try to hyperlink a description of what the link points to, and you'll see what media works vs what is hopelessly broken and at least two decades behind.

  31. Facebook is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Same death as USENET, myspace, and all other forum type systems. They eventually become so polluted with spam they are unbearable and useless. The only reason Facebook is still used by anyone is because old people are afraid of losing their contact list and pictures. Young people don't care about archival or contact lists and are willing to throw it away and start over any day so they jump around and try new social networks.

  32. Re:You can still share! Just do it on social media by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

    Audience. Once upon a time, my audience was here on slashdot with the journals. Everyons moved, and most ended up on Facebook. I never really got the point of Reddit... I have an account, but the site just doesn’t speak to me. I’m getting old. I can just keep my thoughts to myself... or at least learn to.

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  33. history by kqc7011 · · Score: 1

    He should read the story of what happened to Ma Bell when the government decided that she was too large.

    --
    Passionately Indifferent
  34. Hegemon Mark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, just maybe.. At least until Peter takes over the job.

  35. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the most powerful platform in human history

    There is no general definition of the word "platform" that supports this assertion. You're going to have to be a lot more specific here.

  36. How can we help? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    If Facebook is in danger of destruction, I want to know: how can we help? Help destroy it, that is. I am a moral person, after all.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  37. It's not Facebook's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the onus on Facebook? Shouldn't we be able to discern what is true and what isn't? I get that people are lazy, but that doesn't absolve themselves of responsibility.

  38. Re:You can still share! Just do it on social media by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    I never really got the point of Reddit... I have an account, but the site just doesn't speak to me.

    I'm with you there. Reddit drives me crazy. I can never follow the threads of discussion there.

  39. may 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May 2018 bring the crickets to FaceBook
    May it join GeoCities and MySpace
    May the sound of tumbleweeds in the wind
    Dominate it

    Problem is.. 2 billion fools who will blindly jump to the next platform.

  40. Sad and embarrassing. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 1

    The entire fake news thing is sad and embarrassing. It's people admitting that they cannot think critically, and will believe just about anything. They're crying "Do something! Do something!" when all they have really ever had to do is think critically for a few moments and the problem is solved.

    Corruption is rampant and legal in this county. Our representatives are so openly owned that nobody even blinks an eye, its no longer news. So normal that nobody even bothers to fact check anymore. Politicians are all dirty as hell, of course they did %THING. Corruption and bad behavior are so normal that people just assume it's true. Even our MSM.

    Meanwhile, our media is so sanitized and washed out that other countries are able to manipulate our population with fucking memes, lies, and cartoons. This is a problem for our giant divisive media companies, not more corrupt politicians.

    Really fucking sad.

    Assume every politician is dirty as hell, and every single person you meet is out for your wallet and assets. Voting won't help, and you can't run for office without selling your soul to corporations.

    The only play left is to remember everything in America is a fucking scam and act accordingly. Even the fucking news.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  41. Dump Zuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disconnect from Facebook and bankrupt this evil manipulator.

  42. Russian cats!? by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

    How many of those photos and videos of cats on Facebook are Russian while hiding their true identity and nationality? Are we being covertly influenced by Russian cats?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Russian cats!? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There's a breed of cats called Russian Blue. What are the others hiding?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  43. i would beg to differ by gDLL · · Score: 0

    He is leftist by the way but I don't think that matters.

    I would argue that it does matter. There are exceptions to everything, but statistically speaking I would say it makes a huge difference. You either understand and appreciate the scientific method, or you don't...... If you want other people to believe what you believe that is called religion, not fact.

    1. Re:i would beg to differ by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So what does one person's political orientation have to do with anything here? Both left and right have their share of unscientific people, just unscientific about different things. Unscientific right-wingers don't believe that AGW is going on and is serious, unscientific left-wingers don't believe genetic modification can be safe. (Anti-vaxxers can be found on both sides.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  44. Crimea by aberglas · · Score: 1

    The critical thing is that most of the people in Crimea are Russian and want to be part of Russia.

    We should never have made such a fuss about it. Because screaming about marginal cases weakens your ability to scream if Russia becomes truly aggressive. It also strengthens Putin politically.

    There is a feeling that national borders are sacrosanct, even though they are often the result of arbitrary historical processes and have little to do with ethnic boundaries. Particularly where colonial powers were concerned. Borders should follow ethnic lines, and locals should be able to chose. Kurdistan should exist.

    Imagine what the USA would be today if the southern states had been allowed to succeed.

    1. Re:Crimea by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Imagine what the USA would be today if the southern states had been allowed to succeed.

      That is really really hard because a lot of political events took place in the mean time that would have been markedly different without the "southerns."

      I don't think the institution of slavery in north America had a lot of legs left in it. Keeping and operating a slave labor force ( of the brutal sort practiced in the US ) comes with it a lot of problems. Technology and changing mores were sure to bring about its natural end in the next 25 - 50 years the way I look at it. So that leaves us with a Northern US that is deprived of a lot of agricultural wealth, and Confederacy that is minimally industrialized. Keep in mind the US probably would have maintained control of the coasts and water ways, they had the navel might and not being able to bring trade goods up the Mississippi would have been major economic hardship for them. Its likely the South therefore would have struggled mightly with transportation issues. Until later 19th century tech could make them a real power again.

      That leaves us with a US that may or may not have decided to stick their fingers into WWI. Which probably completely and utterly changes all future politics this side of the Atlantic and might mean that most of Europe would be German speaking. It very possible there would still be a somewhat powerful monarchy in parts...Russia might still be Tsarist... No idea really.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Crimea by aberglas · · Score: 1

      Slavery would indeed have died anyway. Without the Southern senators the North would have repealed all its pro-slavery legislation and actively campaigned to end it. Probably including a naval blockade.

      But the civil war was never about slavery. It was about preventing the Southern states from leaving.

      Much of the opposition to entering world war I came from the South. The North would have joined, but in a reduced capacity. But that said, the war was largely won by the time the US entered. For WW 2, the US would have entered earlier, possibly preventing it. The Cold war could have ended differently though.

      Today, of course, you would not have Bush or Trump.

  45. LOAN OFFER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello everyone,

      We gives out short and long term service to serious individuals that are capable of paying back the service in good faith with a low interest within any duration you would need. So feel free and transact business with us as we are a financial refuge and powerhouse to individuals in need of adequate financing to help solve their financial needs and ease their stress. The loan amount you need will be granted to you and we will indeed be happy to transact business with you. quickloanpayment@gmail.com

    Await your reply

  46. Are you *SURE* they won't get upset? by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    > But just like reading no lower than 2 on Slashdot, I can
    > unfollow friends on Facebook and no one gets booboo feelings.

    Are you *SURE* they won't get upset? https://modenook.com/facebook-...

    > In nearby Mountain City, Tennessee, a couple is dead because they
    > unfriended the wrong person. A woman's father murdered the couple,
    > leaving their infant alive in the mother's arms, because they unfriended his
    > daughter on Facebook. You can read about that story here on The Tennessean.

    https://www.aol.com/2011/11/03...

    > Police in Des Moines, Iowa, have arrested 30-year-old Jennifer Christine
    > Harris (pictured left) for allegedly setting her neighbor's house on
    > fire, according to the Des Moines Register. The suspected motive?
    > Retribution for being "de-friended" on the popular social networking site.

    I agree with Mark Zuckerberg on one thing. Facebook users are indeed dumb fucks.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
    1. Re:Are you *SURE* they won't get upset? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      .

      Are you *SURE* they won't get upset?

      I don't "unfriend" them, I just stop following them. This way I don't see anything they post.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  47. A bullet will save him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or change his mind.

    Nothing else will. Too greedy.

  48. It's a vice, regulate it like one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook, Twitter, etc. have the same potential negative consequences as alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc. and they should be regulated in a similar manner.

    First, children should be barred from using them. Second, they should be taxed and money used to defray the costs these companies impose on society. Third, they should be banned from any form of advertising, especially ads that target children.

    Silicon Valley has become a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, filled with whores and sociopaths.