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."
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.
A nice theory, however, it's not applicable to any media service that auto-screens content to improve your engagement by primarily showing you things you already agree with. That doesn't promote debate, it promotes extremism.
That's the difference between social media and real life conversations - real life conversations give you a semi-representative sample of what people believe, and you can have those productive debates (with the risk of physical violence encouraging most people to remain reasonably civil). Social media instead sorts people into groups that say things you "like", producing an echo-chamber to reinforce your pre-existing biases.
Of course people sort themselves in real life too, but if you go to the local skinhead bar, you're fully aware that you're going to a self-sorted establishment to hang out with a like-minded minority. You wouldn't expect the sort of disagreement you'd get voicing the same opinions in a sports bar. Social media though spans such a large population that it can easily provide the illusion that you're actually in the majority.
I would much rather see such auto-grouping abandoned than banning particular opinions - but that would severely impact profits, so I doubt it would happen.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Post a mastectomy reconstruction photo with a female nipple showing on Facebook and see how quickly it gets taken down. Repeat the process a few times to see how quickly your account gets permanently banned.
After that, come back and tell us all about how Facebook has a strong bias toward free speech.
Yeah, we're such a shithole. Please don't ever come here and see it for yourself. We only have the largest economy on the planet, backed by the strongest military. And yeah, we've gotten into some stupid shit that we never should have. But maybe you should ask yourself, why does the US have the largest number of immigrants of any nation in the world, with people literally dying to get here? Stop paying attention to tabloid journalism, and look up how well the average American lives.
Just another day in Paradise
The NZ terrorist's video could easily be blocked if they really cared. Look at how good YouTube is at recognizing someone merely humming a few bars of some copyrighted song. Play a 5 frame clip of some TV series in the middle of your hour long critique video and YouTube will copyright flag it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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
* 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.
Psychology is a pseudoscience not a science. Please discuss it with your chiropractor, reflexology specialist, and aromatherapy expert and leave it off here. Having some kind of study, peer reviewed or otherwise, does not make something science.
Even "legitimate" western medicine, while basing many things on medical science, is not itself science. Medical doctors are not engineers, their practice is not considered applied science.
Psychology is worse, and blends heavily with social science an area which has had virtually no replication of studies in decades. Mixing these things up causes people to conflate the well deserved confidence they have in hard physical sciences with extremely predictable and reliable results and thorough well proven mathematical frameworks with soft to pseudo sciences which should at best be considered a working hypothesis quickly set aside should it conflict too much with your personal observations.
Social science and psychology are blatantly laden with heavy confirmation bias. One only has to look to how rapidly they shift in response to changing and popular social norms to see it.
Really, and what country would that be? Again, you can't refute that America has the largest number of immigrants in the world, every single fucking year.
Well, it depends on how you measure. Most years, in absolute numbers, you're right though just quickly looking, for example in the 50's, Canada had higher absolute numbers and was very close in the early 20th century.
If you measure by percentage, then even Switzerland is ahead of the US and Canada lets in quite a larger percentage then the USA. It's a lot easier to have a million immigrants when you're population is close to 350 million, you end up getting the people who were refused in other countries such as Canada, which has been bringing in close to 300,000 a year with a population of 35 million. You'd have to triple your immigration to be comparable.
Why do you suppose that is?
Due to America having lots of good land and having a larger quota so people who can't have their first choice settle with America. Americans have also been running a powerful propaganda campaign for a long time. People actually believe that it is a country where hard work will mean advancement.
Sure, we had slavery, just like most all of the rest of the globe had back through 1800s
You had slavery much longer then most countries, though you did get rid of it before Brazil. Even in the late 18th century slavery was discouraged here with laws like children of slaves being freed at 21 years of age.
What other "refugees" are you claiming?
Well 50,000 Tories in the late 18th century due to their political believes. Lots of slaves ran here in the first half of the 19th century. Indian tribes would cross the border to escape the American Army who was out to kill them off and steal their land. More recently, lots of people who didn't want to be forced to go fight wars overseas, especially those avoiding going to Vietnam.
I didn't claim we're perfect...we've got a lot wrong with us. That doesn't make us the crapper that I frequently read about here, or in tabloid journalism. FWIW, I've been to ~50 countries (including living in two others for twelve years), and yet to see one that's got it any better.
You're not a bad country, it's just the attitude, the exceptionalism that turns people off. You're freedoms are different then other countries and if you want to own weapons, America is great. If you want to preach hatred, America is great. If you want to stop people from talking about sex, America has traditionally been great though the internet has changed that.
There are a lot of negative things about America along with the good. It wasn't that long ago that you officially had segregation, and those policies still echo. Your political system seems very corrupt. You have millions of people in jail, partially due to the war on drugs. The war on drugs is an example of Federal overreach and ignoring your Constitution. At that, with that wonderful Constitution, there's a lot of not following it along with a refusal to update it. Just think of the 2nd amendment for example.
When you claim to be so much better then others and your actions are not better, you get more then your fair share of hate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism