FWIS3

Listening to NPR's On Point about the data mining of Facebook that may or may not have influenced the election. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or sit in utter bewilderment. The idea that people can sit around and be manipulated by what they read on Facebook to the point of electing a doofus for president is so hilariously absurd and ridiculously sad at the same moment. People calling into the show saying they don't know what to do. They are frightened that they're personal data is being mis used but there's no way they can quit Facebook because they absolutely need it to keep up with friends. The absurdity of that statement. Add in the fact that Facebook basically tells you when you sign up that they are going to collect as much of your data as possible and sell it to everyone, absolutely everyone.

I'm seriously sitting here shaking my head in disbelief. This is so stupid it wouldn't be believable as a Netflix sci-fantasy series. It certainly pounds home the point that we absolutely got what we deserve...

My thing about FB is I definitely have many friends around the globe with whom I would not be in touch without it, because I've lived in so many places. And fuck yes, I do like to see that friend from college's pictures of her kids even though I have never met her kids, because the fact that we live thousands of miles apart doesn't mean I don't care about her or her life, and I like having that connection.

The thing is though, Thumper, is I know you weren't on FB during the election, but it was a bit crazy. There were a lot of people sharing a lot of "election news" type articles, and they certainly weren't all from the BBC. It would not shock me that people with lower critical thinking skills would share some stuff that was bogus in their news feed, and then if it's a close friend you trust and click on it another person thinks "Susan thinks..." For MONTHS. Until the absurd seems normalized because you keep being exposed to it. (And it wasn't just right wing btw, it's very clear by now that a lot of the pro-Bernie stuff was also paid for by the Russians.) People definitely consume their news online, and they spend a lot of time on Facebook, so none of this is shocking to me as it seems to be for you.

Social media is a tool, after all, and like anything it's unsurprising there are both good and bad ways to use it. FB's definitely going to be regulated soon based on their reaction though on this issue, by the UK/Europe if the USA won't.

It's okay Rommie, Mark Zuckerberg apologized...

8 years ago Zuckerberg said "privacy is obsolete"
Now that they're threatening to regulate him, he apologizes and says he needs to do more to protect privacy.

That people would allow Facebook, a gimmick best used by high schoolers to bully each other, to influence their opinions and decision making processes in such matters as electing the President of the United States is what's shocking to me. Someone acknowledging that all their personal data is at risk and subject to hacking, but that they can't get by or succeed in life without using Facebook is what's shocking to me.

It was sad/funny enough when personal relationships, marriages, friendships, employment opportunities and the like were ruined by Facebook. To now acknowledge that we are accidentally electing racist, sexist, lying, bafoons to the presidency is to me an order of magnitude worse.

In regard to sharing things and keeping up with friends, I do that. The whole world did that without Facebook at one time. We visit, we call, we write letters, we email, we text. And yes, I will admit that many of those methods could be subject to hacking, but seriously. There's just not much that I would have to post on Facebook that would be enjoyed by dozens, let alone hundreds of people. Even here, I share things privately with one or two of you that the rest would have no interest in.

I could go on but the intent of the OP wasn't just "I hate FB" it was the ridiculousness and the absurdity to which it has now been taken.

Thumper wrote:8 years ago Zuckerberg said "privacy is obsolete"
Now that they're threatening to regulate him, he apologizes and says he needs to do more to protect privacy.

He also implied that people like you and me are too dumb to work in tech startups

Well....
He may be right about me.

There is a way to turn off the ability of Facebook to mine your data. They just don't advertise it much. You can also change your settings so that third party apps you no longer want to have access to your data can be turned off. There is even an app for that!

What the Facebook thing highlights is the huge ability to influence people media can have, especially if the media is being shared by people you trust. One of the major insurance companies even ran an advertisement that made fun of how "I heard it on the internet so it must be true" to highlight how common some myths were.

I think as people get used to it the gullibility factor will wear off. But, a lot of them will continue to believe and trust too much of what they see online and that is shared by people they trust.

In the past the ignorant, bigots, and fringe groups could be mostly contained and marginalized to keep the damage limited. With social platforms like Facebook they have been given the ability to magnify their influence.

We may very well have to start taking steps that limit the ability of people to outright lie or publish false information. What we have seen in the last few years is that not curbing it has had the same impact as someone yelling "Fire" in a crowded building or a theatre. After someone locked all the exits.

*sigh*

I really, really need to work on getting more friends to switch to Signal. Or Hangouts. Or anything that isn't Facebook. Hell, even Skype again, assuming Microsoft hasn't ditched it. Having a chat platform that almost everyone is on is really, really useful.

And despite the howls of old-schoolers I actually find social media useful in general BTW. But wish there were non-shitty, non-greedy alternatives.

(And before you shout "EMAIL!" at me, remember that email is a standard from decades ago, and is cumbersome for group discussions and difficult to secure. There is a reason almost nobody uses GPG.)

Edit: basically I know it's tempting to decry the users as stupid, but I think that gives too little credit to the power of propaganda and to just how much malfeasance is involved.

skype is still viable

SciFiFisher wrote:

We may very well have to start taking steps that limit the ability of people to outright lie or publish false information. What we have seen in the last few years is that not curbing it has had the same impact as someone yelling "Fire" in a crowded building or a theatre. After someone locked all the exits.

Horrible idea. It would only hurt the little guy. Advertisers have been doing this for decades and we've managed to survive. I would rather put up with the propaganda than limit speech more.

A man in Scotland has just been found guilty of a hate crime for teaching his girlfriend's dog to do the heil hitler thing and putting it on YouTube. Yes, it's horribly offensive. No, I don't find it funny. But a criminal act? Really?

SciFi Chick wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:

We may very well have to start taking steps that limit the ability of people to outright lie or publish false information. What we have seen in the last few years is that not curbing it has had the same impact as someone yelling "Fire" in a crowded building or a theatre. After someone locked all the exits.

Horrible idea. It would only hurt the little guy. Advertisers have been doing this for decades and we've managed to survive. I would rather put up with the propaganda than limit speech more.

A man in Scotland has just been found guilty of a hate crime for teaching his girlfriend's dog to do the heil hitler thing and putting it on YouTube. Yes, it's horribly offensive. No, I don't find it funny. But a criminal act? Really?

I completely agree that no one should be charged with a hate crime for teaching a dog to do heil Hitler.

I suspect tou also don't want to limit political speexh so we must tread very carefully.

SciFi Chick wrote:I suspect tou also don't want to limit political speexh so we must tread very carefully.

That depends on what you mean by limit. My original analogy referred to yelling "fire" in a locked theatre for a reason. Trump, because he is the latest example, engaged in very virulent hate mongering. He egged people on when they were assaulting protestors at his rallies. He called Mexicans rapists and drug dealers and said that Mexico was deliberately sending all their criminals to the U.S. He told very obvious lies with the intent to incite people. He wanted you and I to be afraid of illegal immigrants or any immigrants. He wanted you and I to hate them and agree with him that they needed to be driven out. He is a racist and he whipped up the racist sentiment in this country.

He was given millions of dollars of free publicity for doing this. That should never have happened. When he did these things he should have been subjected to something that would send a clear message that these behaviors are not allowed. For example, all of the media should have been required to do a blackout on reporting his speeches and anything to do with him for two weeks after he egged on a crowd who was beating a protestor at one of his rallies. Instead, they blasted it on every channel they could get it on. It went viral on social media. That should not have been allowed to happen.

Don't be so sure that I don't want to "limit" political speech. I want to stop the outright race baiting, fear mongering, and bald-faced lies intended to cause hatred or divisiveness. For example, it is a common theme when talking about welfare to paint everyone on welfare as being welfare queens who defraud the system or illegal immigrants who are sucking the system dry. It is an outright lie and actually a fraudulent statement intended to get you to believe that only a few people getting public assistance deserve it. So, that you will think it's OK to cut the social programs that people are using. Yet, no one calls out the politicians who say this.

The direct result of all of this racist and "the poor don't deserve help" rhetoric is that hate crimes are up significantly. Social safety networks are being defunded. Medical care is being taken away from the people who need it most. The damage caused by this "political speech" is real and obvious. It's the equivalent to yelling "fire" in a locked theatre.

Thumper wrote:<snip>
That people would allow Facebook, a gimmick best used by high schoolers to bully each other, to influence their opinions and decision making processes in such matters as electing the President of the United States is what's shocking to me.

I find it no more shocking that people believe what Fox News spews or any of the talk radio folks like Rush Limbaugh. But they do and it influences how they vote.

Just to add to the story. Facebook, apparently, was very well aware that the platform was being used the way it was AND that data had been taken. And they knew at least 2 years before they finally suspended Cambridge Analytica.

Re: "freedom of speech"

Corporate "free speech" is not remotely the same issue as individual free speech.

You were all so passionate about freedom of speech when a certain Australian thought Westboro Baptist Church should be regulated. It was all slippery slope this and totalitarian state that.

I'll be honest - if you held CNN to the same standards you hold FOX (which I do) we could talk. As it stands, you all just come across as vilifying conservatives and unwilling to have any honest political discourse.

So yeah, I'm not buying the need for a nanny state when it comes to rhetoric.

SFC wrote:You were all so passionate about freedom of speech when a certain Australian thought Westboro Baptist Church should be regulated. It was all slippery slope this and totalitarian state that.

I don't recall the discussion so I guess it was a while ago? But yeah, if I was against then I'll freely admit I was wrong about that. Experience happens, bubbles get punctured, people change. Sometimes circumstances lead to taking a side you didn't expect, because the alternatives turned out to be worse.

SciFi Chick wrote:You were all so passionate about freedom of speech when a certain Australian thought Westboro Baptist Church should be regulated. It was all slippery slope this and totalitarian state that.

I'll be honest - if you held CNN to the same standards you hold FOX (which I do) we could talk. As it stands, you all just come across as vilifying conservatives and unwilling to have any honest political discourse.

So yeah, I'm not buying the need for a nanny state when it comes to rhetoric.

Actually I don't hold CNN to the same standard that I do FOX. As far as I know CNN is still a fairly reputable news outlet. FOX has openly admitted that they are not. In court they swore they were an entertainment outlet and thus were not legally obliged to tell the truth when talking about news and current events. As such I find them to be very bad entertainment and I never watch them, read them, or pay much attention to what they say. I refuse to repost any of thier stories.

As for CNN, as stated they are still fairly reputable but I don't typically rely on them as a news outlet either. Most of my real news comes from the New York Times and Bloomberg. If I repost stuff I usually try to repost stories from the more reputable outlets such as bloomberg, CBS, NBC, New York Times, and etc.

As far as news that shapes my opinions goes those outlets are the primary souces also. I have no use for FOX and not much use for CNN. But, if push comes to shove I will beleive CNN over FOX hands down.

SciFiFisher wrote:In court they swore they were an entertainment outlet and thus were not legally obliged to tell the truth when talking about news and current events. As such I find them to be very bad entertainment and I never watch them, read them, or pay much attention to what they say.

In fairness, that's just a legal thing to avoid liability. I'd wager any of the 'reputable' news organization's lawyers would argue the same thing were they to be hauled into court for lying.

Also, I hold CNN to the same standard as Fox News - it's just that CNN tends to meet that standard far more often than Fox. I avoid CNN not because they're a bunch of lying shills for the GOP like Fox, but because ever since Wolf Blitzer has become the standard bearer, they've gone down the sensationalist path.

geonuc wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:In court they swore they were an entertainment outlet and thus were not legally obliged to tell the truth when talking about news and current events. As such I find them to be very bad entertainment and I never watch them, read them, or pay much attention to what they say.

In fairness, that's just a legal thing to avoid liability. I'd wager any of the 'reputable' news organization's lawyers would argue the same thing were they to be hauled into court for lying.

Also, I hold CNN to the same standard as Fox News - it's just that CNN tends to meet that standard far more often than Fox. I avoid CNN not because they're a bunch of lying shills for the GOP like Fox, but because ever since Wolf Blitzer has become the standard bearer, they've gone down the sensationalist path.

I suppose if push comes to shove most of the so called news channels are prone to sensationalism. CNN's main crime seems to be one of being in too much of a hurry to get the story out vs. just outright lying. FOX just flat publishes outright lies and propaganda.

I know how averse to YouTube many of you are. Perhaps you'll find this book of interest.

James O'Keefe and Project Veritas? Funny, they're kind of widely known for doing even more dishonest shit than cable news. And in ways that are much, much more prone to losing a lawsuit.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... 00/273841/

Yeah, this guy is a complete, well known @ss.

@Thumper

RationalWiki has some even more fantastic stuff:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

Not just a lousy journalist, also an incredible dick.