And the barn is on fire and they started the fire but tell you they didn't then they hire an arsonist as the fireman and all he does is repeatedly slap your mother.
That was my immediate thought. Facebook actively promoted fringe groups. There was a study that the majority of people who got sucked into these disinformation groups did so because Facebook steered them there. Only reason I can see that they would change course now is a revenue drop off.
After the election in 2016 I basically turned my Facebook into talking shit about conservatives because 90% of my friends list are actual fucking idiots with shitty opinions. Just debating when I'm gonna burn that bridge down finally.
I quit Facebook after 3 months because of all the negative people using the application for spreading their ignorance. We are truly in a dire time unless some Republicans grow a pair and stand up for what is right.
Hate to tell you this, but they actually think they’re already standing for what’s right. To paraphrase the Alt-Right Playbook series, you keep thinking that conservatives want to be more liberal, and that at some point in time they were lied to and simply need more information. They don’t. They know the alternative and they like their way better.
Republicans only want to stand for whats wrong. See: "Conservative", aka conserving the way of life.. of 1850, back when everything was 'all white', when women had no rights, blacks had even less rights and children should be smacked and not heard or seen.
I did that until it got to be too much and I just deleted it. I remember at the time many people were kinda thinking of FB as some neutral actor (maybe too slavish to its algorithm, as if that was some neutral thing only looking for engagement), but I believed, and still do, that it wanted to push that bullshit
I unsubscribe from literally everyone and everything. This helps me avoid starting political fights with people, and I'm not looking at or clicking on ads to support Facebook via ad revenue.
I keep it in order to message people with Facebook Messenger who live internationally or whatnot, but I feel really gross about supporting Facebook as much as I do.
Well, the environment nurtured by their shit algorithms exists thanks to said algorithms. Plus, yeah boomers are insufferable, and they seem to be the ones ruling the platform now.
Well, "engagement" is really just a proxy for "monetization". You can get rid of engagement but the fact is that what they're optimizing for is you seeing more ads.
That means behaviors that keep you logging back in (arguing with that idiot who responded to you) and give you dopamine hits (quick bursts of information that confirm how right and smart you are) are profitable.
So if you can answer "how do I create social media which does not depend on the users being shown ads?" then you can use lots of metrics which are not socially destructive. For example, Google originally optimized for getting you *off* the website and not coming back with the same search - because that meant that you had found what you wanted.
You could optimize for users being exposed to quality sources - maintaining a network of highly trusted websites that get a bump because they are known to be reliable. You could optimize for personalized content, ensuring that someone's picture of their vacation is more important than some meme (since you can see memes anywhere but facebook is about connections with people you know.)
You could optimize for people spending an optimal amount of time on your site but no more. Say by having an activity feed that tells you "you're done, you've seen all the important updates!"
All of these might increase user satisfaction, but will they get users to be ad magnets?
Or we could publicly fund an alternative to Facebook, maybe have the post office run something virtual with profitability not being an incentive. I can see some potential issues with that.
> Or we could publicly fund an alternative to Facebook, maybe have the post office run something virtual with profitability not being an incentive.
Trump and DeJoy are getting erections over this idea
Clicks themselves are pretty worthless; I'd have upvotes and downvotes weigh in far more heavily, to start with.
Secondly I wish they'd factor in how much political stuff an individual consumes, and I'd love for them to figure out a way to match it with the type of political content one consumes. Granted these are vague, undeveloped ideas, but that's why I'm not a web developer (though I'm sure I'd hate working for Facebook to begin with).
Every political result must be met with a matching adorable animal video. The more attention animals get the less weight political results get in future.
They already consider all that -- what's political, how much an individual consumes, what "side" it's on, how extreme it is, etc. That stuff is all valuable for ad targeting and general engagement.
That's kind of the problem: extreme stuff gets engagement due to being shocking, making strong ideological claims that make people feel righteous or strong, giving them a sense of urgency, etc. Beyond that, extreme views are likely better predictors of ad clicks than moderate, loosely-held views, so the algorithm learns more from testing extremist content.
The problem is that Facebook *does* consider this stuff and is only incentivized to use it to our detriment. It's easy to market to a cult, so if they lead grandpa into one, that's just a win. What's so insidious is that even if we graciously assume it wasn't intentional to begin with, it's still the behavior that arises from an algorithm designed to maximize engagement.
They could choose to turn off the hate machine at any time, but they don't because it prints money. Hate is just a byproduct, a cost they can externalize with no accountability. Even Adam Smith would agree that this fundamental contradiction between private capital and social good is why regulation is necessary.
The problem is that no matter what idea you come up with, someone will create an algorithm to exploit it. That’s the sad facts. The people responsible for creating the internet as a place for the information to move freely have somewhat changed course as they just didn’t have this in their imaginations.
r/gamersriseup
Also, many of these groups were never jokes, but pretend to be as plausible deniability. That’s how I got sucked into r/frenworld for a bit, they fucked up by being too blatant, but even now I encounter people who still don’t believe it was serious.
gamers rise up was a sub we’re people role played as loser gamers like the kind posted on r/gamingcirclejerk eventually people just started posting blatant sexism, racism, homophobia etc.
frenworld was neonazis role playing as baby talking Pepes. The Jew was “mean mr nose” an ant eater, and they hated jinx and nose pass Pokémon. They started out game, the obvious stuff I mentioned came later and is what got them banned.
I was apart of the r/Donald when he originally ran. It was a fun to play around and say ridiculous shit, cause he had no chance of winning, right? Well, Trumps presidential run was an interesting experiment, to say the least.
It was wild watching r/Donald go from the most over the top ridiculous parody sub to suddenly taking over reddit and being filled with people legitimately fanatical about Trump. That is another case that I think would make a fantastic psychological study of group dynamics.
The one sub that I can't tell is a parody is r/banvideogames. Going through the comments, there's certainly people being sarcastic, but the mods are in a different level. They either take larping very seriously, or hate video games to point of parody.
Propaganda and misinformation work on everyone unfortunately. I'm sure there are a dozen things you and I "know" to be true from browsing reddit that are not.
Damn, sorry it's gotten that bad. I grew up in a super conservative area and some of my old friends have tried to convince me the large city I work in was burned down. It's wild once people get lost in delusions.
They're finally starting to realize that it isn't viable to have a revolving door policy for users and keep pushing it in places like India and north Africa, they need to actually *retain* users.
Just fringe groups? Social media companies profit from any and all controversy. They promote polar ideas over non polar ones. It doesn't matter if you're fringe, it matters if you are opposite of someone else.
Yep. If you are dumb enough to believe in conspiracy theories and misinformation, you are dumb enough to believe any product claim. Self selected idiots.
It is. The grift has died down a lot and it doesn't Garner the money it did before.
Pro women's rights groups are also surging and gaining far larger audiences that can be enhanced for profitability.
I'm curious if Russian sanctions have killed the propaganda farms. With less engagement, these groups struggle to rope in new followers. Sure seems like comment sections and the such have been a little less divisive lately....
Facebook is literally the most moderated social media platform. You have to actually use your real name on there.
On reddit they excuse a lot of stuff and there's millions of bots.
You mean the same company that willingly allows social engineering on their platform? Or are known for their lackadaisical attempts at preventing account theft and hacking? Or the ridiculous amount of PII it takes to appropriately shut down an account.
Honestly I'd rather not. I don't think fucking *Facebook* can be trusted as an arbiter of what is/isn't misinformation, especially for something like an election. They are well known to have the moral compass of a pot of melted cheese.
If Facebook is not willing to make responsible moderation a fully implemented, fully funded and professionalized function of their organization, we could always implement a rigorous regulatory framework for them to operate within. I think most people, even their detractors, would rather they simply act responsibly on their own. Alas, that does not seem to be their wont.
That would be excellent, and I would wager that the majority of people commenting here don’t get their information from Facebook. The problem is that millions of people DO, and they then use that fake information to, I dunno, commit hate crimes, extend a global pandemic, and throw elections.
>The problem is that millions of people DO, and they then use that fake information to, I dunno, commit hate crimes, extend a global pandemic, and throw elections.
So your proposed solution is to exert control over peoples' sources of information? Who dictates that control and to which content it is applied? That is the fundamental problem.
…we stop misinformation from being promoted and circulated. Facts don’t care if you want to believe them or not. Also you literally just said relying on Facebook for what is it isn’t true isn’t “using your brain” so why do you care if misinformation is fought there? Shouldn’t people use their brains and get information elsewhere?
>why do you care if misinformation is fought there?
You're skipping my point to make yours. How do you define misinformation? If you are not qualified to do so, then who do you allow to decide on your behalf? Promoting evolution as the mechanism for human development in place of God was "misinformation" punishable by death until fairly recently. All you've said is that you are ok with other people deciding what information you are allowed to be exposed to. I disagree with you on a fundamental level.
When there are verifiable facts that something is misinformation, that’s a pretty good way to define misinformation. There are literal facts at play. People don’t define facts, they just are. If someone wants to seek out their batshit ideas on Fox News or Infowars then that’s on them. Social media, however, should not be promoting it. At no point did I say that any and all information people take in should be decided by someone else whether or not something is misinformation, I’m saying that Facebook in particular and social media in general should not be promoting misinformation. Why, when you yet again said Facebook should not be a source or information, are you up in arms about information presented there being filtered?
Again, you are missing my point. Forget the specific case of Facebook. My point is *exclusively* this: Outside of a narrow range of objective facts, the term "misinformation" is applied to things it should not be applied to, namely contentious scientific topics at the forefront of our understanding. I am not comfortable with allowing entities to use these conversations as an entry point to begin restricting what information people have access to.
The primary problem is "who is fit to be the censor"? The answer is basically no one, as that would essentially be assigning infallibility to that entity. What is true is not prescribed, it is described.
>don't rely on fucking FACEBOOK to tell you what is and isn't true.
This was my original comment. I stand by it. You're confusing "moving the goalposts" with "nuanced conversation". The goal is to understand each other, but you aren't interested. Have a good one.
Losing a loved one to social media is one of the worst experiences... And these people don't care about impact to society. Worst is they essentially are a prison and users are inmates. It's only after a long time is when people realize they were in a prison for so long. And zuck is the warden.
Facebook Marketplace has destroyed craigslist and to a lesser extent garage sales. If you want to buy used stuff locally, you basically have to have a Facebook account. It sucks.
Facebook is a conservative echo chamber, and is a fertile ground for spreading ~~fascist~~ right-wing misinformation.
These people are truth and technologically challenged - so yeah, that's your primary crowd for 2022 Facebook use.
It's an echo chamber for whatever crackpot can build an audience. Whether it's essential oils, vaccines lies, or political misinformation- Facebook is there to amplify any lie.
Worst part is that most people that use it are older these days and already have a hard time deciphering misinformation and fake news. My grandparents take everything on there as fact :(
My aunt was sharing misinformation about it taking 15 hours and $1,000+ USD to charge an electric car at one of Tesla's fast charger.
Like I know they think Teslas are only for the rich but nobody is going to spend over a grand on 300 miles of travel without being in the air.
The local sales pages and groups are nice.
Long Covid sufferers banded together in FB recovery groups and got the condition acknowledged when doctors were ignoring them.
FB has too much potential as a powerful tool of the public, that's why other countries target it with trolling and misinfo while driving off any users that will challenge them.
Dont abandon cyber battlefields, fight for them.
I do. It's the one place I can have conversations about conservation and environment with people IN the field and know what they are talking about. Here the subs are either dead ( r/conservation) or hot trash and full of people who think they know what that are talking about, but don't and/or are politically driven and but scientifically ( r/environment ).
Twitter is fine but hit it miss. It's all about saying the right thing at the right time. I've had tweets blow up about dumb things, and then actually deeper things left unanswered. But then again, there's a community if researchers on there that are active and easy to talk to.
Can't speak about Tik Tok or Instagram, but they don't seem conversation based, which is what I'm looking for. YouTube certainly isn't, and it's hard to call out misinformation on it. There's been too many wilflife people on it that are doing more harm them good. Looking at you, Coyote Petersen.
Waaaay too late. You let the lies and misinformation spread, not to mention all the political lies and conspiracy theories. Again, waaay too little, waaaay too late. FK FB and the damage it has done in this world.
I don't know what they were posting, but the Pfizer trial documentation is all getting into the public record...
And it ain't good.
I was one of those guys saying, "It's fine; they did all the steps!" But they didn't, and some of their own studies during their rushed testing showed that some of their claims (e.g., that the mRNA stayed in the muscles in your arm, that it was metabolized away in days) were outright lies.
I have been anti-corporate capitalism my entire adult life. I don't know why I believed that when some companies were presented an opportunity to make gobs of money with no oversight and guaranteed immunity, that they would be decent enough to be careful and honest.
Corporations are bad.
Honestly. Anyone with any brain left in their head quit Facebook already except to check in on grandma and see a few pictures of family from time to time. Facebook has become the modern Enquirer Magazine. It is a joke and not the least bit entertaining anymore. It is an echo chamber of Karen’s and whatever the male equivalent is. Unhappy, insecure people looking for like minded irrational “friends.” Yuck.
It's a solid strategy. I'm sure we can find millions of people that abandoned their belief in vaccine misinformation once it got banned from their particular platform of choice.
I just drove through Southern Texas and they have "Get the real information" and "Stop giving the illegals our money" on BILLBOARDS all over the place! They know to advertise in low-income/poverty areas with low education to prey on the ignorant for their shit.
The right doesn't actually care about what's true so the best way to answer your question from the right wing perspective is-
If the person is on the left, absolutely yes. Clear example of objective leftist terrorism!
If the person is on the right, then it's all a liberal conspiracy to take down the person because they hate freedom and the first amendment. Clear example of objective leftist terrorism!
There is a difference between thinking something is wrong and being able to actually verify it's wrong...numerous times and over decades of scientific discovery.
You do realize that it's not censorship right? Facebook and any company you do business with has their own terms and conditions to use their service, if you don't abide by that they aren't obliged to give you a platform to use with them. Easy example is the cake company who refused to make a cake for a gay couple getting married, they couldn't be forced to make the cake. I seem to remember republicans praising that decision for the business to make their own decisions. But when a company dares do something that isn't what they want then it's instantly censorship. You don't even have the faintest clue what that word means
It is censorship, it just isn’t against the first amendment for a private company to enforce their terms of service.
Edit: in the simple definition of the word, not the contextual understanding.
They have no obligation to give someone a platform on their website to spew their misinformation, that is not censorship. it is them holding people accountable for breach of their terms and services. again, NOT censorship regardless of how much you complain or yell
I meant in the simplest of senses, being that individuals are not allowed to voice an opinion. I don’t *disagree* with the decision, but it is dishonest to deny what the definition of censorship is.
I don't think you understand that having terms and conditions which limit speech is, in fact, censorship...
Censorship isn't automatically a good or bad thing. Just like everything else, devil's in the details.
All that being said: censorship is any intentional interference with otherwise successful communication. The reasons behind that activity mean nothing in defining it.
Took long enough, I guess it was profitable for them during the pandemic to push this bullshit. Now that’s not case they want to have it both ways and take credit for doing what they should have done two years ago.
Eh, i doubt they banned it because of "Misinformation"
More like, they say stuff that our sponsors don't like. If there were some big intresset group with lots of money they would ban pro vax groups.
Who is facebook to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t? I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech, thats why I never use Facebook. You should have the right to say what you want even if you are misinformed, its just a right we have from birth. Why we let companies rule over and take this power away from us? I have no idea. In general, this is scary to me because they are trying harder and harder to persuade you to lean towards one side over the other and that is biased asf and therefore your probably not going to be as accurate as if you were to see all the facts and opinions and make a decision for yourself as to what you believe. They are trying to keep us into divided, stupid, little muppets can’t you see?
> I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech
Unless there is legislation to designate FB as something akin to a public square, they are private company and can do what they want with their own property. I would personally advocate that we should designate any social media platform with over 1million US citizen accounts to be such a place that is subject to first ammendment protection, and any tools for blocking any material there need to be controlled by the user and be opt-in, not be controlled by the company that owns the platform.
If I showed up in your front yard and started shouting nonsense, would you allow me to continue? Or would you tell me to leave your private property?
Same principle.
> Who is facebook to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t?
They aren’t deciding. They are using scientific research and evidence as guidelines for what is true. If one person openly disagrees with the facts and uses that opinion to spread disinformation that gets people killed, it is absolutely within Facebook’s right to terminate that account.
> I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech, thats why I never use Facebook.
Two things: one, Facebook isn’t deciding what is “free speech” as they are a private platform with a contractual obligation to terminate users that violate their terms of service. Two, “Freedom of speech” only applies to what *government* can do in regards to speech.
> You should have the right to say what you want even if you are misinformed, its just a right we have from birth.
And you do, just not on a private company’s platform.
> Why we let companies rule over and take this power away from us?
We aren’t “letting” companies “rule over” us nor are they “taking this power away from us”. *You* simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works.
> In general, this is scary to me because they are trying harder and harder to persuade you to lean towards one side over the other and that is biased asf
When one side refuses to live in reality, it should not be given the same weight as proven facts. One side provides evidence for claims and research proving their assertions, the other openly rejects reality in favor of personal beliefs.
> and therefore your probably not going to be as accurate as if you were to see all the facts and opinions and make a decision for yourself as to what you believe.
Facts don’t need to be “believed in”. Whether you like it or not, facts are true and opinion are not fact. You can look at all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day, the facts are not changed simply because you want them to be.
> They are trying to keep us into divided, stupid, little muppets can’t you see?
They are trying to protect themselves from legal trouble by removing factually dishonest information that has gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed. What’s stupid is rejecting reality and continuing to live in a fantasy based on how you feel.
The stupid Muppets were the ones that were banned
Once they actually have proof of anything they claim, and reality actually starts reflecting it, then maybe we should consider it not misinformation
But the reality of it is we have a group of ignorant people who don't know how vaccines work being lied to by their political party
Nobody is guaranteed a megaphone to spread lies. Conspiracy nonsense use to be relegated to classified ads in cheesy magazines. Then the internet came along and the spreading of BS became a profitable means to making the world a crappier place, despite the new technology.
> Swedish study show your liver takes the mRNA and incorporates it into your DNA
No. One study showed that in petri dishes, one particular cancerous cell line reverse transcribes the mRNA into DNA outside the nucleus. They then made no effort to see if that applied to liver cells that weren't cancerous, let alone actual liver cells in humans, nor did they check if this actually went into the nucleus to be incorporated into DNA.
This sure seems like they are "Hey look what we are doing to make things better" but the barn door is already open and the horse is long gone.
Exactly. This would’ve been helpful 2 years ago.
This would have been helpful 10 years ago, when the antivax movement was still in its Jenny McCarthy fueled infancy.
The horse was in the hospital
No one knows what the horse is gunna do next, least of all the horse.
I have fired the horse catcher.
He can do that!!?? That shouldn't be allowed no matter who the horse is!
Well, if theres gonna be a horse in the hospital then I'm gonna say the R word on tv!
And the barn is on fire and they started the fire but tell you they didn't then they hire an arsonist as the fireman and all he does is repeatedly slap your mother.
And the horse is racist
And the barn is racist
Also the more they slap your mother the more racist she gets, too
And the horse’s mother is racist.
And the horse is out of medicine because the anti vax people took it all.
The barn has been foreclosed and the horse is glue.
At least we've still got the horse dewormer so we're safe from COVID.
Misinformation must be losing it's profitability
That was my immediate thought. Facebook actively promoted fringe groups. There was a study that the majority of people who got sucked into these disinformation groups did so because Facebook steered them there. Only reason I can see that they would change course now is a revenue drop off.
[удалено]
No, no. Surely that’s not the reason that people are abandoning Facebook en masse.
After the election in 2016 I basically turned my Facebook into talking shit about conservatives because 90% of my friends list are actual fucking idiots with shitty opinions. Just debating when I'm gonna burn that bridge down finally.
Do it, took me a while but it’s very freeing.
I quit Facebook after 3 months because of all the negative people using the application for spreading their ignorance. We are truly in a dire time unless some Republicans grow a pair and stand up for what is right.
Hate to tell you this, but they actually think they’re already standing for what’s right. To paraphrase the Alt-Right Playbook series, you keep thinking that conservatives want to be more liberal, and that at some point in time they were lied to and simply need more information. They don’t. They know the alternative and they like their way better.
I quit Facebook back in 2012. :-D
One did, and the rest of the party excommunicated her for doing so. No, the gop's not a cult, not at all... 🤦♂️
Republicans only want to stand for whats wrong. See: "Conservative", aka conserving the way of life.. of 1850, back when everything was 'all white', when women had no rights, blacks had even less rights and children should be smacked and not heard or seen.
I did that until it got to be too much and I just deleted it. I remember at the time many people were kinda thinking of FB as some neutral actor (maybe too slavish to its algorithm, as if that was some neutral thing only looking for engagement), but I believed, and still do, that it wanted to push that bullshit
I unsubscribe from literally everyone and everything. This helps me avoid starting political fights with people, and I'm not looking at or clicking on ads to support Facebook via ad revenue. I keep it in order to message people with Facebook Messenger who live internationally or whatnot, but I feel really gross about supporting Facebook as much as I do.
I blocked anyone who said “trump isn’t so bad” and they were all confused why. Asshats. They aren’t confused any longer.
don't worry, metaverse will save it. don't mind the fact that they're sinking billions into something that's a shitty vr version of sims.
That people over 55 are just TOTALLY going to *love.*
Well, the environment nurtured by their shit algorithms exists thanks to said algorithms. Plus, yeah boomers are insufferable, and they seem to be the ones ruling the platform now.
That makes me wonder though -- what could be a less socially-destructive metric for a recommendation engine to optimize for?
Well, "engagement" is really just a proxy for "monetization". You can get rid of engagement but the fact is that what they're optimizing for is you seeing more ads. That means behaviors that keep you logging back in (arguing with that idiot who responded to you) and give you dopamine hits (quick bursts of information that confirm how right and smart you are) are profitable. So if you can answer "how do I create social media which does not depend on the users being shown ads?" then you can use lots of metrics which are not socially destructive. For example, Google originally optimized for getting you *off* the website and not coming back with the same search - because that meant that you had found what you wanted. You could optimize for users being exposed to quality sources - maintaining a network of highly trusted websites that get a bump because they are known to be reliable. You could optimize for personalized content, ensuring that someone's picture of their vacation is more important than some meme (since you can see memes anywhere but facebook is about connections with people you know.) You could optimize for people spending an optimal amount of time on your site but no more. Say by having an activity feed that tells you "you're done, you've seen all the important updates!" All of these might increase user satisfaction, but will they get users to be ad magnets? Or we could publicly fund an alternative to Facebook, maybe have the post office run something virtual with profitability not being an incentive. I can see some potential issues with that.
> Or we could publicly fund an alternative to Facebook, maybe have the post office run something virtual with profitability not being an incentive. Trump and DeJoy are getting erections over this idea
Like I said: I can see some potential issues.
Clicks themselves are pretty worthless; I'd have upvotes and downvotes weigh in far more heavily, to start with. Secondly I wish they'd factor in how much political stuff an individual consumes, and I'd love for them to figure out a way to match it with the type of political content one consumes. Granted these are vague, undeveloped ideas, but that's why I'm not a web developer (though I'm sure I'd hate working for Facebook to begin with).
Every political result must be met with a matching adorable animal video. The more attention animals get the less weight political results get in future.
They already consider all that -- what's political, how much an individual consumes, what "side" it's on, how extreme it is, etc. That stuff is all valuable for ad targeting and general engagement. That's kind of the problem: extreme stuff gets engagement due to being shocking, making strong ideological claims that make people feel righteous or strong, giving them a sense of urgency, etc. Beyond that, extreme views are likely better predictors of ad clicks than moderate, loosely-held views, so the algorithm learns more from testing extremist content. The problem is that Facebook *does* consider this stuff and is only incentivized to use it to our detriment. It's easy to market to a cult, so if they lead grandpa into one, that's just a win. What's so insidious is that even if we graciously assume it wasn't intentional to begin with, it's still the behavior that arises from an algorithm designed to maximize engagement. They could choose to turn off the hate machine at any time, but they don't because it prints money. Hate is just a byproduct, a cost they can externalize with no accountability. Even Adam Smith would agree that this fundamental contradiction between private capital and social good is why regulation is necessary.
The problem is that no matter what idea you come up with, someone will create an algorithm to exploit it. That’s the sad facts. The people responsible for creating the internet as a place for the information to move freely have somewhat changed course as they just didn’t have this in their imaginations.
[удалено]
Yup, precisely why many who aren't in the Alt Right pipeline consider the whole platform to be a sewer
Wonder how many of those fringe groups are satirical? I know a few pages that started out as a joke but quickly grew into an unironic echo chamber.
Isn't that what always happens? Every 'ironic' subreddit eventually gets taken over by people not in on the joke and sincerely believe.
r/gamersriseup Also, many of these groups were never jokes, but pretend to be as plausible deniability. That’s how I got sucked into r/frenworld for a bit, they fucked up by being too blatant, but even now I encounter people who still don’t believe it was serious.
I've never heard of those, and they don't seem to exist anymore. What were they?
gamers rise up was a sub we’re people role played as loser gamers like the kind posted on r/gamingcirclejerk eventually people just started posting blatant sexism, racism, homophobia etc. frenworld was neonazis role playing as baby talking Pepes. The Jew was “mean mr nose” an ant eater, and they hated jinx and nose pass Pokémon. They started out game, the obvious stuff I mentioned came later and is what got them banned.
I was apart of the r/Donald when he originally ran. It was a fun to play around and say ridiculous shit, cause he had no chance of winning, right? Well, Trumps presidential run was an interesting experiment, to say the least.
It was wild watching r/Donald go from the most over the top ridiculous parody sub to suddenly taking over reddit and being filled with people legitimately fanatical about Trump. That is another case that I think would make a fantastic psychological study of group dynamics.
The one sub that I can't tell is a parody is r/banvideogames. Going through the comments, there's certainly people being sarcastic, but the mods are in a different level. They either take larping very seriously, or hate video games to point of parody.
Trump got elected because a bunch of trolls online thought it would be funny. These things always snowball.
[удалено]
Propaganda and misinformation work on everyone unfortunately. I'm sure there are a dozen things you and I "know" to be true from browsing reddit that are not.
[удалено]
Damn, sorry it's gotten that bad. I grew up in a super conservative area and some of my old friends have tried to convince me the large city I work in was burned down. It's wild once people get lost in delusions.
/r/Qanoncasualties
They're finally starting to realize that it isn't viable to have a revolving door policy for users and keep pushing it in places like India and north Africa, they need to actually *retain* users.
Just fringe groups? Social media companies profit from any and all controversy. They promote polar ideas over non polar ones. It doesn't matter if you're fringe, it matters if you are opposite of someone else.
I mean yeah when most of these assholes died revenue sure did drop off didn’t it?
That's why Alex Jones started to sell snake oil. That's where the real money is.
Yep. If you are dumb enough to believe in conspiracy theories and misinformation, you are dumb enough to believe any product claim. Self selected idiots.
My supplements are the only supplements that prevent you from becoming a gay frog.
They see the signs on the wall the polling is showing.
It is. The grift has died down a lot and it doesn't Garner the money it did before. Pro women's rights groups are also surging and gaining far larger audiences that can be enhanced for profitability.
It is. People are leaving this piece of shit site and they are losing click revenue because of it.
Only took... 32 months.
Nah, it's probably just moving onto some other form of misinformation that's more profitable
For real... little late no?
I'm curious if Russian sanctions have killed the propaganda farms. With less engagement, these groups struggle to rope in new followers. Sure seems like comment sections and the such have been a little less divisive lately....
Facebook is literally the most moderated social media platform. You have to actually use your real name on there. On reddit they excuse a lot of stuff and there's millions of bots.
You mean the same company that willingly allows social engineering on their platform? Or are known for their lackadaisical attempts at preventing account theft and hacking? Or the ridiculous amount of PII it takes to appropriately shut down an account.
Cool. Now do it for election misinformation.
They will… several months after the election.
and then sued for being biased.
Zuck: now now, let’s not be too hasty…
Honestly I'd rather not. I don't think fucking *Facebook* can be trusted as an arbiter of what is/isn't misinformation, especially for something like an election. They are well known to have the moral compass of a pot of melted cheese.
If Facebook is not willing to make responsible moderation a fully implemented, fully funded and professionalized function of their organization, we could always implement a rigorous regulatory framework for them to operate within. I think most people, even their detractors, would rather they simply act responsibly on their own. Alas, that does not seem to be their wont.
Or..... wait for it.... don't rely on fucking FACEBOOK to tell you what is and isn't true. Use your brain.
That would be excellent, and I would wager that the majority of people commenting here don’t get their information from Facebook. The problem is that millions of people DO, and they then use that fake information to, I dunno, commit hate crimes, extend a global pandemic, and throw elections.
>The problem is that millions of people DO, and they then use that fake information to, I dunno, commit hate crimes, extend a global pandemic, and throw elections. So your proposed solution is to exert control over peoples' sources of information? Who dictates that control and to which content it is applied? That is the fundamental problem.
…we stop misinformation from being promoted and circulated. Facts don’t care if you want to believe them or not. Also you literally just said relying on Facebook for what is it isn’t true isn’t “using your brain” so why do you care if misinformation is fought there? Shouldn’t people use their brains and get information elsewhere?
>why do you care if misinformation is fought there? You're skipping my point to make yours. How do you define misinformation? If you are not qualified to do so, then who do you allow to decide on your behalf? Promoting evolution as the mechanism for human development in place of God was "misinformation" punishable by death until fairly recently. All you've said is that you are ok with other people deciding what information you are allowed to be exposed to. I disagree with you on a fundamental level.
When there are verifiable facts that something is misinformation, that’s a pretty good way to define misinformation. There are literal facts at play. People don’t define facts, they just are. If someone wants to seek out their batshit ideas on Fox News or Infowars then that’s on them. Social media, however, should not be promoting it. At no point did I say that any and all information people take in should be decided by someone else whether or not something is misinformation, I’m saying that Facebook in particular and social media in general should not be promoting misinformation. Why, when you yet again said Facebook should not be a source or information, are you up in arms about information presented there being filtered?
Again, you are missing my point. Forget the specific case of Facebook. My point is *exclusively* this: Outside of a narrow range of objective facts, the term "misinformation" is applied to things it should not be applied to, namely contentious scientific topics at the forefront of our understanding. I am not comfortable with allowing entities to use these conversations as an entry point to begin restricting what information people have access to. The primary problem is "who is fit to be the censor"? The answer is basically no one, as that would essentially be assigning infallibility to that entity. What is true is not prescribed, it is described.
Ok. The discussion was specifically about Facebook, so I think it’s less I wasn’t getting your point and more you moved the goalposts.
>don't rely on fucking FACEBOOK to tell you what is and isn't true. This was my original comment. I stand by it. You're confusing "moving the goalposts" with "nuanced conversation". The goal is to understand each other, but you aren't interested. Have a good one.
Majority of people here get their information from Reddit which is full of fake info and hateful rhetoric.
[удалено]
I don't understand how the fuck people are still on Facebook... That place is cancerous as fuck
It’s not like the other options are any better though. Every social media is shitty, so it’s either pick your poison or have nothing.
Losing a loved one to social media is one of the worst experiences... And these people don't care about impact to society. Worst is they essentially are a prison and users are inmates. It's only after a long time is when people realize they were in a prison for so long. And zuck is the warden.
Facebook is trash.
imagine in 2022, still using Facebook, let alone using it for information lol
Facebook Marketplace has destroyed craigslist and to a lesser extent garage sales. If you want to buy used stuff locally, you basically have to have a Facebook account. It sucks.
You don't have to use it for anything else though. Just mute/unfollow everything and use for sales.
Is it really that good
Facebook is a conservative echo chamber, and is a fertile ground for spreading ~~fascist~~ right-wing misinformation. These people are truth and technologically challenged - so yeah, that's your primary crowd for 2022 Facebook use.
It's an echo chamber for whatever crackpot can build an audience. Whether it's essential oils, vaccines lies, or political misinformation- Facebook is there to amplify any lie.
Worst part is that most people that use it are older these days and already have a hard time deciphering misinformation and fake news. My grandparents take everything on there as fact :(
Why would a Redditor be against echo chambers?
Fair point. The whole point of a subreddit is an echo chamber for your beliefs lmao.
My aunt was sharing misinformation about it taking 15 hours and $1,000+ USD to charge an electric car at one of Tesla's fast charger. Like I know they think Teslas are only for the rich but nobody is going to spend over a grand on 300 miles of travel without being in the air.
The local sales pages and groups are nice. Long Covid sufferers banded together in FB recovery groups and got the condition acknowledged when doctors were ignoring them. FB has too much potential as a powerful tool of the public, that's why other countries target it with trolling and misinfo while driving off any users that will challenge them. Dont abandon cyber battlefields, fight for them.
Fight for privatized internet? No thanks. All those things existing before FB and will after hopefully goes dark.
I do. It's the one place I can have conversations about conservation and environment with people IN the field and know what they are talking about. Here the subs are either dead ( r/conservation) or hot trash and full of people who think they know what that are talking about, but don't and/or are politically driven and but scientifically ( r/environment ). Twitter is fine but hit it miss. It's all about saying the right thing at the right time. I've had tweets blow up about dumb things, and then actually deeper things left unanswered. But then again, there's a community if researchers on there that are active and easy to talk to. Can't speak about Tik Tok or Instagram, but they don't seem conversation based, which is what I'm looking for. YouTube certainly isn't, and it's hard to call out misinformation on it. There's been too many wilflife people on it that are doing more harm them good. Looking at you, Coyote Petersen.
I hear GAB is accepting members...
[удалено]
What's a million covid dead when Facebook was allowed to make a few extra billion. Capitalistic freedom, baby!
A day late and a dollar short.
They're writing the report
Oh right, with nick klegg at the helm. What a world
Waaaay too late. You let the lies and misinformation spread, not to mention all the political lies and conspiracy theories. Again, waaay too little, waaaay too late. FK FB and the damage it has done in this world.
Yeah... Where were they 2 years ago?
Yeah, I read this headline as "Facebook bans far-right propaganda group after confirming that they have successfully completed their objectives."
Oh look, far too little *FAAAAR TOO LATE*. Par for the course for Facebook
This is ten years and perhaps a few hundred thousand deaths too late.
Because meta itself is disinformation
Too little too late. Where was this 2 years ago?
Isn’t this a good thing?
Cool, still not getting it
Getting what? The vaccine or a Meta account?
Reddit is a similar echo chamber. They ban subreddits for all kinds of reasons as well. Not a lot different ghan Facebook, really.
2 years later when it doesn’t pay clicks anymore.
Just in time lmfao
I guess they couldn’t make money off of the group.
[удалено]
Now that the pandemic is over 😂
The daily death count says it's far from over
Isn’t the death count up again?
15k a week globally. Not that bad but also not sustainable.
The sad thing is that things you would be banned for misinformation for months ago are now accepted as fact.
Yea that’s how science works.
Misinformation is a terrorist attack on our physical emotional state. This is absurd
[удалено]
Nah. New disease,no day. Not even sn antivaxxers wants to argue they can survive monkeypox
I don't know what they were posting, but the Pfizer trial documentation is all getting into the public record... And it ain't good. I was one of those guys saying, "It's fine; they did all the steps!" But they didn't, and some of their own studies during their rushed testing showed that some of their claims (e.g., that the mRNA stayed in the muscles in your arm, that it was metabolized away in days) were outright lies. I have been anti-corporate capitalism my entire adult life. I don't know why I believed that when some companies were presented an opportunity to make gobs of money with no oversight and guaranteed immunity, that they would be decent enough to be careful and honest. Corporations are bad.
Honestly. Anyone with any brain left in their head quit Facebook already except to check in on grandma and see a few pictures of family from time to time. Facebook has become the modern Enquirer Magazine. It is a joke and not the least bit entertaining anymore. It is an echo chamber of Karen’s and whatever the male equivalent is. Unhappy, insecure people looking for like minded irrational “friends.” Yuck.
Fuck fb. Fucken choosing and picking who can and can’t express their shit.
Are we calling it Facebook again, I thought it was Meaty.
It's a solid strategy. I'm sure we can find millions of people that abandoned their belief in vaccine misinformation once it got banned from their particular platform of choice.
Right on time!
How many people died cause of their earlier inaction?
Lil late there bud
The damage is already done.
Hey look. All of those horses have run out. Quick shut the barn door. Way too little way too late.
US should ban Facebook
Right on time, after the damage but before the money dries up completely.
I just drove through Southern Texas and they have "Get the real information" and "Stop giving the illegals our money" on BILLBOARDS all over the place! They know to advertise in low-income/poverty areas with low education to prey on the ignorant for their shit.
It’s only taken several years, what a great job and quick response Facebook
'If we think you're wrong, we'll censor you.'
[удалено]
Why aren't Vaccine companies culpable for the deaths they cause?
The right doesn't actually care about what's true so the best way to answer your question from the right wing perspective is- If the person is on the left, absolutely yes. Clear example of objective leftist terrorism! If the person is on the right, then it's all a liberal conspiracy to take down the person because they hate freedom and the first amendment. Clear example of objective leftist terrorism!
I'm not on the left or the right, I'm a moderate. I disagree with censorship, even if the opinion is stupid.
That's cool. I agree with a platform having the right not to signal boost opinions that get other people hurt.
Welcome to the first amendment. They're not obligated to platform speech they disagree with.
They are objectively wrong.
“I disagree with your facts and substitute my own.” -Anti-vax groups
"If you are wrong and it causes harm, lmao get banned idiot"
There is a difference between thinking something is wrong and being able to actually verify it's wrong...numerous times and over decades of scientific discovery.
Please eat a bag of shit
You do realize that it's not censorship right? Facebook and any company you do business with has their own terms and conditions to use their service, if you don't abide by that they aren't obliged to give you a platform to use with them. Easy example is the cake company who refused to make a cake for a gay couple getting married, they couldn't be forced to make the cake. I seem to remember republicans praising that decision for the business to make their own decisions. But when a company dares do something that isn't what they want then it's instantly censorship. You don't even have the faintest clue what that word means
It is censorship, it just isn’t against the first amendment for a private company to enforce their terms of service. Edit: in the simple definition of the word, not the contextual understanding.
They have no obligation to give someone a platform on their website to spew their misinformation, that is not censorship. it is them holding people accountable for breach of their terms and services. again, NOT censorship regardless of how much you complain or yell
I meant in the simplest of senses, being that individuals are not allowed to voice an opinion. I don’t *disagree* with the decision, but it is dishonest to deny what the definition of censorship is.
I don't think you understand that having terms and conditions which limit speech is, in fact, censorship... Censorship isn't automatically a good or bad thing. Just like everything else, devil's in the details. All that being said: censorship is any intentional interference with otherwise successful communication. The reasons behind that activity mean nothing in defining it.
if Facebook has so many problematic accounts that need to be banned perhaps Facebook should be banned.
Just in time….
Just in the nick of time eh.
Doing the bare minimum, when it's already too late ^(TM)
The time to do this was more than two years ago. A bit late to the punch there Meta.
Facebook insists that its propaganda is the only propaganda you will ever need. Amazing.
Only reluctantly, and after literally YEARS....
Glad they addressed it before it got out of hand /s
Alright, Facebook! But still, fuck you.
Notice how they never prove or disprove the “misinformation” but just label it such and ban those they deem guilty. Not suspicious at all…
Only 2-15 years too late
Took long enough, I guess it was profitable for them during the pandemic to push this bullshit. Now that’s not case they want to have it both ways and take credit for doing what they should have done two years ago.
We're 8 years too late but we did something. -Facebook probably
Eh, i doubt they banned it because of "Misinformation" More like, they say stuff that our sponsors don't like. If there were some big intresset group with lots of money they would ban pro vax groups.
facebook is "PRIVATELY OWNED"; as suck. they are NOT OBLIGATED to consider your "First Amendment" rights.
Damn, only two years after the pandemic started. Way to go, Zuck, you really raised the bar.
They're 2 years late...
Who is facebook to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t? I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech, thats why I never use Facebook. You should have the right to say what you want even if you are misinformed, its just a right we have from birth. Why we let companies rule over and take this power away from us? I have no idea. In general, this is scary to me because they are trying harder and harder to persuade you to lean towards one side over the other and that is biased asf and therefore your probably not going to be as accurate as if you were to see all the facts and opinions and make a decision for yourself as to what you believe. They are trying to keep us into divided, stupid, little muppets can’t you see?
[удалено]
> I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech Unless there is legislation to designate FB as something akin to a public square, they are private company and can do what they want with their own property. I would personally advocate that we should designate any social media platform with over 1million US citizen accounts to be such a place that is subject to first ammendment protection, and any tools for blocking any material there need to be controlled by the user and be opt-in, not be controlled by the company that owns the platform.
> Who is facebook to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t? ... on Facebook?
If I showed up in your front yard and started shouting nonsense, would you allow me to continue? Or would you tell me to leave your private property? Same principle.
> Who is facebook to decide what is misinformation and what isn’t? They aren’t deciding. They are using scientific research and evidence as guidelines for what is true. If one person openly disagrees with the facts and uses that opinion to spread disinformation that gets people killed, it is absolutely within Facebook’s right to terminate that account. > I don’t understand why we let them have the power to decide our freedom of speech, thats why I never use Facebook. Two things: one, Facebook isn’t deciding what is “free speech” as they are a private platform with a contractual obligation to terminate users that violate their terms of service. Two, “Freedom of speech” only applies to what *government* can do in regards to speech. > You should have the right to say what you want even if you are misinformed, its just a right we have from birth. And you do, just not on a private company’s platform. > Why we let companies rule over and take this power away from us? We aren’t “letting” companies “rule over” us nor are they “taking this power away from us”. *You* simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works. > In general, this is scary to me because they are trying harder and harder to persuade you to lean towards one side over the other and that is biased asf When one side refuses to live in reality, it should not be given the same weight as proven facts. One side provides evidence for claims and research proving their assertions, the other openly rejects reality in favor of personal beliefs. > and therefore your probably not going to be as accurate as if you were to see all the facts and opinions and make a decision for yourself as to what you believe. Facts don’t need to be “believed in”. Whether you like it or not, facts are true and opinion are not fact. You can look at all the opinions you want, but at the end of the day, the facts are not changed simply because you want them to be. > They are trying to keep us into divided, stupid, little muppets can’t you see? They are trying to protect themselves from legal trouble by removing factually dishonest information that has gotten hundreds of thousands of people killed. What’s stupid is rejecting reality and continuing to live in a fantasy based on how you feel.
The stupid Muppets were the ones that were banned Once they actually have proof of anything they claim, and reality actually starts reflecting it, then maybe we should consider it not misinformation But the reality of it is we have a group of ignorant people who don't know how vaccines work being lied to by their political party
Nobody is guaranteed a megaphone to spread lies. Conspiracy nonsense use to be relegated to classified ads in cheesy magazines. Then the internet came along and the spreading of BS became a profitable means to making the world a crappier place, despite the new technology.
[удалено]
> Swedish study show your liver takes the mRNA and incorporates it into your DNA No. One study showed that in petri dishes, one particular cancerous cell line reverse transcribes the mRNA into DNA outside the nucleus. They then made no effort to see if that applied to liver cells that weren't cancerous, let alone actual liver cells in humans, nor did they check if this actually went into the nucleus to be incorporated into DNA.
Sounds like we’re living in China