Facebook is trying to protect its profit margins. Tolerating Alex Jones' presence on their platform isn't conducive to remaining profitable; it makes Facebook look bad -- and Mark Zuckerberg is...
I'm not from the US, so I've not really read into it, but why is this all being removed now?
Facebook is trying to protect its profit margins. Tolerating Alex Jones' presence on their platform isn't conducive to remaining profitable; it makes Facebook look bad -- and Mark Zuckerberg is perfectly capable of doing that on his own.
I figure Big Tech has decided to clean up their platforms before Congress tries to do it for them. This sort of thing has happened before: Hollywood self-censored using the Hays Code, which was...
But his podcasts (at least from headlines I've skimmed) have been removed from itunes & spotify as well, so it seems like a larger movement or thing?
I figure Big Tech has decided to clean up their platforms before Congress tries to do it for them. This sort of thing has happened before:
Hollywood self-censored using the Hays Code, which was succeeded by the MPAA ratings system
Nintendo of America was heavy on the censorship prior to the rise of the ESRB, for example they excised most references to Hitler and Nazis from the US version of Bionic Commando.
The Comics Code Authority kept DC and Marvel from getting too edgy until the late 1980s.
The PMRC's one victory was in getting record companies to help kids identify albums that would annoy their parents by adding "Explicit Lyrics" labels.
Craigslist shut down their adult personals before SESTA/FOSTA had been signed into law, and didn't even bother to challenge the law on Constitutional grounds.
I think this may be possible. But that'd mean they're in for a whole lot of cleaning up to do. I think this is more likely getting rid of the very worst groups in terms of press. If it's really...
I think this may be possible. But that'd mean they're in for a whole lot of cleaning up to do.
I think this is more likely getting rid of the very worst groups in terms of press.
If it's really the start of actual cleaning, we're in for an interesting ride.
I think so, too. I figure they're cleaning the platforms the way an ANSI standard bachelor in the US goes about cleaning his apartment for when his parents come to visit: deal with the obvious...
I think this is more likely getting rid of the very worst groups in terms of press.
I think so, too. I figure they're cleaning the platforms the way an ANSI standard bachelor in the US goes about cleaning his apartment for when his parents come to visit: deal with the obvious issues, and ignore stuff like dustbunnies under the furniture or that monstrous hairball the cat horked up behind the couch three months ago.
If it's really the start of actual cleaning, we're in for an interesting ride.
I'm not counting on actual, thorough cleaning. More like bachelor cleaning.
I'm honestly actually unsure. I don't know what crazy shit alex jones did this time but it obviously caught the attention of a lot of social media sites hosting his stuff. I try not to read...
I'm honestly actually unsure. I don't know what crazy shit alex jones did this time but it obviously caught the attention of a lot of social media sites hosting his stuff. I try not to read anything alex jones related because he thinks there's a child sex camp on mars and started the whole sandy hook was a hoax thing
As long as Alex Jones gets to have his own websites, at his own expense, I don't see the problem. Your right to speak does not impose on others a duty to listen to you, or a duty to help you reach...
While I definitely don't like Alex Jones or his shows, I have a hard time justifying where I want to place the line between allowing fringe groups to run campaigns against the public and where censorship is occurring.
As long as Alex Jones gets to have his own websites, at his own expense, I don't see the problem. Your right to speak does not impose on others a duty to listen to you, or a duty to help you reach a wider audience than you might on your own.
I think you meant to reply to this comment, not OP. I agree though, Facebook can be as politically biased as they want, per Citizens United. Relevant xkcd.
I think you meant to reply to this comment, not OP. I agree though, Facebook can be as politically biased as they want, per Citizens United.
While I definitely don't like Alex Jones or his shows, I have a hard time justifying where I want to place the line between allowing fringe groups to run campaigns against the public and where...
While I definitely don't like Alex Jones or his shows, I have a hard time justifying where I want to place the line between allowing fringe groups to run campaigns against the public and where censorship is occurring.
I also think there's definitely a pass given to many of the far left groups shown to be nearly as biased and incorrect. I have a even harder time deciding how I really feel about the businesses being the ones to make those decisions which are almost always just going to be made to protect their profits.
Too many moving pieces to really tell where I fall. I'm not going to cry over losing Alex Jones I just think people cheering the move need to be careful they don't miss what something on a legislative level could do wrongly.
Care to name some? While you're at it, care to quantify how many people actually take the groups you consider far-left, biased, and incorrect seriously?
I also think there's definitely a pass given to many of the far left groups shown to be nearly as biased and incorrect.
Care to name some? While you're at it, care to quantify how many people actually take the groups you consider far-left, biased, and incorrect seriously?
Well I don't personally listen to much far left propaganda sites/news but this chart is pretty famous and generally considered to be pretty accurate most times I've seen it discussed. On the ultra...
Well I don't personally listen to much far left propaganda sites/news but this chart is pretty famous and generally considered to be pretty accurate most times I've seen it discussed.
On the ultra right and bottom of accuracy and factual reporting you have Infowars. In the left side on their same level they list
Patribotics
Palmer Report
Occupy Democrats
Now to your point of how many people look at those, I don't know but I do imagine it's far less than infowars audience. Does the size of their audience effect their accuracy though? If we're eliminating people from facebook and the other platforms based on the claim they are inaccurately reporting things, I don't see why audience size matters when their audience is mostly outside of social media. People who want to see infowars most likely go straight to their site.
I've seen that chart before, and I'm willing to accept that it's reasonably accurate. Audience size has no bearing on accuracy. However, if I were in charge of Facebook's initiative to purge fake...
Well I don't personally listen to much far left propaganda sites/news but this chart is pretty famous and generally considered to be pretty accurate most times I've seen it discussed.
I've seen that chart before, and I'm willing to accept that it's reasonably accurate.
Does the size of their audience effect their accuracy though? If we're eliminating people from facebook and the other platforms based on the claim they are inaccurately reporting things, I don't see why audience size matters when their audience is mostly outside of social media.
Audience size has no bearing on accuracy. However, if I were in charge of Facebook's initiative to purge fake news sites, I would purge the ones with the biggest on-platform audiences first because I probably don't have an unlimited budget in terms of dollars or personnel hours available with which to do my job. If a propaganda site only gets a few links and shares a month, it probably isn't worth my attention because it's basically a blackhead on Facebook's arse. Something like InfoWars, however, stands out like a great big leaky whitehead on the end of Facebook's nose.
Right and maybe I didn't specify in my first post well enough, but I don't argue with removing infowars. I just have a hard time deciding where to draw the line. Likewise I'm for businesses...
Right and maybe I didn't specify in my first post well enough, but I don't argue with removing infowars. I just have a hard time deciding where to draw the line.
Likewise I'm for businesses deciding what to do with business decisions, and I think it is a good idea for social media platforms to attempt to self purge before legislation has to, I just think it's more likely that the political bias of the companies is going to cause an unfair selection when it comes to which they choose to cut.
Also I don't think it's as big of an investment as you portray it. It literally could just be a list of URLs that facebook maintains to block. They just blacklist a few sites and wham they are gone. Whatever they are removing is through automation not from people reading everyone's posts and removing infowars stuff.
You're probably right, but in the absence of policies like the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, privately-owned platforms are under no meaningful obligation to "be fair". Facebook could nuke every...
Likewise I'm for businesses deciding what to do with business decisions, and I think it is a good idea for social media platforms to attempt to self purge before legislation has to, I just think it's more likely that the political bias of the companies is going to cause an unfair selection when it comes to which they choose to cut.
You're probably right, but in the absence of policies like the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, privately-owned platforms are under no meaningful obligation to "be fair". Facebook could nuke every right-wing group, page, and personal profile while leaving those of leftists alone, or vice versa, and be perfectly within its legal rights.
Oh I'm not saying facebook is outside of it's legal abilities to remove whatever it wants. Like I said I'm for businesses being able to do whatever they want. The problem for me is when something...
Oh I'm not saying facebook is outside of it's legal abilities to remove whatever it wants. Like I said I'm for businesses being able to do whatever they want. The problem for me is when something because so big like a google,youtube, or facebook level that it makes me a bit uncomfortable when there is no alternative. Obviously someone could form a Right-tube,and many probably already have, but it's just where I start to get uncomfortable with the situation.
IMO, this is more of an antitrust issue than a free-speech issue. Google, Facebook, etc. should never have been allowed to get as big as they've gotten. Likewise for Apple, Microsoft, Disney,...
The problem for me is when something because so big like a google,youtube, or facebook level that it makes me a bit uncomfortable when there is no alternative. Obviously someone could form a Right-tube,and many probably already have, but it's just where I start to get uncomfortable with the situation.
IMO, this is more of an antitrust issue than a free-speech issue. Google, Facebook, etc. should never have been allowed to get as big as they've gotten. Likewise for Apple, Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Con-Agra, Nestle, and just about every other megacorporation you can name.
But that's just me wearing my "Make Cyberpunk Fiction Again" hat again.
Haha Yeah I think I can agree with you there, the issue now is how would anyone go about disassembling them now. Therefore it becomes a free speech issue because we've allowed to get to this point.
Haha Yeah I think I can agree with you there, the issue now is how would anyone go about disassembling them now. Therefore it becomes a free speech issue because we've allowed to get to this point.
The old antitrust laws are still on the books. They need only be enforced. Congress still has the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce. They need only do so. It's a matter...
the issue now is how would anyone go about disassembling them now.
The old antitrust laws are still on the books. They need only be enforced.
Congress still has the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce. They need only do so.
It's a matter of political will. We CAN kill Google and Facebook is we have the nerve to do so.
I'm honestly not informed enough on the anti trust laws to know if they have the ability to break up social media moguls. What would that even look like? I mean obviously pulling instagram out...
I'm honestly not informed enough on the anti trust laws to know if they have the ability to break up social media moguls. What would that even look like? I mean obviously pulling instagram out from under facebook, but you can't break facebook into facebook A and B, half your friends would be on the wrong platform and would just leave again.
Except they just buy new domains and bypass it. And you can't just rely on automated filters that happen after X reports, otherwise you'll have people brigading specific domains. Google has poured...
Also I don't think it's as big of an investment as you portray it. It literally could just be a list of URLs that facebook maintains to block. They just blacklist a few sites and wham they are gone
Except they just buy new domains and bypass it. And you can't just rely on automated filters that happen after X reports, otherwise you'll have people brigading specific domains. Google has poured tons of money into YouTube's auto-filtering, and even when you ignore how badly fair use is stomped on through copyright strike abuse and content ID claims, their automatic de-monetization strategies leave a lot to be desired.
You have to hire real humans that are familiar with local events to recognize hate speech before it results in people getting murdered like in Sri Lanka (1, 2). And in the Sri Lanka, lots of the idiotic conspiracies/hate speech were images, so a domain block wouldn't work then.
Right I know there's a lot more to it than simply adding it to a list, but I don't picture infowars buying a new domain just to get back on facebook. Idk I could be mis-estimating the amount of...
Right I know there's a lot more to it than simply adding it to a list, but I don't picture infowars buying a new domain just to get back on facebook. Idk I could be mis-estimating the amount of their traffic that they get from that sort of thing. There is a lot of old conspiracy people posting crazy shit on facebook.
This will just serve as justification that the Deep State is silencing their views and rile up the base. I know these people personally, and that's exactly how they'll skew it. I'm just waiting...
This will just serve as justification that the Deep State is silencing their views and rile up the base. I know these people personally, and that's exactly how they'll skew it. I'm just waiting for the inevitable "first they came for the x" comparisons on my FB feed. Thankfully I only visit it about once a month, so maybe it will have blown over by then.
I'm surprised these people haven't reached the conclusion that Facebook is a tool of the Deep State. After all, Google may have gotten some of its early funding from CIA and NSA research grants....
This will just serve as justification that the Deep State is silencing their views and rile up the base. I know these people personally, and that's exactly how they'll skew it.
Good riddance. The whole conspiracy about false flag and fake actors dying in sandy hook really made me pissed off.
I'm not from the US, so I've not really read into it, but why is this all being removed now?
Facebook is trying to protect its profit margins. Tolerating Alex Jones' presence on their platform isn't conducive to remaining profitable; it makes Facebook look bad -- and Mark Zuckerberg is perfectly capable of doing that on his own.
But his podcasts (at least from headlines I've skimmed) have been removed from itunes & spotify as well, so it seems like a larger movement or thing?
I figure Big Tech has decided to clean up their platforms before Congress tries to do it for them. This sort of thing has happened before:
I think this may be possible. But that'd mean they're in for a whole lot of cleaning up to do.
I think this is more likely getting rid of the very worst groups in terms of press.
If it's really the start of actual cleaning, we're in for an interesting ride.
I think so, too. I figure they're cleaning the platforms the way an ANSI standard bachelor in the US goes about cleaning his apartment for when his parents come to visit: deal with the obvious issues, and ignore stuff like dustbunnies under the furniture or that monstrous hairball the cat horked up behind the couch three months ago.
I'm not counting on actual, thorough cleaning. More like bachelor cleaning.
I absolutely love how you phrased that. <3
That congressional hearing was a classic.
And gave us the only (AFAIK) entirely instrumental album with a parental warning
Never change G-Spot Tornado!
Sometimes revenge is subtle. :)
Thanks. You're right about the hearings; they were a hoot.
I'm honestly actually unsure. I don't know what crazy shit alex jones did this time but it obviously caught the attention of a lot of social media sites hosting his stuff. I try not to read anything alex jones related because he thinks there's a child sex camp on mars and started the whole sandy hook was a hoax thing
As long as Alex Jones gets to have his own websites, at his own expense, I don't see the problem. Your right to speak does not impose on others a duty to listen to you, or a duty to help you reach a wider audience than you might on your own.
I think you meant to reply to this comment, not OP. I agree though, Facebook can be as politically biased as they want, per Citizens United.
Relevant xkcd.
And nothing of value was lost.
Please try to post comments that contribute something to the discussion, not just generic "reactions".
While I definitely don't like Alex Jones or his shows, I have a hard time justifying where I want to place the line between allowing fringe groups to run campaigns against the public and where censorship is occurring.
I also think there's definitely a pass given to many of the far left groups shown to be nearly as biased and incorrect. I have a even harder time deciding how I really feel about the businesses being the ones to make those decisions which are almost always just going to be made to protect their profits.
Too many moving pieces to really tell where I fall. I'm not going to cry over losing Alex Jones I just think people cheering the move need to be careful they don't miss what something on a legislative level could do wrongly.
Care to name some? While you're at it, care to quantify how many people actually take the groups you consider far-left, biased, and incorrect seriously?
Well I don't personally listen to much far left propaganda sites/news but this chart is pretty famous and generally considered to be pretty accurate most times I've seen it discussed.
On the ultra right and bottom of accuracy and factual reporting you have Infowars. In the left side on their same level they list
Patribotics
Palmer Report
Occupy Democrats
Now to your point of how many people look at those, I don't know but I do imagine it's far less than infowars audience. Does the size of their audience effect their accuracy though? If we're eliminating people from facebook and the other platforms based on the claim they are inaccurately reporting things, I don't see why audience size matters when their audience is mostly outside of social media. People who want to see infowars most likely go straight to their site.
I've seen that chart before, and I'm willing to accept that it's reasonably accurate.
Audience size has no bearing on accuracy. However, if I were in charge of Facebook's initiative to purge fake news sites, I would purge the ones with the biggest on-platform audiences first because I probably don't have an unlimited budget in terms of dollars or personnel hours available with which to do my job. If a propaganda site only gets a few links and shares a month, it probably isn't worth my attention because it's basically a blackhead on Facebook's arse. Something like InfoWars, however, stands out like a great big leaky whitehead on the end of Facebook's nose.
Right and maybe I didn't specify in my first post well enough, but I don't argue with removing infowars. I just have a hard time deciding where to draw the line.
Likewise I'm for businesses deciding what to do with business decisions, and I think it is a good idea for social media platforms to attempt to self purge before legislation has to, I just think it's more likely that the political bias of the companies is going to cause an unfair selection when it comes to which they choose to cut.
Also I don't think it's as big of an investment as you portray it. It literally could just be a list of URLs that facebook maintains to block. They just blacklist a few sites and wham they are gone. Whatever they are removing is through automation not from people reading everyone's posts and removing infowars stuff.
You're probably right, but in the absence of policies like the FCC's Fairness Doctrine, privately-owned platforms are under no meaningful obligation to "be fair". Facebook could nuke every right-wing group, page, and personal profile while leaving those of leftists alone, or vice versa, and be perfectly within its legal rights.
Oh I'm not saying facebook is outside of it's legal abilities to remove whatever it wants. Like I said I'm for businesses being able to do whatever they want. The problem for me is when something because so big like a google,youtube, or facebook level that it makes me a bit uncomfortable when there is no alternative. Obviously someone could form a Right-tube,and many probably already have, but it's just where I start to get uncomfortable with the situation.
IMO, this is more of an antitrust issue than a free-speech issue. Google, Facebook, etc. should never have been allowed to get as big as they've gotten. Likewise for Apple, Microsoft, Disney, Comcast, Con-Agra, Nestle, and just about every other megacorporation you can name.
But that's just me wearing my "Make Cyberpunk Fiction Again" hat again.
Haha Yeah I think I can agree with you there, the issue now is how would anyone go about disassembling them now. Therefore it becomes a free speech issue because we've allowed to get to this point.
The old antitrust laws are still on the books. They need only be enforced.
Congress still has the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce. They need only do so.
It's a matter of political will. We CAN kill Google and Facebook is we have the nerve to do so.
I'm honestly not informed enough on the anti trust laws to know if they have the ability to break up social media moguls. What would that even look like? I mean obviously pulling instagram out from under facebook, but you can't break facebook into facebook A and B, half your friends would be on the wrong platform and would just leave again.
Except they just buy new domains and bypass it. And you can't just rely on automated filters that happen after X reports, otherwise you'll have people brigading specific domains. Google has poured tons of money into YouTube's auto-filtering, and even when you ignore how badly fair use is stomped on through copyright strike abuse and content ID claims, their automatic de-monetization strategies leave a lot to be desired.
You have to hire real humans that are familiar with local events to recognize hate speech before it results in people getting murdered like in Sri Lanka (1, 2). And in the Sri Lanka, lots of the idiotic conspiracies/hate speech were images, so a domain block wouldn't work then.
Right I know there's a lot more to it than simply adding it to a list, but I don't picture infowars buying a new domain just to get back on facebook. Idk I could be mis-estimating the amount of their traffic that they get from that sort of thing. There is a lot of old conspiracy people posting crazy shit on facebook.
This will just serve as justification that the Deep State is silencing their views and rile up the base. I know these people personally, and that's exactly how they'll skew it. I'm just waiting for the inevitable "first they came for the x" comparisons on my FB feed. Thankfully I only visit it about once a month, so maybe it will have blown over by then.
I'm surprised these people haven't reached the conclusion that Facebook is a tool of the Deep State. After all, Google may have gotten some of its early funding from CIA and NSA research grants. Why not Facebook, too?