Its honestly one of the biggest problems with this site. Some large post, 400 comments in, gets flagged cause of a few snowflakes got their feelings hurt.
And instead of the article just not being shown to them, their whim is forced on everybody.
And even if it is an incendiary news article, the discussions are usually still better than average. But no, a few whinys kill it for everyone.
A bunch of people working in the industry with a vested interest in shaping narrative being able to flag any comment or post whenever. What could POSSIBLY go wrong
After the crap they pulled in the latest Brazilian election, there is no reason to give Facebook the benefit of the doubt. They are obviously and intentionally trying to use their extreme influence over online communities to influence elections.
Watch for more fuckery during the current US election season.
People give away our planet and our souls to Facebook since decades now. Everyone knew someone who was uncomfortable with that and who asked whether a little less Facebook wouldn't be more healthy. These ones got ignored.
So, well, I don't like fascists. But if Facebook now makes use of the fact that you gave our world to them, it's hard to blame them for that.
People failed in that regard. Not Facebook. They succeeded. People failed.
Meta can act like they don't know what's happening, but they do. As do all the other tech giants. They've been censoring and curating people feeds for a long time. This story is amusing since it's one instance where a "Team Blue" was affected. In general, it's usually "Team Red" channels are the ones getting censored.
There is an interesting project America's Digital Shield that studies these practices (https://americasdigitalshield.com/). They capture "ephemeral" content from search results and social feeds from volunteers, with a balanced distribution of the political spectrum.
Basically, the idea is that none of the content we get fed from tech giants is unbiased, even search results are manipulated to affect people one way or the other, especially when it comes to politics and elections. It's pretty upsetting once you understand what's happening.
the 'team red is being silenced' nonsense was, and is, a transparently synthetic attempt to promote right-wing discourse no matter how ridiculous it was. You may remember that Elon "free speech absolutist" Musk was the champion of this meme, claiming that Twitter was suppressing right wing views, and that every single one of his and Matt Taibbi's claims turned out to have been false or overblown.
The only major tech platform that leans red is Twitter after musk bought it, unsurprisingly.
Mind you, I’m not taking sides here. I gave up on both teams at least a decade ago. I just don’t think this is behavior we should allow from tech companies either direction.
My not is that having a slant is perfectly acceptable, having tech companies so large that their comment policies affect the Overton Window isn’t.
I don’t have to care if the Washington Post or Financial Times have a political leaning, there are alternatives. Less so with Instagram. You can pry Facebook out of my mothers dead hands when that day comes.
I felt like this whole thing is extremely inorganic. Funded by a WalMart heiress, website went up hours before a massive NYT ad buy, and (in my opinion) what felt like lot of coordinated / paid / botted engagement.
Idk, I don't want the internet to be dictated by followers/engagement that can be easily botted via a SMM panel for pennies.
Gambling companies literally pay people to post on twitter?
You can go to an SMM panel right now and get a bot farm to rebrand tens of thousands of accounts on any platform to align with your messaging and spam the fuck out of replies to manufacture consensus. There is a very high chance this exact playbook worked on you lol.
Bs. The facts are clear and independently verifiable. The Dutch government saw Jared k laundering money in real time. Trump is literally bribing voters from the stump. We literally invaded Venezuela took their oil and gold and transferred it to an a foreign bank account controlled by the executive rather than congress. There is an actual active market for bribery to buy pardons and get insider information about presidential policy for trading activities. I can go on and on.
The call to protest at some specific location and time might be "artificial", but people have to want to protest. Trump has simply managed to inspire millions to do so.
Congress is largely impotent. Even if Democrats take both houses, it won't be by a veto-proof majority. Congress was designed to be "deliberative", so it has ceded more and more power to the executive branch just so anything actually gets done.
Zuckerberg knows that the power is on Pennsylvania Avenue, not 1st St. Maybe he'll change his mind in a couple of years, but he's going to spend those years doing his best to ensure that he doesn't have to.
I have to agree. The man has always been accused of stealing from others going back to the Winklevosses. He'll take any side is expedient regardless of what you (general 'you') think politically
I'm not a Meta fan or anything, but this does seem kind of tricky to deal with. Specifically that pages/topics which get sudden influx of activity at once can look similar to a coordinated spam campaign. Especially if combined with being flagged opponents who don't want to see that content. It seems like it could be hard to tell the two apart, or at least the false positives seem hard to control.
Can anyone with more experience on these kinds of spam/fraud detection systems could chime in?
Remember when zuck considered a presidential run when he saw how Facebook could sway voters and elections? And then Elon bought twitter for the same reason? We are fortunate for their awkward detestable personalities, otherwise they would have had a shot.
Remember when <obviously equally detestable but probably far less capable person> from <party> ran for president and had the support of <the mainstream media> to sway voters and elections?
Luckily Elon was born in South Africa and is therefore ineligible to be president. Although he has enough money to pull the strings of whoever’s in power, so it probably doesn’t make much difference.
I don't know whether to reply to you or slowin's reply but this is correct. And I tend not to think it was Dorsey's fault. And apparently Musk has indeed made a mess of Twitter but it's also wrong to assume there weren't massive problems with old Twitter too
one thing i rarely see discussed here... okay, let's assume that meta intentionally has people internally that do things like "bring down the No Kings page specifically at this specific time for political gain." this is like conspiracy level stuff. do you think people at meta aren't liberal and care about this as well? if they were actually doing this people internally would be whistleblowing like crazy
48 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 76.3 ms ] threadAnd instead of the article just not being shown to them, their whim is forced on everybody.
And even if it is an incendiary news article, the discussions are usually still better than average. But no, a few whinys kill it for everyone.
correction: some guy got his wallet hurt.
It is clear to me that monied/political interests are on every platform, including this one.
"Claude's fault."
Watch for more fuckery during the current US election season.
So, well, I don't like fascists. But if Facebook now makes use of the fact that you gave our world to them, it's hard to blame them for that.
People failed in that regard. Not Facebook. They succeeded. People failed.
There is an interesting project America's Digital Shield that studies these practices (https://americasdigitalshield.com/). They capture "ephemeral" content from search results and social feeds from volunteers, with a balanced distribution of the political spectrum.
Basically, the idea is that none of the content we get fed from tech giants is unbiased, even search results are manipulated to affect people one way or the other, especially when it comes to politics and elections. It's pretty upsetting once you understand what's happening.
Source? They're certainly the ones whining about it the most, but studies show algorithms have been favoring their messages basically forever.
https://bhr.stern.nyu.edu/quick-take/more-evidence-that-cons...
https://americasdigitalshield.com/
The only major tech platform that leans red is Twitter after musk bought it, unsurprisingly.
Mind you, I’m not taking sides here. I gave up on both teams at least a decade ago. I just don’t think this is behavior we should allow from tech companies either direction.
I don’t have to care if the Washington Post or Financial Times have a political leaning, there are alternatives. Less so with Instagram. You can pry Facebook out of my mothers dead hands when that day comes.
Idk, I don't want the internet to be dictated by followers/engagement that can be easily botted via a SMM panel for pennies.
You can go to an SMM panel right now and get a bot farm to rebrand tens of thousands of accounts on any platform to align with your messaging and spam the fuck out of replies to manufacture consensus. There is a very high chance this exact playbook worked on you lol.
And how come criticizing left-wing protests is fine, but bringing up right-wing botting/trolling operations on this website isn't?
"Curious..."
Zuckerberg knows that the power is on Pennsylvania Avenue, not 1st St. Maybe he'll change his mind in a couple of years, but he's going to spend those years doing his best to ensure that he doesn't have to.
0 - provocative title of a blog post I wrote on this: https://decodingvibes.com/blog/no-kings-just-a-few-techno-lo...
Can anyone with more experience on these kinds of spam/fraud detection systems could chime in?
https://newrepublic.com/post/217281/meta-suspend-democratic-...
I aggressively block/hide anything right-wing, and yet somehow "the algorithm" thought I'd be really into that...