2020 Democratic Nominee

[Mojo Hand 4580]

20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I did, and it's almost like she's an old that doesn't understand what Instagram and WhatsApp do, and who their audiences are.  Splitting off Instagram and WhatsApp won't do shit to address the problems she's bitching about, particularly in regards to the issues that came up in 2016.  She needs to worry more about bots and advertising.

I don't know the best solution, but I think the idea behind her plan is that breaking up its market power will make Facebook  and its split-off components have to compete more for users, and privacy and ad policies will inevitably be part of that competition.  Not just competition between Facebook and Insta but competition with new companies that will have a better chance of succeeding when not facing the combined power of Facebook in multiple social media spaces. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

People are going to try to get around laws!??! Well shit let's not have any laws, I guess.

[atomheartbevo 90545]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Publicly bitching about the problems is part of the solution by building a movement in the private sector for change. This is often how the republicans operate, some call it “working the refs.”  It can be effective. 

Facebook’s threat is the total control of the social media information space on a global level.  Breaking off Instagram and WhatsApp decentralizes that somewhat.  She acknowledges her plan isn’t some magic bullet to solve all the problems of big tech. 

 

4 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

I don't know the best solution, but I think the idea behind her plan is that breaking up its market power will make Facebook  and its split-off components have to compete more for users, and privacy and ad policies will inevitably be part of that competition.  Not just competition between Facebook and Insta but competition with new companies that will have a better chance of succeeding when not facing the combined power of Facebook in multiple social media spaces. 

Here comes a manifesto.

Removing them from Facebook's control does nothing to solve the core problems that bother a lot of people, Warren included, and those core problems are the fake advertising and fake news.

I'd argue that talking about "breaking up Facebook" through he removal of WhatsApp and Instagram distract from the core problems, problems that will still remain.  Warren and others are putting those two pieces of FB on the same level as the fake advertising/fake news, when they aren't - had those apps never been invented or purchased, not much would change (Microsoft's purchase of Skype might have paid off more, maybe twitter does something more with images, and Facebook sinks a shitload more resources into Messenger).  

I'm a man in my 40s, I think Mojo is up there, and Hugo seems to be in his 20s.  Being a man, I've went from late '80s/early '90s  BBSes to the "mainstream" Internet (I managed to skip AOL).  I've witnessed the ways in which people, whether it be co-workers, strangers, family and friends, communicate over the internet since the mid-90s.  Hell, I participated in early social media platforming through having a small business that was dealing with advertising and getting websites into various webrings in the late 90s, before search engines became powerful and easy to use.

I've watched people move around from the '90s services - BBSes, AOL, shitty email services, GeoCities, Usenet, through the early 2000's - Yahoo Groups (2001), MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), and everything in between, as far as the way they wanted to share information/data with their family, friends, co-workers, strangers, customers, etc.,   There was always one or two constants - email, and later texting, but people were always looking for a better way.  Companies kept trying to come up with ways to offer people their own little spot on the internet (Apple was in that game with iWeb or whatever, Google still is with Blogger).

Whatever people may think of Facebook, Facebook managed to put out the product that people wanted, something that a hundred companies or more could never do - some place for people to call their own, a way to easily share info with family, friends, the public, a consistent interface throughout (versus shitty MySpace/GeoCioties sites that all looked different and/or made navigation a pain in the ass), a way to easily find friends, family, companies, people who shared their interests,, a way to add content from the phone in your pocket, and so on, and so forth.

Instagram and WhatsApp are not the reason why Facebook succeeds.   Warren and others feel Facebook is too big, but that's the whole fucking point of why it works -  Facebook is ultimately about people wanting to make easy connections with each other.  People don't want to have to use GeoCities to share stuff with Uncle Ned, and MySpace to share stuff with Grandma Kelly, and Blogger to share stuff with a bunch of their friends, and email for the relatives who don't use the other services, and twitter for sharing info with cousins, etc., etc.

You can strip Facebook of all of the companies/components it's acquired, but as long as it keeps its customers on Facebook.com, that's all that matters to a huge chunk of those customers, and that is what will keep it big.

Or to put it slightly different: WhatsApp and Instagram are not what's keeping competitors from coming up with a better product, because Facebook users are the product.  

That's what people like Elizabeth Warren just don't get.  Facebook isn't simply a case like Google where you can truly divide the company up into major products, because the only product of Facebook is the end-users.

If you pay attention, you'll see that companies are all the time trying to come up with the next big social platform, and many of them are succeeding, because younger generations are proving willing, and remarkably adept, at moving around on various social media platforms.    There are even companies in China, Japan, India, etc. that have  tens of millions (or more), that we in the West have never even heard of.  WeChat in China has over a billion active users every month.  And of course, Facebook in India has more users than Facebook in the US.

They are just not succeeding on Facebook's level, and that's because they aren't hitting the critical mass that FB did - either their niche is too small (Grandma isn't interested in a social media platform focused on live-streaming gaming), or they are deliberately targeting only certain groups of people (perhaps a certain culture or language).

And ironically, FB was predicted in some form decades ago, even if we don't have the VR technology yet - Snow Crash ('92) and Neuromancer before that ('84).  People have been thinking about this kind of platform where everybody can meet up, for decades.

Forget the "WE MUST BREAK UP FACEBOOK" bullshit, because somebody else will come up with a clone if you kill FB (and it's even easier here in 2019 than in 2004, when the infrastructure was much more expensive and difficult to build out).  Hell, teens and college kids these days are constantly moving around between networks, even if many of them still have a FB presence.  Companies don't simply have one social media platform presence, there's a reason why they hit twitter, FB, Pinterest, etc.

Keep your eye on the ball, which is fake news/fake ads.  Had Facebook been much more...selective about their advertising controls (and their advertising clientele), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I don’t know that breaking up Facebook would solve the issues around it but I 100% think it should be treated/reclassified/whatever as a media company/publisher.

Zuckerberg’s stubborn resistance to the fact that his creation has morphed into a news publisher is a huge part of the problem.

Maybe the solution is not necessarily breaking up the corporation but siloing the social network from the news function of Facebook.

Facebook Messenger is now a separate app. Break off all news Facebook pages into a separate platform - Facebook News - and then have that subject to all laws and regulations that other publishers operate under.

And ban all political ads period.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

We need to write new laws when it comes to the tech giants.  These guys are getting away with doing some really evil shit with regards to user data/privacy/manipulation campaigns and the only reason they’re getting away with it is because our laws haven’t caught up with the technology.

[immortal13 4059]

Why didn't Hillary run again?

[bad_teammate 13479]

When corporations get too big, just nationalize them.

easy

[atomheartbevo 90545]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We need to write new laws when it comes to the tech giants.  These guys are getting away with doing some really evil shit with regards to user data/privacy/manipulation campaigns and the only reason they’re getting away with it is because our laws haven’t caught up with the technology.

They are getting away with it because the end-suers don't care, and because they lobby Congress so that things like GDPR don't happen here, even though a massive chunk American companies have tried/are trying to comply with GDPR standards where they can (companies like FB have a hard time/don't want to), because they want to keep their European website visitors/customers.

[Message Board User 12405]

7 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

I'd imagine if he loses but still keeps his standing in Texas that running for the Governor's seat would be his next move.

 

The only people who think Beto has a political future are the media and those on this forum.  Now that he's gone full cray cray, he's done.  Over.  Finito (sorry bama chick, it's true).

[Bruh Man 3160]

A little pep talk. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They are getting away with it because the end-suers don't care, and because they lobby Congress so that things like GDPR don't happen here, even though a massive chunk American companies have tried/are trying to comply with GDPR standards where they can (companies like FB have a hard time/don't want to), because they want to keep their European website visitors/customers.

  My statement still stands that our laws haven’t caught up with the technology.  Yeah, there are reasons for that like you pointed out (corruption and oblivious users.)  It doesn’t make the tech companies any less responsible/liable.  

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[atomheartbevo 90545]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I don’t know that breaking up Facebook would solve the issues around it but I 100% think it should be treated/reclassified/whatever as a media company/publisher.

Zuckerberg’s stubborn resistance to the fact that his creation has morphed into a news publisher is a huge part of the problem.

Maybe the solution is not necessarily breaking up the corporation but siloing the social network from the news function of Facebook.

Facebook Messenger is now a separate app. Break off all news Facebook pages into a separate platform - Facebook News - and then have that subject to all laws and regulations that other publishers operate under.

And ban all political ads period.

Messenger has a separate app, but if you are on Facebook.com proper, it's right there within the interface.  I get what you're saying though.

Publishers aren't nearly as tied down under laws and regulations as some may think.    Right at this moment, I could sit down and decide to spend a few days, crank out a crackpot book aimed at the Qanon crowd, and as long as I was careful and avoided libel/defamation, I could present all kinds of crazy shit, and get away with it.  And Amazon.com and the other resellers/publishers are full of such books.  

And that's not even going into the numerous websites out there pushing crazy shit (InfoWars, various sub-reddits, Voat.co, etc.).  As long as you are aware enough of not falling down the Alex Jones rabbit hole of defamation/libel/slander, there is a helluva lot that you are able to say on the web or in books or whatever, here in the US.

Let's say we treat Facebook as a media company/publisher - Fox News falls into that category, and we all see the crazy shit they push at night and in the mornings (which mirrors what is spread around, or is even regurgitated on platforms like Facebook, and is used to influence people one way or another).  We all see the crazy shit that our President pushes out there as facts.  We saw Sarah Huckabeef Sanders saying everything she did, as the official mouthpiece of the Trump administration.

I'm very grateful we are one of the more liberal countries when it comes to free speech and the like, but it absolutely creates a nightmare, and our best defense is an informed citizenry, and we know that's not going to happen.

Our best bet is to try and get some legislation going that makes advertising as transparent as we can make it.  On the news front, it's much harder, simply because of our current President and his alternate facts.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

 

[atomheartbevo 90545]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

  My statement still stands that our laws haven’t caught up with the technology.  Yeah, there are reasons for that like you pointed out (corruption and oblivious users.)  It doesn’t make the tech companies any less responsible/liable.  

When people don't take the time to read or understand or research the end-user agreements/terms of service, etc. and simply click "I AGREE" so that they can get on with whatever they are wanting to do, the companies don't have a lot of responsibilities. 

You see it as corruption with these companies,. I see it as more of a symptom of a serious illness - corporations being able to buy off people in Congress.    We can go in circles about this, about where the line is, where the corruption is, etc., but there's never going to be any serious changes with these companies, until you start getting their money out of Congress, and until American consumers are aware of that influence/bribery/what have you, and are aware of what they are signing away when they aimlessly click on then "I AGREE" at the bottom of those various agreements/terms of service/etc.

Last year, I was working on a small site for a store with an online presence, and in the course of things, I discovered that they had a small, but steady amount of sales to Europe.  I brought up the GDPR stuff, the owner said "yeah, yeah, I've heard something about that from a distributor, make sure the site is compliant so I can still sell stuff over there, etc., etc." and then followed it with "you know, they'd never be able to pull that off over here in America."

And I'm thinking "you just asked me to do the very thing you said they'd never be able to pull off over here in America".  And I'm willing to bet that guy encounters GDPR banners on a weekly basis, as do most internet users, it's just that they never stop and think about it.  Those little banners on the bottoms or tops of websites, with a link to a privacy policy and a notice about using cookies.  GDPR.  

 

[American Swindle 102]

Facebook worked with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary. Pete hired Facebook people to run his data analytics.

Pete also told Hillary to leave Tulsi alone.

Sounds like Pete is a Russian agent!

 

 

 

Add Sanders to that infamous list of Russian assets?

 

 

 

[American Swindle 102]

  
Add Sanders to that infamous list of Russian assets?
 
 

 

If one cannot see that McCarthyism is being used to smear those that are not towing the lines of the establishment, in this case the foreign policy line, then I hope you get that red pill ASAP.

What we are witnessing is the old, entrenched power players acting out in desperation because they can’t control the narratives anymore because...ya know... memes and shit.

[American Swindle 102]

If one cannot see that McCarthyism is being used to smear those that are not towing the lines of the establishment, in this case the foreign policy line, then I hope you get that red pill ASAP.

What we are witnessing is the old, entrenched power players acting out in desperation because they can’t control the narratives anymore because...ya know... memes and shit.

I hate to see Bernie added to their lists bt but maybe it’s an eye opener for you Bernie Bros

[bad_teammate 13479]

Transparency is nice, but since you already know that people aren't going around being hyper-conscious consumers and critical users of platforms (and never will since our brains are not designed that way), don't you realize there's a limited utility to transparency in ads/news? There's something disturbingly libertarian in your view and it's as much of a logical failure in the digital world as it is in the real world.

If we know a product is hurting people/society/the planet, we regulate the product. We don't just slap a "contains arsenic!" label on it, we ban the use of arsenic. If the problem is platforms growing too large to manage, then you prevent the growth of platforms to that size and/or you bring them under direct and constant regulatory control, because they are hurting people/society/the planet.

Option 1) Regulate its harms and force compliance. (Tell Facebook it can't run misleading ads, it can't work with foreign governments on politics, and dramatically curtail its collection and utilization of user data. If it dies as a result, it dies.)

Option 2) Break it up. Decentralize it.

Option 3) Nationalize it. Give Mark a couple hundred million dollars and take Facebook away from him (Same for Jeff Bezos). Assign the platform's management to transparent and publicly-accountable institutions.

It is a sign of an individual's safety and isolation from risk that they want these behemoths to continue destroying things to satisfy some internal libertarian dream.

Too Big To Fail: Silicon Valley Edition

[Js1 86938]

Such handwringing that Biden sucks. NYT pussy boys and the “establishment” sound sad that their boy is on the decline.  There were like 26 options!!!

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Js1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Such handwringing that Biden sucks. NYT pussy boys and the “establishment” sound sad that their boy is on the decline.  There were like 26 options!!!

 

Their contempt for democracy never ceases to amaze me.   They know Warren can win, they just don’t want her to because she would be disruptive to their precious safe spaces. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

I did, and it's almost like she's an old that doesn't understand what Instagram and WhatsApp do, and who their audiences are.  Splitting off Instagram and WhatsApp won't do shit to address the problems she's bitching about, particularly in regards to the issues that came up in 2016.  She needs to worry more about bots and advertising.

This. Warrens plan is dumb

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Why didn't Hillary run again?

Because your mom

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

🔥

 

[American Swindle 102]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Transparency is nice, but since you already know that people aren't going around being hyper-conscious consumers and critical users of platforms (and never will since our brains are not designed that way), don't you realize there's a limited utility to transparency in ads/news? There's something disturbingly libertarian in your view and it's as much of a logical failure in the digital world as it is in the real world.

If we know a product is hurting people/society/the planet, we regulate the product. We don't just slap a "contains arsenic!" label on it, we ban the use of arsenic. If the problem is platforms growing too large to manage, then you prevent the growth of platforms to that size and/or you bring them under direct and constant regulatory control, because they are hurting people/society/the planet.

Option 1) Regulate its harms and force compliance. (Tell Facebook it can't run misleading ads, it can't work with foreign governments on politics, and dramatically curtail its collection and utilization of user data. If it dies as a result, it dies.)

Option 2) Break it up. Decentralize it.

Option 3) Nationalize it. Give Mark a couple hundred million dollars and take Facebook away from him (Same for Jeff Bezos). Assign the platform's management to transparent and publicly-accountable institutions.

It is a sign of an individual's safety and isolation from risk that they want these behemoths to continue destroying things to satisfy some internal libertarian dream.

Too Big To Fail: Silicon Valley Edition

Your assumption that people aren't critical consumers and conscience of the biases of the platforms they use is incorrect in my opinion.  You don't think conservatives or libertarians have a discerning skepticism for platforms with the wave of censoring and suppression of conservative outlets?  Alex Jones ring a bell?  

What was the left's main defense of the banning of Alex Jones again? "They are a privately held company so they can do what they want!"  I agree that they have that right, even though I don't think it's a smart business move, but to say we need to regulate the information with more government is a slippery slope to exponentially progressing the surveillance state.  Who are you to say what information one is allowed to see?  It's up to us as consumers to disseminate the information and inform our opinions to see through the bullshit.  Here's a novel idea, perhaps if the Federal government didn't have a monopoly on our schooling, we could have competing schools of thought rather than a cookie-cutter option to lead to more diversified ways of thinking.  Just a thought.  

Also, are we to trust a centralized body of government officials to do what is right in regulating these platforms?  The same apparatus that denied it was storing and collecting the cell phone records and data of the entire American Population (James Clapper/NSA?)  

Furthermore, there's something disturbingly authoritarian with your view in that you feel compelled to support force.  Duck Duck Go and Bitchute are options for those that do not trust the overlords in Silicon Valley.  The Jordan Peterson's and Dave Rubin's of the world are saying fuck you and creating their own projects for potential new platforms.  That's the free market at work and it's done so voluntarily, with out government or without your precious force.  

And to think that Facebook or Youtube is pushing to satisfy a "libertarian dream" is so fucking divorced from reality that it seems like the script has flipped where I'm not the one wearing the "tin foil hat" anymore.  

Bernie is now a Russian Asset because he defended Gabbard and that is not allowed.  It's in plain sight.  

Let me ask you point blank, because I think we actually agree with more than we think.

Do you agree with any of these libertarian ideas:

End the Wars?

End the Federal Reserve?

End the War on Drugs?

Non Agression Principle?

Lastly, how is anything above disturbing to you at all?  

 

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This is going to be a long six months.  

[Js1 86938]

36 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

🔥

 

Lmao @ 13 year old white guy 😂

Edited October 22, 2019 by Js1

[bad_teammate 13479]

Why would nationalized control of Facebook imply support for a surveillance state? That's a bizarre leap of logic. We need to oppose the surveillance state and we need to oppose the private version of the surveillance state.

I'm guessing you ignored the "transparent" and "publicly-accountable" part of things because you realize that it is only possible to guarantee via public regulatory power.

Quote

Here's a novel idea, perhaps if the Federal government didn't have a monopoly on our schooling, we could have competing schools of thought rather than a cookie-cutter option to lead to more diversified ways of thinking.

You can go PreK-Post-grad in 100% private institutions, and many of the powerful and elite do exactly that. What on earth are you talking about?

Quote

Furthermore, there's something disturbingly authoritarian with your view in that you feel compelled to support force.

What "force" are you talking about, specifically?

Quote

Duck Duck Go and Bitchute are options for those that do not trust the overlords in Silicon Valley.  The Jordan Peterson's and Dave Rubin's of the world are saying fuck you and creating their own projects for potential new platforms.  That's the free market at work and it's done so voluntarily, with out government or without your precious force.  

I have no idea what relevance any of this has. Did anyone say we should shut Duck Duck Go and Bitchute down? What? Small platforms that aren't destructive to people/society should be allowed to flourish. Once they get big enough to hurt people/society they should be regulated.

Quote

Do you agree with any of these libertarian ideas:
End the Wars? Yes.
End the Federal Reserve? Nah, just completely reshape it.
End the War on Drugs? Yes.
Non Agression Principle? This means like a thousand different things.
Lastly, how is anything above disturbing to you at all?  

My primary problem with Libertarians is that I think 12-year-old girls should be protected from sweaty, gross 30+-year-old men.

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

 

Guess who's back, back again

Bernie's back, tell a friend

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

22 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Guess who's back, back again

Bernie's back, tell a friend

Eh, if you look back at previous Emerson polling, not much has changed.  Everyone at the top is still around the margin of error of where they were before.  

This is a common trend among almost all the big polling outfits, even the ones like Monmouth and Yougov that consistently have Warren in the lead.  The Yougov poll comes out tomorrow and it will likely have Warren in first again. 

I’ve noticed a trend that the outlier polls in this race have been somewhat predictive as far as where the bigger polls are moving, it just takes them longer.  

My takeaway from this poll is Biden and Bernie are still hanging tough despite their perceived setbacks. 

[henrygandorf 29218]

47 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

My takeaway from this poll is Biden and Bernie are still hanging tough despite their perceived setbacks. 

my takeaway from this poll is that emerson seems to call the same 600 people every month.

[F250 29172]

16 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Here comes a manifesto.

Removing them from Facebook's control does nothing to solve the core problems that bother a lot of people, Warren included, and those core problems are the fake advertising and fake news.

I'd argue that talking about "breaking up Facebook" through he removal of WhatsApp and Instagram distract from the core problems, problems that will still remain.  Warren and others are putting those two pieces of FB on the same level as the fake advertising/fake news, when they aren't - had those apps never been invented or purchased, not much would change (Microsoft's purchase of Skype might have paid off more, maybe twitter does something more with images, and Facebook sinks a shitload more resources into Messenger).  

I'm a man in my 40s, I think Mojo is up there, and Hugo seems to be in his 20s.  Being a man, I've went from late '80s/early '90s  BBSes to the "mainstream" Internet (I managed to skip AOL).  I've witnessed the ways in which people, whether it be co-workers, strangers, family and friends, communicate over the internet since the mid-90s.  Hell, I participated in early social media platforming through having a small business that was dealing with advertising and getting websites into various webrings in the late 90s, before search engines became powerful and easy to use.

I've watched people move around from the '90s services - BBSes, AOL, shitty email services, GeoCities, Usenet, through the early 2000's - Yahoo Groups (2001), MySpace (2003), Facebook (2004), and everything in between, as far as the way they wanted to share information/data with their family, friends, co-workers, strangers, customers, etc.,   There was always one or two constants - email, and later texting, but people were always looking for a better way.  Companies kept trying to come up with ways to offer people their own little spot on the internet (Apple was in that game with iWeb or whatever, Google still is with Blogger).

Whatever people may think of Facebook, Facebook managed to put out the product that people wanted, something that a hundred companies or more could never do - some place for people to call their own, a way to easily share info with family, friends, the public, a consistent interface throughout (versus shitty MySpace/GeoCioties sites that all looked different and/or made navigation a pain in the ass), a way to easily find friends, family, companies, people who shared their interests,, a way to add content from the phone in your pocket, and so on, and so forth.

Instagram and WhatsApp are not the reason why Facebook succeeds.   Warren and others feel Facebook is too big, but that's the whole fucking point of why it works -  Facebook is ultimately about people wanting to make easy connections with each other.  People don't want to have to use GeoCities to share stuff with Uncle Ned, and MySpace to share stuff with Grandma Kelly, and Blogger to share stuff with a bunch of their friends, and email for the relatives who don't use the other services, and twitter for sharing info with cousins, etc., etc.

You can strip Facebook of all of the companies/components it's acquired, but as long as it keeps its customers on Facebook.com, that's all that matters to a huge chunk of those customers, and that is what will keep it big.

Or to put it slightly different: WhatsApp and Instagram are not what's keeping competitors from coming up with a better product, because Facebook users are the product.  

That's what people like Elizabeth Warren just don't get.  Facebook isn't simply a case like Google where you can truly divide the company up into major products, because the only product of Facebook is the end-users.

If you pay attention, you'll see that companies are all the time trying to come up with the next big social platform, and many of them are succeeding, because younger generations are proving willing, and remarkably adept, at moving around on various social media platforms.    There are even companies in China, Japan, India, etc. that have  tens of millions (or more), that we in the West have never even heard of.  WeChat in China has over a billion active users every month.  And of course, Facebook in India has more users than Facebook in the US.

They are just not succeeding on Facebook's level, and that's because they aren't hitting the critical mass that FB did - either their niche is too small (Grandma isn't interested in a social media platform focused on live-streaming gaming), or they are deliberately targeting only certain groups of people (perhaps a certain culture or language).

And ironically, FB was predicted in some form decades ago, even if we don't have the VR technology yet - Snow Crash ('92) and Neuromancer before that ('84).  People have been thinking about this kind of platform where everybody can meet up, for decades.

Forget the "WE MUST BREAK UP FACEBOOK" bullshit, because somebody else will come up with a clone if you kill FB (and it's even easier here in 2019 than in 2004, when the infrastructure was much more expensive and difficult to build out).  Hell, teens and college kids these days are constantly moving around between networks, even if many of them still have a FB presence.  Companies don't simply have one social media platform presence, there's a reason why they hit twitter, FB, Pinterest, etc.

Keep your eye on the ball, which is fake news/fake ads.  Had Facebook been much more...selective about their advertising controls (and their advertising clientele), we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Excellent post.

Breaking up Facebook will do nothing to stop the actual problems that people are rightfully complaining about.

Quote

Or to put it slightly different: WhatsApp and Instagram are not what's keeping competitors from coming up with a better product, because Facebook users 

are the product.

This! The monetization of personal data is what powers Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc... Address the problem like the Europeans are doing. Warren is promoting an old solution and it does nothing to address this real and present danger.

Yang is the only candidate that seems to understand the issue regarding personal data being a property right that ought to be considered theft when used by Big Data.

Edited October 22, 2019 by F250

[atomheartbevo 90545]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

Yang is the only candidate that seems to understand the issue regarding personal data being a property right that ought to be considered theft when used by Big Data.

Yang is a traveler from the future.

 

And he is here to defend us against the machines.

[atomheartbevo 90545]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Transparency is nice, but since you already know that people aren't going around being hyper-conscious consumers and critical users of platforms (and never will since our brains are not designed that way), don't you realize there's a limited utility to transparency in ads/news? There's something disturbingly libertarian in your view and it's as much of a logical failure in the digital world as it is in the real world.

I used to be a Republican, so of course I've got a libertarian streak, but while I have a low opinion of more than a few people living here in 2019, I think Facebook is capable of presenting the information in a way that most people understand.  Facebook does not run ads for free - there is a paper trail.  They are capable of only accepting ads from reputable companies.  I've advertised with FB before, I know how cheap it can be, and how loose the process used to be, and they can definitely be encouraged to take a hit on sketchy companies - they could even argue that fewer ads means the remaining ads should have slightly higher rates.

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

If we know a product is hurting people/society/the planet, we regulate the product. We don't just slap a "contains arsenic!" label on it, we ban the use of arsenic. If the problem is platforms growing too large to manage, then you prevent the growth of platforms to that size and/or you bring them under direct and constant regulatory control, because they are hurting people/society/the planet.

Facebook users are the product.  Facebook is popular because it is big, and people don't have to muck with half-a-dozen social platforms to send baby pics out to all of the relatives.  The problem is that companies want to fudge their ads, and bots/astroturfers are spreading clickbait/fake news.

However, we are talking about this at a time when then President, and the most popular cable news network in the evenings, are deliberately spreading fake news, or at the very least, are trying to present flawed perspectives, in order to influence/fool their audiences.   

I would argue that those two things are far more damaging to society than Aunt Edna spreading another Hillary rumor.

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Option 2) Break it up. Decentralize it.

Again, Facebook works because it is big.  What you are talking about completely destroys it.  This isn't a case of Ma Bell being broken up into regional Baby Bells.  If you break it up, you destroy it.

And then another social media network will come along, and it will look at how FB was destroyed, and they will design their network to avoid that, and then what happens when they get too big in your eyes?  Are you just going to keep knocking down companies whose products are the very end-users themselves?

[atomheartbevo 90545]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Option 3) Nationalize it. Give Mark a couple hundred million dollars and take Facebook away from him (Same for Jeff Bezos). Assign the platform's management to transparent and publicly-accountable institutions.

AT&T, Google, etc. already bend over and spread for the NSA (and who knows who else) and they are private companies, let's just go ahead and rename Facebook if we do this...I think the Bush administration even had a name for it:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

"Transparent and publicly-accountable institutions?"  Really?  You know what it would be like to nationalize it?  It would be like putting a fresh bone in a room, and bringing a dog into the room, and then watching him flip the fuck out until he finds the bone, only Facebook is the bone, and the dog is the GOP - imagine President Trump nominating Betsy DeVoss to be Secretary of Facebook Administration.

It will be politicized.  Liberals will put in rules cutting down on certain discussions/behaviors - you can bet that any discussion of firearms and firearm ownership will be stricken from it.  And I can't even begin to imagine how far some liberals will take it.  And then we have Republicans - you can bet that they will also be looking to ban plenty of behaviors they deem deviant.  And people like Stephen Miller would have somebody combing through profiles looking for those on welfare or who are immigrants, looking for violations.

And putting it under government control will completely change how everybody acts and speaks on it, because they will treat it like it's a permanent record being held by the government.  And how long until the government decides you need to provide an ID of some sort to use it?  Because anonymity is only used by those with something to hide, right?

And the vast majority of Facebook users aren't even Americans - putting it under the auspices of the US government will definitely drive many/most away.

Don't fall into Warren's trap of having a car that needs the belts replaced, and demanding that the mechanic remove the engine and transmission before doing any other work on it.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Yeah, big tech still needs to be broken the fuck up and the the other problems discussed above need more attention too.  

Sorry if I don’t want to live in an algorithmic tyranny run by a few tech bro trillionaires.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[F250 29172]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah, big tech still needs to be broken the fuck up and the the other problems discussed above need more attention too.  

Sorry if I don’t want to live in an algorithmic tyranny run by a few tech bro trillionaires.

Not more attention too. It needs the most attention now.

We are so far behind GDPR and that is a work in progress that the Europeans have been addressing for a couple of decades.

I've spent my entire career seeing two to three times more effort being put into securing European data while American data is treated as an afterthought. A massive amount of effort is put into securing data warehousing and mining once the information is considered proprietary but a minimal effort is put into basic privacy protections unless its European data.

You want to stop algorithmic tyranny? Starve the beast of data.

[American Swindle 102]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Why would nationalized control of Facebook imply support for a surveillance state? That's a bizarre leap of logic. We need to oppose the surveillance state and we need to oppose the private version of the surveillance state.

I'm guessing you ignored the "transparent" and "publicly-accountable" part of things because you realize that it is only possible to guarantee via public regulatory power.

You can go PreK-Post-grad in 100% private institutions, and many of the powerful and elite do exactly that. What on earth are you talking about?

What "force" are you talking about, specifically?

I have no idea what relevance any of this has. Did anyone say we should shut Duck Duck Go and Bitchute down? What? Small platforms that aren't destructive to people/society should be allowed to flourish. Once they get big enough to hurt people/society they should be regulated.

My primary problem with Libertarians is that I think 12-year-old girls should be protected from sweaty, gross 30+-year-old men.

You want state control of a private company that should wither away due to a distrust by those that use it.  If you invite state control you invite the James Clapper's of the world to use it as a tool to suppress unpopular opinions.  

 

Quote

What "force" are you talking about, specifically?

Your exact words: Option 1) Regulate its harms and force compliance.

 

The Government/State is force man, no arguing your way around it.  

The relevance that Duck Duck Go and Bitchute have to the discussion is that they are available and in demand because of distrust in the mega-platforms: Youtube and Google.  The moment you allow the state to regulate platforms is the day that we all say "please, let me swallow your entire boot, oh all knowing overlords"  

Once they get big enough to hurt people, we should all push for truth and say fuck your product and move to the platforms that allow the free exchange of ideas (no matter how offensive or distasteful they may be perceived.)  

The left ***ABSOLUTELY LOVED*** Rebutting the conservatives and libertarians when they criticized Twitter, Facebook and Youtube for censoring Alex Jones arguing, "they are private companies!" and now you want state control over these platforms?  You think they'll be more objective in suppressing the correct amount of content at the appropriate (or dare I say allowable) threshold?  

Give me a fucking break. 

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Facebook users are the product.

Sure, which is one of the reasons we shouldn't be shy about enacting privacy and fairness rules that might kill the platform that is so harmful and destructive.

Quote

Facebook is popular because it is big, and people don't have to muck with half-a-dozen social platforms to send baby pics out to all of the relatives.

So it sounds like we need a social media platform that is big enough to handle a bunch of social sharing and features but also doesn't need to sell out its userbase to generate billions in revenue every quarter, right?

Almost like a ... nationalized Facebook?

Quote

And then another social media network will come along, and it will look at how FB was destroyed, and they will design their network to avoid that, and then what happens when they get too big in your eyes?  Are you just going to keep knocking down companies whose products are the very end-users themselves?

Sounds good to me. Let's do it. Why would I care?

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

AT&T, Google, etc. already bend over and spread for the NSA (and who knows who else) and they are private companies, let's just go ahead and rename Facebook if we do this...I think the Bush administration even had a name for it:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Information_Awareness

Then let's disband/neuter the NSA, too.

Hello? My name is B_T, and absolutely loathing the intelligence, police, and military state is kind of my thing.

Quote

"Transparent and publicly-accountable institutions?"  Really?  You know what it would be like to nationalize it?  It would be like putting a fresh bone in a room, and bringing a dog into the room, and then watching him flip the fuck out until he finds the bone, only Facebook is the bone, and the dog is the GOP - imagine President Trump nominating Betsy DeVoss to be Secretary of Facebook Administration.

Facebook is also the dog. We are the bone.

Then we vote Trump out using a democratic process and demand our next person appoint someone better. That might seem weak to you, and I have plenty of anti-electoral Tankies I could talk to who agree with you, but we have zero means to get Zuckerberg out as a people as it currently stands and as the abuses and damage piles up the libertarians just shrug and continue to worship the invisible hand's majesty.

Quote

And putting it under government control will completely change how everybody acts and speaks on it, because they will treat it like it's a permanent record being held by the government.  And how long until the government decides you need to provide an ID of some sort to use it?  Because anonymity is only used by those with something to hide, right?

You keep talking about this like private megacorps are MORE amenable to reason and public influence than democratically-elected governments.

The government (*scary sounds*) could have enacted a totalitarian regime and instituted prima nocta for every local sheriff, but it hasn't. Why?

You have to invent theoretical scary government demons in an attempt to distract from the actual corporate demons I can point you to right now. Thus is the libertarian mindset; completely disconnected from actual reality and 100% existing in a theoretical fear-space.

Quote

And the vast majority of Facebook users aren't even Americans - putting it under the auspices of the US government will definitely drive many/most away.

So?

[bad_teammate 13479]

9 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

The Government/State is force man, no arguing your way around it.

Ah you made it seem like I was referring to the gov't using force on individuals, not corporations. I'm fine with the gov't regulating big corporations all to hell.

Quote

The relevance that Duck Duck Go and Bitchute have to the discussion is that they are available and in demand because of distrust in the mega-platforms: Youtube and Google.  The moment you allow the state to regulate platforms is the day that we all say "please, let me swallow your entire boot, oh all knowing overlords"  

Everyone on Bitchute would go crawling right back to YT if YT promised not to demonetize. It isn't a moral righteousness stand, calm down. They adored taking all the money they could from those evil libs.

Quote

The left ***ABSOLUTELY LOVED*** Rebutting the conservatives and libertarians when they criticized Twitter, Facebook and Youtube for censoring Alex Jones arguing, "they are private companies!" and now you want state control over these platforms?

I don't want the platforms to exist at that size at all. But, if for some stupid reason they HAVE to be that massive, I want them under as much public scrutiny and accountability as possible.

[American Swindle 102]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ah you made it seem like I was referring to the gov't using force on individuals, not corporations. I'm fine with the gov't regulating big corporations all to hell.

Everyone on Bitchute would go crawling right back to YT if YT promised not to demonetize. It isn't a moral righteousness stand, calm down. They adored taking all the money they could from those evil libs.

I don't want the platforms to exist at that size at all. But, if for some stupid reason they HAVE to be that massive, I want them under as much public scrutiny and accountability as possible.

Are corporations people or not?  Wasn't that Citizens United thing all about that?  

These platforms get big because they are in demand.  Once they show bias or users begin to not trust their privacy, then they move away.  Granted, everyone has a different threshold as to when they change their behavior, but my point is it's up to the free will of the consumer, not a mob of consumers that want to use government to do what they deem is appropriate.

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's immoral for group A to vote a majority to decide how to distribute groups A-Z's money by force.  In this case, you don't *want* platforms at a certain size, but if you believe in freedom and property rights, then this is what would be referred to as aggression (thus violating the non aggression principle), where Group A forces all groups to infringe upon the property rights of private corporations because it meets the desirable standard based on Group A's feelings.  

You're an authoritarian and you wear the badge proudly.  

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Are corporations people or not?  Wasn't that Citizens United thing all about that?  

No, they aren't people. I don't care what the Citizens United ruling says lol why would I care about that? Am I a lesser court of law or something?

Quote

These platforms get big because they are in demand.  Once they show bias or users begin to not trust their privacy, then they move away. 

Ah, the magical thinking of the libertarian where the world is ruled by reason and everything is a meritocracy and no one is ever coerced.

More than half of Americans do not trust Facebook with their personal information, but they use it anyway. Many simply have to in order to remain in contact with friends and family or maintain business contacts. Similarly, both of the major political parties are under water in terms of favorability, yet no third parties take over and people vote by the tens of millions for parties they distrust. (In fact, Trump obviously hates his own party and is their ideological (lol) leader and Bernie is a lifelong Dem-hater and he's their ideological leader. We love to hate our institutions and stick with them anyway.)

We are not individuals on separate islands, we are moved as a group and coerced into actions we would not take individually because of the larger social movements.

Quote

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's immoral for group A to vote a majority to decide how to distribute groups A-Z's money by force. 

I'm sorry you hate the legal existence of taxation as outlined in the US Constitution and that you, as a consequence, hate America.

May god have mercy on your soul.

Quote

You're an authoritarian and you wear the badge proudly.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES!?!?!?!?

 

 

[American Swindle 102]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

No, they aren't people. I don't care what the Citizens United ruling says lol why would I care about that? Am I a lesser court of law or something?

Ah, the magical thinking of the libertarian where the world is ruled by reason and everything is a meritocracy and no one is ever coerced.

More than half of Americans do not trust Facebook with their personal information, but they use it anyway. Many simply have to in order to remain in contact with friends and family or maintain business contacts. Similarly, both of the major political parties are under water in terms of favorability, yet no third parties take over and people vote by the tens of millions for parties they distrust. (In fact, Trump obviously hates his own party and is their ideological (lol) leader and Bernie is a lifelong Dem-hater and he's their ideological leader. We love to hate our institutions and stick with them anyway.)

We are not individuals on separate islands, we are moved as a group and coerced into actions we would not take individually because of the larger social movements.

I'm sorry you hate the legal existence of taxation as outlined in the US Constitution and that you, as a consequence, hate America.

May god have mercy on your soul.

WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES!?!?!?!?

 

 

I know we are coerced to fund things that are immoral and wasteful, but at least I'm not a cheerleader for more of the same as you are.  You've made it clear your moral compass is questionable, you can't even concede that Tulsi took a principled stand for your beloved Bernie Sanders (now a Russian asset.)

You see how it works is, the state can conveniently call anyone that doesn't follow their program a Russian asset and poof, they are cancelled and dismantled by the mob.  The irony is you want the same apparatus to regulate private corporations because you feel they will help disseminate through the disinformation and know what is best.  You literally want a nanny-state so you can feel comfortable and secure. 

Oh yeah, taxation is theft and at best extortion.  But how else would we fund forever wars and bailout failing banks?  It's okay Mr. authoritarian.  

What do billionaires have to do with it?  Didn't Bernie Say they shouldn't exist?  Should Millionaires exist?  Who decides?  Authoritarians, that's who.  

[BradInATX 9208]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Not more attention too. It needs the most attention now.

We are so far behind GDPR and that is a work in progress that the Europeans have been addressing for a couple of decades.

I've spent my entire career seeing two to three times more effort being put into securing European data while American data is treated as an afterthought. A massive amount of effort is put into securing data warehousing and mining once the information is considered proprietary but a minimal effort is put into basic privacy protections unless its European data.

You want to stop algorithmic tyranny? Starve the beast of data.

GDPR is such a pain in the ass I usually just won't chase clients who want to bring their overseas data in. Not worth it.

[bad_teammate 13479]

4 hours ago, American Swindle said:

I know we are coerced to fund things that are immoral and wasteful, but at least I'm not a cheerleader for more of the same as you are. 

It's not about being a cheerleader or opponent, it's about acknowledging the reality of human nature and societies.

Quote

You see how it works is, the state can conveniently call anyone that doesn't follow their program a Russian asset and poof, they are cancelled and dismantled by the mob. 

Hillary Clinton is not the state. The mob is not the state. The state itself has done basically nothing to punish supposed Russian assets in elected government.

"The state" is a concept with a meaning.

Quote

You literally want a nanny-state so you can feel comfortable and secure. 

lol libertarians

Quote

Oh yeah, taxation is theft and at best extortion. 

Libertarians are emotional train wrecks.

Quote

What do billionaires have to do with it?  Didn't Bernie Say they shouldn't exist?  Should Millionaires exist?  Who decides?  Authoritarians, that's who.  

The US Constitution is authoritarian hmm yes very smart indeed

[henrygandorf 29218]

when i try to straighten out the buffering on directvnow, it helps to flip up a channel, then back.  so i accidentally spent 4 seconds on fox news.

the headline at the bottom was "democrats increasingly alarmed by trump campaign fundraising."

ok.

[Degenerate Gardner 4132]

Nothing screams "new ideas! " like choosing an unpalatable candidate who lost* to Trump in 2016. Please stay away, Hillary.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Lol

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Hillary and her corporatist supporters sending out media trial balloons about her possibly running again and that the democrat field is weak is very disconcerting. They really don’t want Warren or Bernie to win. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26773]

Hillary and her corporatist supporters sending out media trial balloons about her possibly running again and that the democrat field is weak is very disconcerting. They really don’t want Warren or Bernie to win. 

The Democratic field is weak, but she would make it weaker.