Slashdot Mirror
Evidence is Piling Up That Facebook Can Incite Racial Violence (technologyreview.com)
Higher use of the world's dominant social network has now been strongly linked with more attacks on refugees in Germany. From a report: Greater use, greater violence: Specifically, in towns where "per-person Facebook use rose to one standard deviation above the national average," attacks on refugees "increased by about 50 percent," the New York Times reported today, citing a University of Warwick study. Researchers there carried out a detailed analysis of more than 3,000 incidents in Germany over a two-year period. Crucially, the link held true regardless of the city's size, political leanings, or economic status -- and didn't correlate with general patterns of internet use. Those findings strengthen the case that using Facebook in particular can be a driving mechanism of greater violence.
Greater scrutiny: That's more bad news for the embattled social network, which has long portrayed itself as a benevolent company driven by a mission to draw the world closer together. But researchers recently found that coordinated hate speech and propaganda on the site helped fuel violence in Myanmar. And last year, Facebook itself eventually acknowledged that Russian agents had posted tens of thousands of inflammatory posts -- which reached tens of millions of people -- before and after the 2016 presidential election, in a massive campaign to deepen divisions in the United States.
Greater scrutiny: That's more bad news for the embattled social network, which has long portrayed itself as a benevolent company driven by a mission to draw the world closer together. But researchers recently found that coordinated hate speech and propaganda on the site helped fuel violence in Myanmar. And last year, Facebook itself eventually acknowledged that Russian agents had posted tens of thousands of inflammatory posts -- which reached tens of millions of people -- before and after the 2016 presidential election, in a massive campaign to deepen divisions in the United States.
It doesnt have to be russia to scream fire in a theater.
Kill the Satanic monster before he kills you!
Business as usually, move on, nothing to see here.
People who read, post and believe the shit that other idiots post on Facebook can incite and participate in violence, but I've never seen Facebook at any demonstrations or protests. I do see a point at which Facebook can promote or discount certain stories in the general news feed that can lead to greater or lesser exposure of a viewpoint.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The entire purpose of Facebook is to monetize having people at each others' throats ... because it increases engagement, and makes Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook's shareholders that much richer. Of course Facebook is inciting racial violence, along with political violence, criminal violence, school violence, and any other violence you can think of. If money can be made from it, Facebook will provide more of it.
I have friends who have stopped speaking to each other because of Facebook. It will only get worse, because Wall Street demands higher returns from the company, which means .... more violence.
Example: GNAA
Cause, or effect?
I know the conventional wisdom is that we're all supposed to be hating on Facebook now (I mean, they practically GAVE Trump's election to Cambridge Analytica, amirite? It couldn't be that people seriously voted for Trump...they must have been TRICKED by FACEBOOK!), but this explanation is not only terrifically timely for the meme, it's altogether too pat.
I rather suspect that if one could measure the intensity and frequency of gossip pre-Facebook, one would find a "disturbing" correlative uptick in gossip to all sorts of things...that people like to gossip about. If one correlates an uptick in FB postings to hate crimes, one has to evaluate further if the postings are legitimate or false - I sincerely doubt anyone in the media is going to admit that "well maybe those people complaining about those illegals might have been justified"...ever.
Humans have always, generally, hated strangers in their midst. It's a tribal thing. Strangers with different habits, hair, clothes, language, food, and especially SKIN COLOR have always been easier to target for frustrations.
It doesn't help that there seem to be a sadly-not-"fake news" plethora of stories about crime and illegals* like Mollie Tibbetts and Kathryn Steinle - nearly 25% of Federal prisoners are illegal immigrants. Racism is not acceptable, but not wanting criminals in ones' community is a pretty reasonable desire.
*they're not "undocumented" - that's a flat-out lie; "undocumented" implies that they just don't happen to have their papers, or that such papers actually exist - they're illegal immigrants and farcical games with language only makes it clearer to some that there's a collusive effort to hide that.
-Styopa
Evidence is Piling Up That Mark Zuckerberg doesn't realise that he's now wielding, badly, the same power that Rupert Murdoch once enjoyed playing King Maker with.
If election meddling (you decide if it has happened or not) is now done on the FB platform then Zuckerberg is effectively renting out that power.
Easier to strip him of it, or try to get leverage on him, to get a slice of that power yourself.
When ever I read these sensational headlines the single piece of information that I think would be the most useful isn't what I'm being told it's "who's behind it?"
Who started the gossip and the whispers?
There in lies another problem with our media. This Murdoch understood well. It's easy to hide behind your employee journalists, editors and tamper with the world on a grand scale than to do so out in the open.
Zuckerberg is very much out in the open and very exposed.
Always presented as important news? None of this internet stuff is fundamentally new, it's just more efficient. If a pamphlet or a town crier can influence people's minds, facebook can too - because that's all it is.
Same situation as sharing songs on the internet. Nothing different than recording something onto reel to reel from a radio 60 years ago, just more efficient.
dear baby Jesus
thank you for guiding my wheel away from the information swamp highway, and towards the golden light of podcasts, audiobooks, documentaries, etc.
for those that do not steppeth in shit, do not get it all over their persons
How often do people need to be reminded of it?
...it's Facebook! If it weren't for Facebook these migrants, who claim to be refugees, would have fully integrated into the German society. They would have adopted German values. They would have learned the German language and got job contributing to the German economy. They would have know that you can't go around raping people like you can in the third world. If only it weren't for Facebook, Germany would be a paradise, just like Sweden.
So there you have it, it's nothing to do with the fucking morons in charge trying to destroy their own civilisation. The problem is purely Facebook!
"Can't any longer play off black against old - young against poor. This country cannot house its houseless - feed its foodless. "
"Evidence is Piling Up That Printing Presses Can Incite Rebellions"
quick, ban all printing presses.
I hate facebook as much as the next person but this is just stupid.
Much as I hate Facebook, aren't people responsible for their own actions anymore? I mean if you let a Facebook post motivate you to go out and commit violence, you must be a bit of a garbage human being to begin with. So maybe it's time to quit blaming the Internet, Social Media, Cable News, etc. for everything and start blaming bad people for doing bad things.
Facebook is designed to promote content that grabs people's attention, because that is what generates revenue for them. It turns out that what grabs people's attention best are not thoughtful and reasonable opinions but OMG emotional stuff that triggers people to respond immediately, so that is what Facebook's algorithms emphasize and effectively amplify.
Facebook may be neutral on what people get emotional about, and they may not care that emotions happen to be what is best for generating pageviews, but the effect is that they amplify heated stuff and easily turn it into overheated stuff. In that respect they are not neutral at all.
go to hell you sick satanic son of a bitch
I personally find Yahoo!'s front page to be far far far more egregious player than FB. FB at one time had their "Trending Stories" component which was a blatantly biased attempt to subvert what was actually trending. As time wore on FB realized people simply were not buying their slanted opinion of what was important. Ultimately FB shuttered the "Trending Stories."
But Yahoo! That's a totally different animal. Maybe, and I mean maybe, one out of twenty headlines presented is not biased. I read their headlines every single day and despite all their trying I still ain't buying.
FB is bad, but Yahoo! is egregiously bad.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Facebook feeds people stuff similar to what they have "liked" before, setting up another echo chamber.
Earlier today I was noticing that if CNN were my primary source of news, I'd really dislike conservatives and Republicans; if Fox were my primary source, I'd have a disdain for liberals and Democrats. It's my understanding that Facebook is even worse, and it is the number one most popular source of "news", as I recall. Certain comedians are also among the top sources people cite as where they get their "news" (apparently confusing jokes mixed with propaganda for news).
On Slashdot, at least I talk to people who have a point of view different from my own. Occasionally they are calm and rational, presenting a cogent argument. What's really great is when they also are adult enough to listen to my opposing viewpoint and discuss where we each may have a good point, and can each learn something from the other point of view. It's great when that happens.
"Communication medium blamed for people's bad behaviour(s).". A bunch of violent asshats used Facebook to communicate so it's Facebooks fault - I don't get it. The presence and reach of Facebook bumps the standard deviation because these asshat messages are out there straight away - whereas "older" mediums took a while, so could be contained to some extent.
The American 'media' specializes in inciting $HATE. It's a sick bunch of bastiges.
The mainstream media in many countries is heavily biased to the left - probably because people think you need to go to University to become a journalist, where people are then influenced by Neo-Marxist leftist professors and faculty.
The mass sexual assaults in Cologne during 2015 NYE - the mainstream media deliberately didn't report that until two days after the event!
Plus you have situations like Sweden deliberately not collecting the ethnicity of criminals in their statistics, so as not to paint a pretty picture.
Even on many subreddits, news which paints migrants in a bad light is deleted by moderators. The news that South Africa would seize White farms was deleted by many moderators on popular news subreddits.
Facebook is the only source left in many cases.
The whole Trayvon Martin incident was the beginning of the end for a lot of people, Obama's stupid offhand remark was the least of it. It woke a lot of people up to just how much influence the mass media has in inspiring racial strife in this country.
Trump's lawyer just implicated him in felony campaign finance fraud among other crimes for which evidence already exists in Mueller's hand. Checkmate. Rudy Giuliani should be remembered as the world's dumbest attorney.
That comparison is way off the mark. Guns don't do anything on their own. Facebook does a fuck of a lot on it's own. It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing.
Facebook is pretty much the best brainwashing machine ever built, so yeah, it shares a large chunk of the blame. Obviously the people who engage in violence aren't innocent cherubs, but their individual actions are a much smaller problem.
Maybe people need to look at what's being conveyed on these messenger (social media) services instead of of trying to block it?
You know, if migrants really are stealing and committing sex crimes at a statistically higher rate above the norm then it should be reported.
Same goes for politicians who commit crimes.
If anything, it sounds like certain people don't like it when social media serves up a dish of politically inconvenient news and the plebs rightly get angry. Maybe if journalists were doing their job there would be a more balanced way of reporting such news so that it doesn't inflame the public's violence.
Nah that would all make sense now wouldn't it?
Giving a twenty something douche a gazillion dollars and acting like that self same douche (zuckerberg), is anything *but* a self -serving douche....is just total douchery.
Is it really "racism" if the hatred and violence is directed at members of a particular religion/culture, and if that hatred is due to that certain religion/culture refusing to integrate with the native culture of the host nation but rather demanding that the host nation adjust to accommodate the preferences of the invading religion/culture?
1. Facebook sucks so don't use it.
2. Facebook is not inciting any violence. Its users are.
3. Violence against immigrants is not default racial violence.
Remember kids if you are not continuously outraged and afraid money is being left on the table.
No. Your way of thinking is a cancer that humanity needs to remove. You make endless claims without actual knowledge of the situations, and without any peer-reviewed evidence where you imply "scientific" support. Social Darwinism and right-wing identity politics are exactly what fed the second world war. Every country involved had eugenics programs, etc. but it was only Germany with a rabid doctrine developed by disgruntled illiterate veterans with untreated psychological disorders. That doctrine is what you are preaching now, whether you realize it or not. This is not the material to "troll" with, and if you believe it then you need genuine mental health evaluation and treatment so you can live a productive life in our society.
Facebook VP: "The Majority Of Russian Ad Spend Happened AFTER The Election" https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2...
"many of these ads did not violate our content policies. That means that for most of them, if they had been run by authentic individuals, anywhere, they could have remained on the platform."
Shouldn't you stop foreigners from meddling in US social issues?
The right to speak out on global issues that cross borders is an important principle. Organizations such as UNICEF, Oxfam or religious organizations depend on the ability to communicate - and advertise - their views in a wide range of countries. While we may not always agree with the positions of those who would speak on issues here, we believe in their right to do so - just as we believe in the right of Americans to express opinions on issues in other countries.
So, after all the investigations and debunked conspiracy theories, the strongest argument for alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US federal election is $100K of non-political or partisan Facebook ads - more than half of which ran after the election, and a quarter of which never ran at all.
Putting it into perspective: Total election spending: $2.4 billion. Total Clinton/Trump Facebook ad buys: $81 million.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Can't tell if serious...
How does one instantly transport millions of people from backwards shithole countries and not expect your country to be pulled down as a result? People are the reason these countries are shitholes. It takes time to reprogram them not to be shitheads. Sometimes this is impossible and you just have to wait for people to die or leave before conditions improve because they are so fucked up as to be beyond saving.
How do you accept so many people so fast and not expect ghettos, crime and backlash from natives as a result?
This migration was so mismanaged thousands died simply trying to get to Germany. Merkel deserves to be held criminally responsible for her negligent stupidity and impeached over this fact alone.
Now we have people noting increased social media use with time and using separate fact that integration problems continue to grow due to predictable results of ridiculous policy decisions to deflect blame from the underlying fact Merkel is a dipshit.
German government is too busy trying to censor critics (Censorship worked out so well for Nazi's now didn't it?) and those speaking out against the obvious to take stock in the fact that people actually have a point. No society is willing to tolerate disruptive negative change on this scale without pushing back and rejecting it.
I don't want hoards of people migrating to my country from shitholes and I will vote accordingly regardless of what the PC SJW everything you say or do is racist mob of idiots have to say.
It's much better policy for everyone to spend resources working for local change in shithole countries than to accept mass migrations. Sure a few lucky people would be better off... yet what about the bigger picture? If you only accept people who are not shitheads then who is left in shithole countries besides total shitheads?
It's like public education. If everyone gives up on shit schools and puts their money into private schools the shit schools get shittier and the remaining poors who can't afford the better schools are royally fucked. It's bad policy decision that ultimately leads to expansion of shitholes rather than curtailing them.
Germany needs to pick up the pace on kicking people out.
No. Your way of thinking is a cancer that humanity needs to remove..
Fuck you, you pathetic brainless SJW pussy boy.
This is not the material to "troll" with, and if you believe it then you need genuine mental health evaluation and treatment so you can live a productive life in our society.
Go drink some Drano, you arrogant SJW prick.
Try reading that again, especially since you seem more than a little bit retarded it might take a few readings to understand a proper clause.
Apparently English is not your first language. That would excuse your poor writing. If you are a native English speaker then you are
poorly educated. Calling me retarded doesn't make your poor writing any better, it just makes it apparent that you are a smart-mouthed
twerp who could benefit from some lessons in manners.
White people are hundreds of times more likely to be attacked by non-whites than the other way round.
White people are losing our OWN countries, our ONLY countries, to non-white invaders. And all because the Jewish media says so.
Ooh, the poor 'refugees'. Except they're not 'refugees', because they aren't going to the nearest safe country - they are rapists, murderers, and general scumbags, and almost all YOUNG MEN, who are here to get their hands on white women, because they hate their own kind.
Why don't they want to live around their own kind, in their own countries? Because they know that they can't make their own shithole countries work, ever - because THEY are the problem.
If they don't want to live around their own kind, why should white people have to live around them?
White people have a right to exist, don't you agree?
In order to continue existing, white people need their own living space, don't you agree? If we allow non-whites to stay in our countries, they will eventually outbreed us, take positions of power, and ruin our lives. Don't you agree?
Or do you know nothing about the history of Islam?
White people never asked for mass immigration, did we?
Why have all the main political parties claimed that they would REDUCE immigration if elected, if they believed that most white people wanted ANY immigration whatsoever? Why do you get put in prison in Europe if you merely speak out against mass immigration? Sound like tyranny much to you?
Open communication platforms usually become right-wing.
Closed communication platforms usually become left-wing unless they are explicitly right-wing.
Sounds like an insight in the human mind. Without outside influence and censorship, people endorse right-wing ideas. And that isn't a fluke, either, because taken to the extreme, fully anonymous unmoderated forums (4/8chan etc) vs. tightly regulated and censored groups (SJW college campuses), the trend increases further:
Platforms with zero policing become openly supremacist.
Platforms with extreme policing become hardcore socialist unless it is explictly right-wing.
In the reverse, it is not so clear, because censorship obviously can be done both ways:
Platforms with heavy policing can become socialist or supremacist, depending on who runs the platform and what their convictions are.
But: Platforms with zero policing cannot become socialist.
Facebook, like every social media platform, has one crucial function: It can connect like minded people. Actually, that's its primary function. Now, while this seems quite positive on the surface, it can be quite detrimental to us as a society too. Because it also allows very unsavory and outright crazy people to connect. Which you might notice in the more recent skyrocketing number of conspiracy theories being peddled loudly.
What does this have to do with each other?
Let's say you have an uncommon, unpopular or outright illegal position or opinion. In a "normal" society, you'd feel quite alone with your opinion because nobody shares it. This changes when you're able to connect with like minded individuals who share your twisted world view. Suddenly you're no longer alone, moreover, you feel that your position is verified as true and right, you feel vindicated. And of course you start living in this echo chamber of like minded people who keep telling you that you're right and that your "crazy" opinion is not crazy at all but that everyone else is crazy.
This works for every kind of fringe ideology. It has worked for religion for centuries without the internet, but the internet gives other insane ideas the same level of self perpetuating reinforcement. From religion to third wave feminism, from white supremacy to black lives matters. And yes, from contrails to flat earth.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This can be used for good or evil, the lesson here should be for reasonable people to use them for good as readily as the anti-social criminal cowards are prepared to use them for evil, something that does happen.
I bet most of these "attacks" and "incidents" are people merely SAYING things that 'refugees' (invaders) don't like. i.e. that the German people, strangely enough, don't want their country invaded by millions of muslims. How evil of the German people!
And of course, soon there won't be enough white people to go around. The non-whites are coming to white countries BECAUSE they are white countries. Soon there won't be enough white people to give the non-whites the magical 'better life' that they all think they are somehow entitled to. Just watch videos of Africans invading Italy and climbing over fences, then running down streets as if they have won the lottery. Why should any white country have to turn into a multi-racial hellhole? Because the TV said so! That's why! Because the media decides government policy.
News at eleven.
.
If you want to talk about manipulating people, the original subject line is exactly what the reader should be weary of.
A "water is wet" statement, with some prefix making it look as if it is, or even even needs to be investigated, together with some "clever" wording which enables the writer to easily disavow any currently presented cause-and-effect conclusion.
Facebook cannot magically convert idiots into reasonable and rational people. Facebook isn't responsible for this particular problem it is the users causing the problems.
Facebook has its share of responsibilities. Its AI algorithm is optimized to autonomously search for what will keep the users on the site the longest (so that the company has more eyeball time to sell to advertisers / more behaviour data to sell, and thus the company gets richer).
Old studies done since TV is "a thing" have already shown that the human mind will pay more attention to emotion-generating content, even more if these emotions are negative. Eventually, human mind tends to pay most attention to violence and extremes.
(Probably an evolutionary advantage in the distant past, as paying attention to which member of the ape-pack got mauled by a tiger is more likely to provide you useful information to save your ass, than paying attention to how the flowers are beautiful).
Thus, by trying to give to viewer whatever is the most likely to keep their attention focused, the algorithms used by Facebook will independently rediscover the above, and will spontaneously (machine-) learn to provide even more extreme content, until each "echo chamber" one lock oneself in slowly devolves into a giant mess of extremism, violence and crazy conspiracy theories.
All this without the AI even having a clear idea of *what* the content is, only have the statistical notion that it tend to retain attention.
Facebook devs where the one writing these algorithm without taking into account where it can lead, they do share a part of responsibilities.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Why look at attacks on refugees which is a tiny percentage of violent crime?
Why not look at attacks by refugees, which is a large percentage of violent crime?
This reminds me of the Black Lives Matter nonsense where they singled out 0.7% of American black deaths and made a stand on it. That is absurd.
This is a hoax story intended to continue stomping out dissent across social media.
We are seeeing the largest censorship campaign in known history. You will be asked where you stood: With the all-censoring, pro-genocide population replacers, or with the free people fighting for their lives.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Facebook is not inciting violence.
Facebook is not inciting violence intentionnally, per-se.
Facebook is just optimizing for profits, and due to their specific market (advertising, data mining, etc.) they need, as the above poster stated, they need to increase engagement (i.e.: keep more eyeballs focused on facebook, for further reselling)
And old studies done in the era of TV have already shown, the thing that increases the most engagement is emotions, more likely negative emotion, thus fear and violence.
Thus even if Facebook hasn't in a "james bond vilain-style" decided to promote violence for pure evil intents, just by having machine learning algorithms that try to feed whatever attract the most user attention, they'll eventually start to automatically promote violence.
What you are seeing is an unintended side effect of people having, for the first time in human history, the ability to instantly communicate with millions of other people, allowing then to speak out against things going on in the world that they are unhappy about,
It's not the "instant communication" part that is main culprit (though it contributes a bit).
It's the filtering going on.
We're not in the beginning of the age of internet anymore.
You're not suddenly exposed directly to the speech of the other millions of people, anymore. That's long past ago (you can't download the whole web on a DVD anymore :-P )
You're not even exposed to a random / representative of the speech of some of that other million of people, neither. Specially not since commercial companies jumped in and they need to profit from their business
You're specifically exposed to that tiny fraction (tiny enough so that it can fit within the limited attention span of our monkey-brains) of the speech of that other million of people, that the companies' machine learning algorithms have determined to be the most likely to attract your attention and provoke you into staying around (further speaking your own idea).
Yes, the increase of content has (somewhat) had some influence on the way we communicate. (We've reached the point where we can't follow everything).
The current data tech giant (Facebook, Google, etc.) are extremely strongly shaping the kind of communication that is going between people. But they need profit, so they focus on whats the most profitable to them even if that fucks everything up.
Basically, the "information highways" have slowly transmorphed into the "kingdom of the few most attention-grabbing filthy tabloids".
such as civilized countries being overrun with third world filth.
Yeah, thank your for this nice demonstration of your opinions.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The lesson here is any social site can have good and bad because of Human's. Filtering out the bad is a futile attempt at still garnering some sense of purpose for Facebook or a Twitter for that matter. I think both have caused more harm then good.
I mean any popular platform can be used in a variety of ways. That is part of the point.
Now it can be argued that facebook has ethical responsibilities to make sure their product isn't used in ways that harm society most of the time.
Facebook isn't just a passive platform, it actively pursuits ways to entrap/lock you onto itself and ensures you use it above all else, so Facebook not only has a ethical responsibility as it has a very functional and direct responsibility as it's their own algorithms that decides to pit you with content that is divisive, in a way that removes any opportunity to debate or reach consensus and it ends up being polarizing. A comments section isn't really giving opportunity for debate when you're debating "opinions" versus "facts" and facebook deals with both as "equals" (regardless of whatever they say regarding their "fight" against disinformation).
Sure, in Germany, right now, the major issue is "racial violence" against said "refugees". Not all the massive amount of clandestines disguised as refugees that, on a daily basis, are implicated into rapes and attempted murder. "Hate" probably comes out of nowhere. We can guess the only reason antisemitism is no longer mentioned when talking about hate in Germany is tied to the fact it has become obvious that is now a trait of a massive amount of clandestines coming from countries and cultures where it is perfectly fine to beat homosexual, non-believers, etc.
Sure, Facebook is probably the problem here. Not at all what is happening in the street every day.
The people who have been used to running news monopolies are, like medallion cabdrivers, unaccustomed to competition. Now that raw news about what the unvetted flood of refugees is doing in Europe is getting through around the mellowspeak filtration system of the traditional media, they are blaming...the new sources of information for allowing a diversity of news and opinion through.
Watch for the EU to respond by fining everyone who reports unofficial news or channels unofficial opinions.
Using disease metaphors to describe "undesirable" societal elements...who else did that? Oh right the Nazis. Insisting that people who disagree have mental problems and must be involuntarily committed for their own good...who else did that? Oh right the Communists. What kind of thinking needs to be removed again? Look in the mirror.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Is it not just a faster way to get what you want? Violent people will be incited to violence, kind people will be incited to kindness, racist people will be incited to be racist. Run another experiment that looks for evidence of co-operation, that is probably correlated to facebook use as well. If you only look for bad outcomes, you will only get bad outcomes.
FB doesn't cause violence. Speech isn't violence. People are responsible for their actions.
Assigning punishment for violence to the people who commit that violence because they committed that violence is the only way to control violence.
Guns don't kill people. Speech doesn't kill people. People walked around with the weapons of war or centuries and everyday life was fine. Kids in the 50s had guns in their unoocked trucks at high schools so they could go hunting after school.
We don't have a free speech or gun control problem. We have a human behavioral problem. People are less able to experience frustration and ideas they oppose without getting violent.
Whose fault is that? Which of our institutions and social movements after the 50s can be described as extremist, shrill and models apoplectic behavior and reasoning?
What institutions in our society are dedicated to creating and amplifying social division and make their money from it?
Go stick your head in an oven, moron.
Somebody's selling facebook stock short. I haven't seen attacks this blatant since stories about Tazers killing people the week it went public.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
FB, and social media in general have enabled the same tactics and mentality that the radio stations in Rwanda used in 1994. The tribes in Rwanda were incited, "whipped up" into a frenzy of tribal hate, the the point of incredible acts of violence. FB and social media are using the same model, and people like Alex Jones, etc know how to play that game.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
"The Internet incites media piracy" is a valid statement as well.
Instead of standing on a corner, and shouting out the rants of madmen/women. We now use Facebook in the same way. Ban Facebook, people will find another way to rave to the public all of their hatred. I don't get my news from Facebook, unless it comes from a major news source(LA Times, local news paper, Washington Post, ...). Then I go to the actual web site and read the article. And then, I still read it with the mind set that it is probably slanted.
I also try to ignore any of the ravings of my delusional friends. Good for blonde jokes though. Thats about it.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
12 guage, punkin ball ammo for people like you. Label it under late term abortion for bigots.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
FB doesn't incite violence. People incite violence.
It happens to be a platform to easily disperse one's message.
People are drunk on social media anymore. Strike down FB and Twitter and another platform will rise to take their place.
" It's designed to feed you whatever propaganda you're most predisposed to believing."
It's designed to monopolize your attention. That it does so in a way that seems, SEEMS, to also promote its founders and managers' points of view is, for them, a huge benefit.
Make FB politically agnostic, and this isn't such a big deal. But FB ownership and management do not seem to be running it in a politically neutral or agnostic fashion, and eventually there is a real McCain-Feingold violation* to address. Not that we can expect any real action, since the UniParty is deathly afraid of actually addressing the blatant corporate in-kind contributions being made, and I do not include the ostensible 'news' organizations. They are a different issue, as they will rely upon First Amendment protections to avoid even the appearance of criticism.
It's not just FB, either but you can figure that out for yourself.
* - When corporate media owners and officers meet with elected officials to discuss campaign issues, their actions can reasonable be suspected of being in-kind contributions, and there is likely a McCain-Feingold violation in progress. And other violations.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Go stick your head in an oven, moron.
Ooh ... a big brave internet badass tells me to stick my head in an oven.
Thanks for the laughs, you poor sad little boy.
Yeah, that's the problem; not that dangerous populations are being imported into Germany, but that people are allowed to talk about it.
Joke's on you! GP poster is actually a vampire... or possesses the self-awareness of one, anyway.
Slashdot has been providing a social meeting space for how much longer than Facebook? Have there been any hate violence incidents incited by Slashdot?
Apparently you don't realize that the US was the leader in eugenics before Hitler got his concentration camps scaled up. We not only had eugenics program, the nazi eugenicists held us up as a beacon for a better world. We had extensive programs for removing undesirables from the population (although we didn't call them concentration camps) and many were forcibly sterilized as part of the eugenics program. So we didn't execute many of them. Yay us.
Google a little and you will find that all of this is well documented, just not well known.
My point is you say things like "rabid", "illiterate", "untreated psychological disorders" to try and put a rift between the US eugenics programs and those in Germany -- but eugenicists here approved of the German programs as much as they liked ours. Thing is, the eugenicists were in a minority and their crimes were largely covered up.
I am German not American.
Of course when Kanye says, "Bush doesn't like black people" that's awesome!
...
... they get a pass. Because they're so, so cool. They understand how some people's great great grandparent's suffered and how that entitles them to killing people and reparations and all that.
... so eject them from our echo chamber.
And when Jamie Foxx says his movie rocks because a lot of white people get shot that's cool.
And there's Sister Soulja
Yeah
Facebook doesn't get a pass. We're not sure which race they're in favor of
One must use the appropriate language and identify these perverted ideologies not coddle them until they grow to choke you. Fascists fear being identified before they have power because they know the foundation of their beliefs is fantasy and that thinking people respect human rights over inane rants. Hate speech is a well specified category and fascists depend on It for emotional fuel to counter thought. Read the post I replied to though it may be hidden now. The traits are evident and the excuses are shallow.
Correct, this is a perfect example of what the parent poster is talking about.
Megaphones
Language
Any communication method whatsoever
You are the fascist here. It's obvious to everyone but you.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Did you read a different comment than I did which didn't contain offensive racial stereotypes?
Hah, that page is /.'s equivalent of GNAA. It's a troll designed to outrage idiots who think it's serious. Guess what you just admitted to?
Grammar much not?
I like calling it "The War on Noticing."
Let's not kid ourselves, here - German media is heavily censored, Facebook less so. Violence against migrants increases in Facebook users because Facebook users are more aware that 3rd world citizens generate 3rd world conditions.
Clearly the solution is to prevent people from noticing things. Does Germany even provide racial crime statistics?
freedom has consequences.
So, because you can't argue with logic, you resort to emotional appeals? Why not debate the idea instead of getting offended and trying to censor people? Why not try to prove Jzanu wrong? is it because you know you can't?
Nope, its the peoples fault. I've never seen Facebook do one violent act against anyone.
> People's culture... their core sovereign tribal identity is being attacked by leeching illegal invaders. Their reaction is natural and is rooted in millions of years of tribal identity
Are you actually claiming this is something that even passes the smell test? You classify this as "differing opinion"? How about
> it's literally encoded into everyone's DNA pairs that affect social behavior: tribes are good, outsiders are bad
That's more than pure bullshit to you?
Here's what I think about it: "No, fuck that and fuck you. Now bring me the morons who told you this dumb shit, so I can follow the chain".
All people who think "tribalism is normal" should do their own shit. Have their own tech, do their own research. I predict they would go extinct very quickly. Let's simply secede, once and for all, for good. You say it's an idea, I say it's a bunch of mental health effects carried over generations via abuse. Either way, they WANT to separate, so they claim, so what the FUCK are we waiting for?
> All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side.
-- George Orwell, "Notes on Nationalism"
captcha: "contempt"
Indeed.
The irony is many people still think A.J. and I.W.'s the problem!
Those people need to wake up -- their silicon overlords are the problem!!
Do their sili overlords incite racial conflict?
Do those same overlords blame A.J. for the problems that they incite?
Isn't it (F.B. and the rest) all just sili hypocrisy?
Come on already... for those of you who haven't yet, just take the red pill!
Aren't you just a *little* curious??
Facebook isn't inciting anything. It is people using Facebook that incite things.
This seems like another version of the 'gun' debate where Facebook is the gun.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Facebook acts like an 'old gentleman's club' it deliberately gets money from 'members' self selecting to talk to others of the same opinions. This is an electronic form of self selecting like-minded folk and thus those of any opinion can gang up quicker and much more easily than a walk to a coffee shop to meet like minded persons. It is its speed of spread and easy of speed to accumulate folk of same type that makes it dangerous where these folk carry dangerous opinions.
You define your definition of "dangerous".
Regards Eion MacDonald