Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Are 'Morally Bankrupt Liars' Says New Zealand's Privacy Commissioner (theguardian.com)
New Zealand's privacy commissioner has lashed out at social media giant Facebook in the wake of the Christchurch attacks, calling the company "morally bankrupt pathological liars." From a report: The commissioner used his personal Twitter page to lambast the social network, which has also drawn the ire of prime minister Jacinda Ardern for hosting a livestream of the attacks that left 50 dead, which was then copied and shared all over the internet. "Facebook cannot be trusted," wrote Edwards. "They are morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable genocide (Myanmar), facilitate foreign undermining of democratic institutions. [They] allow the live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders, continue to host and publish the mosque attack video, allow advertisers to target 'Jew haters' and other hateful market segments, and refuse to accept any responsibility for any content or harm. "They #dontgiveazuck" wrote Edwards. He later deleted the tweets, saying they had prompted "toxic and misinformed traffic."
Is more what they are than morally bankrupt...
There are clear cases where FB and other services have aided and abetted terrorists. I don't understand how they get away with it, really.
Arrest him now! Do it right now before he escapes in his submarine!
He mentioned that rain is wet and the sky is blue.
#DeleteChrome
Facebook and many other Internet companies create software to enable people to communicate. Many people are jerks or morally bankrupt. Unfortunate side effect of the Internet is it allows people you disagree with or even hate to communicate. If you want to solve the problem, find a way to get people to stop hating each other.
Left Facebook years ago and I'm not sorry at all. I don't need to find another Facebook friend so that I can get a cow for Farmville. I don't need to read another status of how someone just made a sandwich or likes butterflies. I don't need to do another survey of why I like Obama or Trump more. Facebook is just a time vampire and fake news outlet. Just leave Facebook. I guess some people do need those things apparently.
Y A N G G A N G 2 0 2 0
Every time you drop the banhammer on a weirdo, you increase the risk of a mass killing.
You don't get a better society by hiding the trash; you get a better society by facing it, debating it, and showing it that your way of living is better, and that they should join you.
The answer to every issue is always "More liberty."
What large corporation isn't run by morally bankrupt pathological liars?
... from a lawyer working for a politician.
Justice Minister Judith Collins said at appointment "I am confident Mr Edwards will be highly credible in the role of the Commissioner and will be able to engage both the public and private sectors."
Well, Ms Collins was certainly right.
There seems to be some spine in NZ politicians and lawyers...
It's easy to attack and criticize. But he offers no solution. Seriously, how does this "privacy commissioner" *think* one would moderate platforms this large... particularly while negating the possibility of false positives?
I haven't seen the NZ shooter's stream in full. But the clips I've seen look like they could come from a FPS streaming on Twitch. Probably, that was because the news was sensationalizing the "just like a video game" element of the stream. But still... if a human can mistake the stream for a Twitch feed, than a machine certainly can. So automation is right out. You need humans monitoring content and more human monitoring those humans and even more humans monitoring those humans to both prevent things like that lifestream; but also prevent false positives (The innocent should never be punished along with the guilty. So false positives are unacceptable.). I can't even fathom the size of the moderation workforce that would be necessary, given the size of platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and the like.
And if Facebook, Twitter, et al. ever DID manage to build that sort of moderation regime; how much do you want to bet that the we-hate-nerds outrage crowd would then be screeching "big brother" and "censorship"? It's especially ironic, considering that the screecher in this particular case IS a privacy commissioner... advocating for a level of surveillance that would eliminate anything even resembling privacy.
Imagine all the people...
There are cases where FB and other services aided and abetted terrorists, e.g. IS. I'm surprised how they get away with no repercussions or responsibility.
While it is tempting to agree with the conclusion that FB is "morally bankrupt liars", the rationale offered is extremely faulty.
Of all people, privacy commissioner should understand that a system that could proactively prevent "live streaming of suicides, rapes, and murders" would be extremely hostile to concepts of both privacy and all forms of freedom of expression.
Yep, that's Zuckerberg and Sandberg, for sure. The two of them should be buried up to their necks in a fire ant hill.
True.. And your point is?
Technically they have broken no laws.
And right.
Politicians are morally bankrupt liars.
Captcha: identify
You know, in communication, the two parties exchange information and everything in between is the communication channel. The wires, electricity, internet, facebook. If you blame one of them, blame all.
When you ban a weirdo, he gets drive to a smaller website of other banned weirdos, and they exist there in an echochamber of weirdness. They loose track of all reality until they decide that they must "do something" in the war against the "others", those evil infiltrators who are destroying all that is good.
The same thing also occurs in reverse: If your culture is to ban dissent, then you build a similar echochamber around yourself and your community. Compare /r/Libertarian with /r/Socialism; one invites debates, while the other disappears those who disagree. Gulags are built out of old banhammers.
facebook as an advertising platform feeds its users with shit information as it is. They are NOT the same as an ISP that just moves bits and bytes: facebook moves content. And they move it selectively.
Anyway alvinrod, you're a paid shill - a PR spokesTroll - so fuck off and die and get a real job.
I haven't seen the clips, nor have I any particular desire to see the clips. But since I'm ignorant of the content, I have to ask the question... How was it different from a CNN video feed?
Wars have provided countless video feeds of people being killed. Missiles hitting targets in the early dawn hours... Munitions being dropped on positions... Whole divisions of mechanized forces being buried in sand by bombs...
I get the not wanting to glorify terrorism argument, and I agree to a point that eliminating the recognition factor for nuts that kill a lot of people might reduce the chances that a very tiny percentage of them would do their heinous deeds, but where does the news line get drawn. Any news organization worth its salt would have broken into its broadcast events with a breaking news story and if they had video, so much the better in their opinion. We decry the news organizations as being biased, and want the news fresh from an unbiased source. Well, this is the flip side of that.
No need to fix the causes! Just hide them under the rug, and blame the messenger!
Just like in movies and games, where a murder is always an emotionally clean scene. Bam. Splat. Yeeeah. ... elegant.
Nobody with a wound crying and begging. No bystanders, family, cops. No consequences. No shame, no hiding, even a cleanup is portraied as almost
And you're surprised that people numb to horrible things?? REALLY?
I have seen 3guys1hammer. I was shocked. Horrified. Traumatized a bit. But you known what?
I thaught me, that the victim was a *human* being! (Trying to beg/talk, while a screwdriver was stirring his brains through his smashed eye socket, and him just not dying.)
Suddendly I *DID* care! A damn fucking lot!
THAT is why I think these things *should* be shown!
Not publicized. Not dragged through the media so the perps can feel great.
But for everyone to see! With a line of text below, so everyone can say together: "We will get those motherfuckers!"
Ask e.g. rape victims (like me): They don't want rape web sites to be blocked. People should know that there *are* these things. They want *rapists* to be blocked!
Define "resasonable".
That's your problem; you refuse to define "reasonable" in advance; your idea of "reasonable" is ad hoc, and so the weirdos feel completely alienated by your ad hoc choice to band them.
Even the weirdest weirdos appreciate when they've broken an objective rule that applies to everyone; what they don't understand is your subjective, ad hoc rules that really just amount to "I don't like you, so you're banned."
Wow, New Zealand's Privacy Commissioner is pretty slow on the uptake.
Where were all these people back when Facebook was still in the process of overtaking everyone?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
For every complex problem there is an easy answer thst is clear, simple, and wrong.
I thougt about how to tell stupidity from evilness. And the one difference is, that evilness is competent, and hence converges towards its goal. While stupidity fails, and hence *diverges* into randomness.
In this case, there is easily recognizable convergent action. It all marches toward a goal of total control and surveillance, censorhip and enforced conformity. Be it China, Russia, the USA, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, or most second/third world countries anyway.
So no, they may like it to *look* like "Oh my, stoopid me! Whoops!". But they provably aren't
You've implied that the "market" solutions are not meeting your desires as a market participant; you've implied that there is a market for another way to provide communication, and that it would actually be profitable.
I actually disagree with you, though. I don't think people are banned for the sake of algorithmic, mechanical profiteering; I think people are banned in spite of profit, in order to instead advance a political agenda.
For all our sakes, thank goodness Slashdot has a benign system of moderation.
The Internet itself is a system that has no capacity to morally judge the content it's spreading, no wonder it ends up being abused by white supremacists and right-wingers to spread dangerous ideologies. While Facebook is indeed a morally-bankrupt cesspool of hate speech, limiting your scope to Facebook is not good enough, the white supremacists will just make their own version of it, which has already happened to twitter once they began their timid attempts to detoxify the platform, the bigots just created Gab and went on to spread hate from there.
One potential solution to this problem could come at the hands of the EU thanks to their passing of articles 13 and 11, which would require ISPs to implement upload filters to prevent copyright violations. If a filter technology is capable of detecting copyright violations, it could also serve to filter dangerous, hateful ideologies at the root level.
A politician complaining about moral bankruptcy? Oh brother!
Morally bankrupt are people who DO bad shit, not post it. Goddamn fascists can fuck off! There's no point in arguing anymore, they won't listen. We need the tech to wipe them out.
That's why she lost.
She didn't go after the right votes; she didn't hold press conferences; she hid her poor health; she insulted an enormous swath of the electorate; her slogan was narcissist and niche feminist.
Repeat it until you believe it: Trump won because he was a better candidate.
Law is, at best, only loosely related to right and wrong.
Especially when the criminals are mostly the ones (literally) writing the laws.
Try to find a politician / judge / TV expert / fake protest group spokesperson, who isn't a lobbyist for one of those organizations who do evil that happens to be legalized.
Check where they used to work, where they will work after, and with whom they meet regularly.
Good luck. Might aswell play the lottery.
But no one has the guts to stop it. Facebook needs to be smashed into 10,000 pieces along with Google.
Sorry Microsoft, you were 1990's evil.
Corporatism != Free Market
If you want that there is less hate speech in the internet facebook, you want more censorship, and perhaps legists and judges and policy makers to define what it is allowed to say, and what is not allowed to say. But this is costly, this is a lot of job. And most people prefer free speech while allowing idiots to speak, rather than censorship with the risk of missing rares goods ideas.
Good luck, and thank you for your interest.
I return drinking and eating coffee and little cookies.
Too bad I am overweight.
You say that like it's somehow a bad thing. Getting the weirdos out of mainstream channels and into their own private echo-chambers means vulnerable people (teens, mentally challenged and unstable people, etc) aren't exposed to their weirdness and are far less likely to join them.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The Facebook service itself is largely a non-moral tool. Like a hammer. There is no way to block "horrible" live streams other than blocking all livestreams.
-In space, it is very hard to rig lights.
If you are in New Zealand, you can get up to 10 years in jail just for having the shooter's manifesto in your possession:
Link Here
Ten Years. For having a hateful text document on your computer.
I would call that morally bankrupt.
Just use 'corporation'. It takes less keystrokes.
This is not really a problem. I expect corporations in which I have an ownership stake (shareholder) to operate up to the limits allowed by laws* to maximize profits. Nothing more, nothing less. Not wasting money or avoiding opportunities based on some unquantifiable touchy-feely nonsense.
*Whose laws? Facebook is a US corporation. The fact that an Australian, located in New Zealand chose to use it as a streaming platform isn't the fault of FB. And we have a culture of free speech and honesty here instead of covering up societies warts with some rose-colored glasses and censorship. Unlike some of the more totalitarian regimes that attempt to sweep their problems under the rug.
Have gnu, will travel.
Would you like to know more?
It makes it much easier for those vulnerable people to find a place that feeds their weirdoness.
It makes it much easier for the weirdos to "prove" that they are being persecuted by "(((them)))".
It makes it much harder to pull the vulnerable people up and out of the weirdoness by exposure to rebuttals.
If you're so worried about losing to the weirdos, then maybe your position isn't that sound after all; I, for one, invite the debate, because I know my ideas are the best. I have confidence that they'll win the day.
Facebook is still a thing?
He has every right to be pissed and the New Zealand government has egg all over it's face on this. Recently NZ has been updating it's Privacy Act and they yet again left it toothless with no power for the Privacy Commission to enforce compliance. But hey, that's what you get when the MP in charge of the Bill is also in charge of the GCSB. Well that, and a blanket exemption for the GCSB. This was before the Christchurch Shootings and look where we are now. It looks as though the Bill wasn't rewritten to so much to protect peoples privacy as it was to allow our economic compliance with the GDPR and gain more government exemptions. I doubt the Privacy Commissioner is as pissed at Facebook as he is at being left totally impotent by the New Zealand Government.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Government should ban subjective moderation, because it's being used to push a political agenda.
All moderation systems on sufficiently popular websites should be required to entail a published, detailed, objective set of rules that everybody can understand in advance of interaction (and, no, "A violation of our Community Guidelines" is not a sufficient citation).
* Russia bought $50K (that's not a typo) of illiterate Facebook advertisements. Your system of governance can't handle that???
* Sounds to me like middle-America isn't afraid to vote for a liberal from New York City.
* Most importantly:
People on the right appreciate rules.
Everyone knew the rules to the game; they knew them in advance; they've been the rules for about 2 centuries.
Donald Trump got MORE VOTES than Hillary Clinton; that's why he's the POTUS, and she isn't.
Your "popular vote" is meaningless. That's a different game. That's not the game they were playing.
I'm glad Hillary Clinton and your ilk lost, because you prove over and over that you would be bad in power: You don't appreciate the rules of the game to which all participants have already agreed in advance.
You're so incompetent that you don't even know what game you're playing.
Can't argue with that statement. I think its a sign of the times to ignore ethics and moral responsibilities. Personal data equal money and is of more value then anything else in a world where knowing all about you means you privacy is valued at nothing to them.
by a billion or so users.
Yes. AI is being used to try to police/filter it quickly these days (because with a billion possible contributors, how else could you do it fast?) but the challenge for that AI to recognize really bad content (the only kind that should be filtered, right?) is very complex. Human moderators often can't even do it reliably.
So realistically, it has to be a system that relies partly on human users to flag bad content for immediate review. Then a large team of moderators needs to check and decide, which in some cases requires knowledge? Is that a deepfake first-person-shooter video game? Is it real? Is it a movie scence? Does our policy care about these distinctions?
That's what takes nearly an hour to get reliable blocking going.
We should not be surprised.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Put yourself in Zuckerberg's shoes and tell me with some technical detail how YOU would solve this problem. I'm not being sarcastic. Realistic ideas well described welcome here. Ideas with gaping holes in feasibility with current tech not useful though.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Because people, on the aggregate, are awful, it's therefore a terrible idea to institute censorship. You'll just be centralizing the power, and thereby offering a well-defined tool of oppression towards which the awful psychopaths will gravitate like moths to a flame; these awful people have a visceral need to control others.
Europe already faced this same problem centuries ago.
Various factions of Christianity were vying for control of the levers and buttons of power; the State was a club (literally made manifest as the royal mace, which exists in the UK to this day) to be grabbed by any means necessary, and to be wielded with resolve in crushing one's philosophical opponents. Europeans were killing each other to install into the seat of social authority a protestant, and then a Catholic, and then a certain kind of protestant, etc., disemboweling, and cutting off each others lips, and who knows what the hell else.
Finally, the American Colonists said "Enough of this crap! There needs to be enshrined an absolute separation between Church and State." And, once this idea spread throughout the rest of the West, the religious wars rapidly evaporated, because there was no longer a legitimate tool of power ready for the taking.
Power corrupts. Period. Full stop.
The answer is always "More liberty".
What took them so long?
The web as a whole is event larger, and with only a tweak to search tech, an unmoderated "virtual, distributed" facebook-like browsing pattern could be supported.
So how are you going to police the whole web? And why would you even try?
I really think people need to get thicker skins, and accept that the full, ugly range of human behaviour exists. People who don't want to be able to see it all should start becoming patrons of some new filtered-search service that works FOR THEM, according to their own specified standards.
The onus should be on the viewer not to look.
And of course, posters of illegal material should also be identified and prosecuted.
Middleware is just middleware, a platform, and new ones can spring up like hydras heads in the Internet infrastructure as a whole. Middleware is not the problem. It's a mistake to focus on that. That leads to totalitarian censorship.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
New Zealand's privacy commissioner has lashed out at social media giant Facebook, saying they had prompted "toxic and misinformed traffic". He later deleted the tweets, saying they had prompted "toxic and misinformed traffic."
I loooove when you Amerikujs act like youre the ones who get to define freedom. Ild call your country a psychopathic murderscape based on your gun crimes but you call that freedom.
Consider for once that your rights carry responsibilities and that other people think youre a total shithole country.
Did this goofball stop to think that every single thing he mentioned could have been accomplished with the plain-old-telephone system?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Because I would definitely consider the latter both clueless and morally bankrupt. This whole social media problem has been going on for ~23-24 years now. Maybe longer. My sister started on it in her teens which was back in the late 1990s. That means the politicians have had over 20 years to analyze the impact of social media and consider the ramifications of it. And they haven't.
This is on them, not Facebook, Whatsapp, or anyone else. Companies today exist to make money hand over fist at the expense of all morals. That too is a problem that can be firmly placed on the lap of politicians as well. If they weren't a bunch of morally corrupt motherfuckers selling out their morals and compromising their ethics for political or financial gain, then the corporations would not be either because they would have brought them to heel decades ago. But instead we have this social, political, and economic death spiral where everyone is blaming the other guy.
Heh, captcha was 'maturity', as in 'They all lacked the maturity to act responsibly on their own.'
That's pretty much their business model, isn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Facebook is used as the universal login to literally millions of websites. Make it illegal for a company like Facebook to control universal login, and nobody would need a Facebook account any more. (Shouldn't universal login be open source, maybe even blockchain-based?) I deleted my Facebook account last year... which doesn't mean Facebook deleted any of my data.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Downmodded? Repost!
It's harder to say "We will not let a psychopath's actions diminish our liberties; we will cling even more strongly to the Freedoms our citizens enjoy."
That's why NZ's prime minister instead dressed in a hijab and promised to steal citizens' property at gunpoint.
CAPTCHA: tyranny
I would suggest that Facebook employees, like their fearless and intrepid leader, are not morally bankrupt liars or anything of the sort. They are, at a median age of 28, simply young and unable to put their ideas into any context beyond utility and/or profit. Now they have all built a company with revenue streams dependent on questionable practices, and its not easy to choose any option that resembles "end our distasteful practices, and the revenue associated with them" and thereby keep all it's kids in their 7 figure Menlo Park, mountain View, or sick Palo Alto cribs.
For years, on this exact subject, I've been hearing, "Older people just don't get it!?"
They do, still, and they always did.
It's easy to get political points by bashing the current state of things. Offering realistic alternatives is rarely a full requirement by voters. The ACA ("Obamacare") is almost a perfect example of that. The GOP made huge gains in 2014 largely by emphasizing the heavy fees of ACA.
But, GOP never offered clear alternatives, just a bunch of vague or gimmicky talking points. That didn't matter, Democrats got bigly slaughtered in the election. Ugly politics "works". Logic and math be damned.
If you look at polls of what voters actually want in terms of healthcare, it's pretty contradictory: great but cheap service. But, voters on average did and do want some kind of gov't managed healthcare insurance; they are just confused about what the practical trade-offs are. Democrats did a poor job of discussing the trade-offs, instead choosing to deflect the topic, hoping voters would focus on something else. Wrong strategy. (Dems also flubbed the handling of Trump, focusing on his personality rather than policy. People already knew his personality because of the heavy news coverage he got.)
Table-ized A.I.
A shithole that everybody seems to want to immigrate to for some reason. Hmmm.
Well I am surprised, guy with enourmous bank balance running huge advertising website with 500 million targets...sorry, customers, oops, sorry, users....is a money grabbing scuzzbag with all the morals of a piece of pond scum. Who'd a thunk it, eh?!
Why would the NZ Privacy Commissioner try and police the 'whole web'? Why would he try? He has no jurisdiction. As for people getting thicker skins, etc.....maybe people should accept that the web is a public place and what you say in a public place has some restrictions. Look again at your 'ugly range of human behaviour comment'. It is currently the 25th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide at which time New Zealand held the Presidency of the Security Council. Are you saying we should have ignored it as we accept the full ugly range of human behaviour exists?
Look, the whole problem exists because the NZ government refuses to do anything about it. That is it. The Privacy Commissioner is moaning because he has absolutely no other choice. It isn't middleware that is the problem, it is the New Zealand Governments failure to deal with a problem that has political consequences to them.
I reserve the write to mangle english.
Facebook is certainly awful, but NZ is jailing people for hosting public domain videos and saying the wrong things. So yeah when they say "Facebook Bad", don't think for one second where they want to go is any good.
Downmodded? Repost!
The Unamericans congregate where the easy money is, namely the cities.
One-man-one-vote-regardless-of-anything-else means these Unamericans easily tip the local politics of these places towards the Left, thereby making it seem like the prosperous places and the "mainstream" Americans are leftists.
They are not.
Actual Amaricans are uninterested in taking other people's resources against their will; they tend to move away from those urban places, which means you'll find them in the countryside, or at least in the "outskirts", or in "middle" America.
The Founding Fathers put the electoral college in place, because they foresaw this situation. They knew they had to keep the Republic safe from the concentration of Unamericans.
Clueless troll is clueless. Citation needed.
Not us. We used to travel around USA on holidays every year and drop a few thousand but we quit that a long time ago. Don't need the hassle at the border and don't want to be shot.
Fucking brits and those that still cling to their fuckification of the english language. Facebook is not a plural noun.
The concept of free speech includes ugly, rude and even dangerous speech. That is exactly why we have free speech in the first place. Make a choice. Would you rather have a pot gutted beer swilling idiot running around in the woods with an AR-15, trying to conspire to create a violent revolution or suffer the consequences of shutting off his speech or communications? If we have such an idiot we can measure, watch and even convict in courts, for his behavior and conspiracies. If we shut down his speech he will be able to hide, his rage will increase and he will find those similar in beliefs to his own. At some point, we need to demand that people increase the thickness of their skin. The kid who kills himself due to being teased online is as much of a problem as those that tease him. The girl that ends up with nude photos being sent all over the world needs to get smarter and simply admit what she did or does. Instead of suicide, when confronted with her pics she could reply don't I have a nice body. We are becoming a nation of babies who fear all kinds of trivial insults or wrongs. Trying to shut down free speech or kick it halfway to the curb is simply not a sane answer. We even see buildings with 800 people or more going in and out resent the cams that photograph them under their weird ideas about privacy. Even auto license plates escape the grasp of weaker minds. The entire purpose of a license plate is to make certain that a vehicle does not operate on public roads without declaring its ownership.
They're just figuring it out now??
I did say that those who publish illegal material (that is, the poster onto the public network) should be held accountable.
Although it is currently unclear as to in which country's jurisdiction and standards - is it determined by:
a) where you post from (which could be random),
b) where the poster is a citizen of,
c) where the filmed act took place, or
d) where it was copied to by web browsers i.e. everywhere in the world?)
If you're going to hold middleware responsible, which of the above a) b) c) or d) should determine whether it should be filtered and who should pay what penalty, to which jurisdictional authority?
Is the principle, for example, that a citizen of any country, and publishing from anywhere (else), should be charged with an offensive/illegal material publication offense separately by each jurisdiction in which at least one user of the Internet / middleware was able to see the content? So charged in some countries and not others, according to different standards and laws? If we do it that way, the Internet itself would become a de-facto illegal concept, and would have to be divided into siloed national intranets instead.
If middleware is to be held accountable for user-posted content, what are the standards of reasonableness of response-time? Given that there is as yet no AI that can reliably diagnose the really bad stuff, and that a human complaint-then-review process takes time and imperfect and somewhat arbitrary, and jurisdiction-relative decision-making, what is reasonable there. Given that content is edited / morphed specifically to avoid detection while being replicated around the web or re-posted on the middleware platforms, to what degree should the middleware owner be held accountable for reliably keeping the essence of the content off their platform at all times?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
But maybe you should ask yourself, why does the US have the largest number of immigrants of any nation in the world
Pick me, pick me, I know!
Maybe: because the Indians didn't manage to keep the Europeans out, and they have historically been very accepting of other migrants?
And whereas all other countries are populated mostly with people that are descendants of indigenous peoples?
Meanwhile, I live in Zurich, and while Switzerland is not an easy country to get into, I can tell you that Zurich has 100.000 foreigners on a population of 350.000.
I doubt you can find me a US city of similar size or larger that has that ratio of foreigners.
Once you do, I'll tell you that of the 250.000 non - foreign nationals, over half have one of both parents from another country.
So in absolute numbers, you may well be right, but I'm not sure on relative numbers...
Only peasants from more shitholey countries. Anyone from a civilised nation would avoid unless there's outrageous profit in it that justifies the sorts of measures taken in places like Guatamela, Yemen and the US.
"Morally bankrupt pathological liars" describes literally every single publically traded company.
It's because these companies are legally required to prioritize profits over everything else.
The problem is that "morally bankrupt pathological lying" is rewarded in the short term by customers and rarely ever punished after being exposed.
First context. I am 56 year old New Zealander. I don't like censorship in general and generally support free speech, both with common sense exceptions. I seldom use Facebook as life is too short to waste scrolling down a screen clicking like buttons. My usage of it would be about 2 hours a week max. Have to confess I'm a bit addicted to Slashdot however.
It is hard to express how deeply the event in Christchurch has affected the nation, it certainly has had exactly the opposite effect of what the to be nameless perpetrator intended.
As much as I would love to think AI could magically block such live streams I think that will never be practical. Disabling it for all would be overkill. I'm surprised it only 17 minutes to stop the live stream given how hard companies like Facebook work to block people from contacting a real live staff member. I think they could improve the communications channels between law enforcement and their staff. That said with modern technology you are never going to be effective at stopping bad stuff being streamed.
The repeated sharing of the content is a different story. Youtube is pretty good at automatically blocking reposts of stuff and this is an area where AIs can be effective. If Facebook can't effective block sharing of this video then they do have something to answer for.
People in senior government roles need to work hard to separate their person views from those of their role. Given it is hard to tell a person's personal views from official views of their roles it is probably best that when they take on such roles they stop personal social media post. In this case I think personal feelings of the commissioner got the better of him and he posted something not well thought through. Mind you if you look at the endless questionable tweets of the POTUS the I think the commissioner's tweet look pretty mild.
At the end of the day I think it is stupid of one government to try an apply its laws to the website in another country with the exception of servers physically hosted within their territory. That should not stop a government from making their views clear to website owners, they just shouldn't expect much as a result. In general I am proud of how our nation, government, politicians and people have handled themselves.
Just not using facebook?
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
I realize Facebook is an acceptable target, but what happens when someone live streams something appalling using a free, user supported service?
I mean, youtube/twitter/facebook are just apps.
They could be replaced by an open version (call it you-twit-face) and there wouldn't be any hobgoblin to be righteously angry at.
The NZ government did not just want to block to video. They have made the manifesto that the terrorist wrote (very) illegal to view in NZ.
That is of concern. We should have the right read his rantings if we really want to. And it is counter productive, because the manifesto itself is probably dibble, but censoring it is gives it a legitimate strength.
Far to much fuss is made about the video itself. Sure, it is tasteless. But it is not going to inspire a new generation of terrorists. It is not that more terrible than seeing bits of human anatomy on line. A bit nasty for the victim's family, but something that can be safely ignored.
We have seen plenty of other videos of people getting killed ruthlessly killed. That one of US soldiers firing on Iraqi civilians comes to mind. It would be very bad if they were censored.
As to Facebook ruthlessly mining data, along with Google, that is another matter. But in the modern age people have less expectation of privacy than traditionally. It comes with the territory -- increased communication directly leads to less privacy. I think the other side is that we tolerate digression's more. Once upon time a photo of a drunken naked girl would be life and career destroying, now it is just something she did.
In other news there's an overabundance of false Scotsmen
Not everybody, your rate of immigration is quite low for a western country of your population. This is despite years of propaganda via movies/tv selling the American dream. Don't make the miatake of thinking that because your country is more preferable than others, that it is therefore the best country.
Must read:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26195941-the-age-of-surveillance-capitalism
The AC defined what an American is: An American is uninterested in taking other people's resources against their will.
Probably no more thousands to drop as you live out your socialist dystopia. ;)
The Founding Fathers put the electoral college in place, because they foresaw this situation. They knew they had to keep the Republic safe from the concentration of Unamericans.
False. The electoral system was put into place to keep the south in the union.
There were 2 proposed methods of election: Popular vote, and legislative appointment.
Popular vote was a non-starter because the north had more individual voters, on account of slavery in the south, and the fact that only wealthy landowners could vote in the south. James Madison came up with the idea for an elector system where states would be able to vote with the power of their population, not their actual enfranchised population, in essence, applying the 3/5ths compromise to the presidential vote.
But I do love hearing you guys peddle around that fiction, rewriting history to suit your narrative. Ya, you're the real americans alright.
This is a guy who allowed the NZ gov to raid a citizen's home on the behest of Hollywood, so they didn't miss out on some Hobbit movies.
A shithole that everybody seems to want to immigrate to for some reason. Hmmm.
Everyone whos other options world require them crossing the pacific or atlantic you mean. You ain't the best, just the closest.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
So your argument is that Trump was better than Hillary at following rules? The guy whose own lawyers refuse to let him take the stand because he can't help but implicate himself in crimes?