11 ms·

Zuckerberg removed a line about monitoring private messages from his manifesto

225 points by mbgaxyz 10y ago

dibstern 10y ago
How could anyone not know that your private messages represent valuable data to Facebook that they're going to use for ad revenue and service improvement? Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy. Most services do not. Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved. Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.
- jllaneras 10y ago
  You don't need to trust Facebook to see inconsistencies in their message. WhatsApp is one of Facebook's "private channels" that it's said to implement the Signal protocol, which is supposed to offer end-to-end encryption. If we assume all what Facebook claims is true, the only way to analyze WhatsApp messages for AI purposes is to leak data to Facebook servers before starting the E2E encrypted connection. But that would be just an exploitable back door that defeats the purpose of Signal, right?
  - newscracker 10y ago
    My pessimistic guess is that end-to-end encryption will be removed from WhatsApp, Allo, etc., in a matter of time with flowery language like, "...to provide the best possible experience that our users expect and deserve, and to empower our users with choice, we're switching the default (to quick plaintext communications)...the communication will still be secure through encryption on the network from client to server to client." Then it'll become like Messenger, where end-to-end encryption is an explicit choice (similar to Secret Chats in Telegram). Not that people using WhatsApp would really care. The stickiness factor is quite high.
sverige 10y ago
This article is so poorly written that I couldn't tell which version was the original and which the revised (or whether there were one or two revisions) until I'd read it three or four times. After I'd figured that out (I think), I had to go back again to understand what point the author was trying to make. Then again, it's just Mashable. I don't know why I worked at it so hard.
- newscracker 10y ago
  I was also confused similarly, more so with the headline that sounded as if this was a malicious move meant to hide the intent to monitor private messages (not that I would put it past Facebook not to do such horrific things).
dwetterau 10y ago
If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-scans-all-emails-new-google-terms-clarify https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-database-idUSKBN13U2W8 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-databas...
- mseidl 10y ago
  I forgot that google did that, but facebook was just in your face with it. I was talking to a friend on facebook about some ice climbing and if it was ok for a beginner, and very shortly after I saw ads on my facebook for ice climbing lessons. With google the worst I see if I search for something sometimes I see ads for those.
  - devoply 10y ago
    Zuckerberg was a creeper, if you look at what he did initially with Facebook and people's information who trusted him with that information, you can tell what his basic operating premises are. And they are anti-social. He never has cared for what people might think of him or fb, as long as they keep using it. And so I think that's Zuck's deep insight into people, anti-social behavior does not matter. People are stupid and they will keep using the platform anyway. Regardless of the total and complete lack of privacy and social skills. If he can detect bullying where people are afraid to report it. Then going forward with the authoritarian shit happening in government, what's next? Hear people verbally fighting and report that to the police. Hear kids getting yelled at and report it to the police as child abuse. Disputes and altercations are always reported to the police. The walls have ears. All this is possible with FB. It's a surveillance nightmare as bad as anything Orwell could've prophesied and yet people continue to use FB.
    - notyourwork 10y ago
snarf 10y ago
Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Facebook fired its "news curators" in response to criticism of it suppressing "news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential 'trending' news section" [1]. This happened in May of last year. [1] http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
  - snarf 10y ago
    Right, in an effort not to appear as though they are editorializing legitimate news stories for one side or the other via what appears in the trending news section, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Fake news is not legitimate news. It's a form of spam. They did nothing to remove this spam once they got rid of the human editors. So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Now they want to use automated methods to police your private messages when they couldn't be bothered to figure out an automated method to remove spam from their trending news section when it really mattered.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  > because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.
  - nl 10y ago
    This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me? Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic. The version of this play which I've heard was: - Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories. - Cover it with ads (from Google and others) - Seed it in Facebook groups - Rely on organic reach to generate traffic. I maybe wrong about the ability to to arbitrage on this traffic. If anyone has numbers I'd love to see them.
SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail, planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that. e.g.: https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51 https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zuckerberg-preparing-enter-politics-facebook-ceos-pledge/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zucker...
- HeavenBanned 10y ago
  He's banking on millenials to carry him into office in 20+ years like the boomers did Trump.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dx034 10y ago
  He's probably preparing for public office. While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost). I don't think that he'd want to manage a company that just fights off rivals. Becoming a politician and (trying to) make a change sounds more like him. He has the money, people mostly like him and he'd only have to find a CEO for Facebook to get rid of conflicts of interest, as he isn't involved in many other businesses.
  - newscracker 10y ago
    > While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost). Facebook could always give away VR headsets for free (disguised similar to the Free Basics program). Facebook has already run out of space to put ads on the Facebook platform, and so it has started trials on Messenger (in a couple of countries). One way to put ads everywhere is to install large screens (like in Sci-Fi movies or like those in Times Square). Another way is to give a small screen to people that's always in front of them and put ads there based on what the person is looking at, the location, time of day and other factors - that's what VR, or rather AR, will be about whenever Facebook gets serious about it (in relation to Wall Street and earnings). Google Glass probably had the same long term intent in mind when it was developed.
SeanDav 10y ago
It is quite simple, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product and even if you are paying in some cases. This is well known. Also well known, is expect no privacy online. Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted services, wherever they can.
rubyfan 10y ago
The headline is slightly misleading. It would be more salacious had the manifesto been published long ago and had the line been recently added. In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.
- dahart 10y ago
  I thought the same thing once I read the quote before & after. So I looked at the headline again and decided the wording was accurate but I'd gotten the wrong idea about it's meaning. The headline could say "AI monitoring of private messages", that might have cleared up one minor angle on it for me. But whatevs I suppose, headlines are misleading all the time, that's why you always have to read the article, right? I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it anyway. It could mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or completely. It could mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or the announcement of monitoring. It could mean there are business concerns with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy. It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't be as transparent as he truly wants to be.
EJTH 10y ago
Im sick and tired of facebook. Yesterday I shared a picture from Syria depicting a homosexual being executed by being thrown off a building - In a political discussion, of course this gets censored within hours. Meanwhile there is groups where this picture also appears, albeit in a another context that actually encourages this type of punishment, and it gets to stay on facebook.
- efdee 10y ago
  It seems kind of obvious what happens - the picture you posted was reported by your peers in the discussion. The group that encourages this type of punishment probably will not have members that report the picture, so it doesn't get deleted (as fast). You don't need to blame Facebook for this.
  - Raphmedia 10y ago
    But would it really be hard to have checks for that kind of groups automatically? How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this group called "death to all jew" is hate speech? Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world a better place.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Did you read Zuckerberg's letter yesterday? I wrote a response that didn't go over super well here but comparing how Facebook is an idealistic experiment versus capitalistic exercise is enlightening. Facebook can truly heal the world! Well, if it doesn't help destroy it first...
vladtaltos 10y ago
apart from the pro/con arguments here, I want to ask whether you can call anything a 'manifesto' if you keep changing it ?
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Call it what it is - Manifesto du jour.
tokenizer 10y ago
> So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Geex, let me guess. You are left leaning too! People like me think mainstream media promotes the most fake news. So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. Disagree? I have plenty of evidence... http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334952201.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334952201.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487335558586.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487335558586.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336058867.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336058867.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336641521.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336641521.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336663207.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336663207.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336681334.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336681334.jpg But sure, keep supporting the censors so we keep getting more divided. I don't mind, the right wing is getting most of generation z, and more and more people see the lies as what they are by MSM - FAKE NEWS!
- ue_ 10y ago
  >So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content. Whether the news falls under that, I don't know, but I sure don't think censorship means 'division'. The idea that words should be awarded an innate right to be said I see no reason for. The rise of the right wing is worrying for a Communist like me.
  - tokenizer 10y ago
    Most people are tired of censors who propagate their moral rulesets self righteously. In the 70s/80s/90s it was the Christian right against music and video games. Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that... "So much for the tolerant left!" is probably wat you were going to say next. I do not call people Nazis and fascists, I wish to remove actual Nazis and fascists from the discourse. Same goes for 'alt-right', a movement composed mainly of toxic "rationalists", anti-feminists, neo-Nazis and the redpill community. I only intend to refer to these, not others. I have no support for bourgeois progressivism.
SadWebDeveloper 10y ago
I hate facebook not because of this bullshit but because using facebook is so utterly "normal" on the society that some websites are facebook-exclusives (facebook login only), people only seems to like the idea of using the fucking facebook chat for everything and now even customs ask you to unlock your phone so they can analyze your friends... hoping one day, some terrorist attacks facebook servers so we can get rid of everything online and start to forget about it.
- tjbiddle 10y ago
  What customs have you gone through where they do that? I travel internationally regularly and have yet to come across this.
  - dboreham 10y ago
    I haven't seen it myself, but I have seen it on TV in a reality show based on the real-life activities of the US and Canadian customs and immigration agencies. It is standard procedure when they are questioning someone they suspect of entering the country for work (but stating they are visiting as a tourist) to ask to see their phone SMS message history. In the show they often find messages from their friends saying "good luck at the job interview tomorrow dude" and the like.
  - SadWebDeveloper 10y ago
    https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-scientist-detained-us-border/ https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-scientist...
1024core 10y ago
There's no way this can work well IRL. I was talking to a friend who follows the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Apparently, the terrorists knew (correctly, I presume) that phone calls were being monitored. So they switched to using allusions in their conversations. Grenades became "potatoes". An AK-47 became a "broom". Explosives became "flour". And so on. So a request for more arms sounded like a shopping list for a grocery store: send some potatoes, and we also need a couple of brooms.
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  Doesn't take long to figure out codes like that - the DEA has been doing it for years. If anything it's even easier to catch those using the codes who think they're being very very clever.
EGreg 10y ago
If it's AI that flags stuff instead of people reading your private messages, then that's good. I was thinking the same thing. How do you help prevent actions nearly mo one wants to happen (human trafficking, violent attacks) while at the same time allowing dissidents to talk etc. You need an AI to be the one to flag it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
AlexejK 10y ago
I'm not entirely surprised that Facebook does this. After all, Facebook is also the company that not only does the same as Google when it comes to targeting you with ads, but also sells data about you to other companies. More reasons not to trust or use Facebook for me at least :)
omidraha 10y ago
I think, there is no `private` section on the social network, everything is public, just accessing to that section is limited for someone or one scope and not for other one. But scope of this accessing is growing through the time, without we know about that. For example, from small circle of our friends or family to the whole of the world.

225 points by mbgaxyz 10y ago

How could anyone not know that your private messages represent valuable data to Facebook that they're going to use for ad revenue and service improvement? Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy. Most services do not. Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved. Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.

jllaneras 10y ago
You don't need to trust Facebook to see inconsistencies in their message. WhatsApp is one of Facebook's "private channels" that it's said to implement the Signal protocol, which is supposed to offer end-to-end encryption. If we assume all what Facebook claims is true, the only way to analyze WhatsApp messages for AI purposes is to leak data to Facebook servers before starting the E2E encrypted connection. But that would be just an exploitable back door that defeats the purpose of Signal, right?
- newscracker 10y ago
  My pessimistic guess is that end-to-end encryption will be removed from WhatsApp, Allo, etc., in a matter of time with flowery language like, "...to provide the best possible experience that our users expect and deserve, and to empower our users with choice, we're switching the default (to quick plaintext communications)...the communication will still be secure through encryption on the network from client to server to client." Then it'll become like Messenger, where end-to-end encryption is an explicit choice (similar to Secret Chats in Telegram). Not that people using WhatsApp would really care. The stickiness factor is quite high.

sverige 10y ago

This article is so poorly written that I couldn't tell which version was the original and which the revised (or whether there were one or two revisions) until I'd read it three or four times. After I'd figured that out (I think), I had to go back again to understand what point the author was trying to make. Then again, it's just Mashable. I don't know why I worked at it so hard.

newscracker 10y ago
I was also confused similarly, more so with the headline that sounded as if this was a malicious move meant to hide the intent to monitor private messages (not that I would put it past Facebook not to do such horrific things).

dwetterau 10y ago

If Gmail reads private emails to target ads [1], why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" [2]. It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-scans-all-emails-new-google-terms-clarify https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/15/gmail-sca... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-database-idUSKBN13U2W8 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-internet-extremism-databas...

mseidl 10y ago
I forgot that google did that, but facebook was just in your face with it. I was talking to a friend on facebook about some ice climbing and if it was ok for a beginner, and very shortly after I saw ads on my facebook for ice climbing lessons. With google the worst I see if I search for something sometimes I see ads for those.
- devoply 10y ago
  Zuckerberg was a creeper, if you look at what he did initially with Facebook and people's information who trusted him with that information, you can tell what his basic operating premises are. And they are anti-social. He never has cared for what people might think of him or fb, as long as they keep using it. And so I think that's Zuck's deep insight into people, anti-social behavior does not matter. People are stupid and they will keep using the platform anyway. Regardless of the total and complete lack of privacy and social skills. If he can detect bullying where people are afraid to report it. Then going forward with the authoritarian shit happening in government, what's next? Hear people verbally fighting and report that to the police. Hear kids getting yelled at and report it to the police as child abuse. Disputes and altercations are always reported to the police. The walls have ears. All this is possible with FB. It's a surveillance nightmare as bad as anything Orwell could've prophesied and yet people continue to use FB.
  - notyourwork 10y ago

snarf 10y ago

Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Facebook fired its "news curators" in response to criticism of it suppressing "news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential 'trending' news section" [1]. This happened in May of last year. [1] http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006 http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
- snarf 10y ago
  Right, in an effort not to appear as though they are editorializing legitimate news stories for one side or the other via what appears in the trending news section, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Fake news is not legitimate news. It's a form of spam. They did nothing to remove this spam once they got rid of the human editors. So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Now they want to use automated methods to police your private messages when they couldn't be bothered to figure out an automated method to remove spam from their trending news section when it really mattered.
s_kilk 10y ago
> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.
- nl 10y ago
  This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me? Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic. The version of this play which I've heard was: - Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories. - Cover it with ads (from Google and others) - Seed it in Facebook groups - Rely on organic reach to generate traffic. I maybe wrong about the ability to to arbitrage on this traffic. If anyone has numbers I'd love to see them.

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago

What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail, planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that. e.g.: https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51 https://www.ft.com/content/b0a6481e-d20a-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zuckerberg-preparing-enter-politics-facebook-ceos-pledge/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/04/mark-zucker...

HeavenBanned 10y ago
He's banking on millenials to carry him into office in 20+ years like the boomers did Trump.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dx034 10y ago
He's probably preparing for public office. While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost). I don't think that he'd want to manage a company that just fights off rivals. Becoming a politician and (trying to) make a change sounds more like him. He has the money, people mostly like him and he'd only have to find a CEO for Facebook to get rid of conflicts of interest, as he isn't involved in many other businesses.
- newscracker 10y ago
  > While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost). Facebook could always give away VR headsets for free (disguised similar to the Free Basics program). Facebook has already run out of space to put ads on the Facebook platform, and so it has started trials on Messenger (in a couple of countries). One way to put ads everywhere is to install large screens (like in Sci-Fi movies or like those in Times Square). Another way is to give a small screen to people that's always in front of them and put ads there based on what the person is looking at, the location, time of day and other factors - that's what VR, or rather AR, will be about whenever Facebook gets serious about it (in relation to Wall Street and earnings). Google Glass probably had the same long term intent in mind when it was developed.

SeanDav 10y ago

It is quite simple, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product and even if you are paying in some cases. This is well known. Also well known, is expect no privacy online. Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted services, wherever they can.

rubyfan 10y ago

The headline is slightly misleading. It would be more salacious had the manifesto been published long ago and had the line been recently added. In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.

dahart 10y ago
I thought the same thing once I read the quote before & after. So I looked at the headline again and decided the wording was accurate but I'd gotten the wrong idea about it's meaning. The headline could say "AI monitoring of private messages", that might have cleared up one minor angle on it for me. But whatevs I suppose, headlines are misleading all the time, that's why you always have to read the article, right? I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it anyway. It could mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or completely. It could mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or the announcement of monitoring. It could mean there are business concerns with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy. It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't be as transparent as he truly wants to be.

EJTH 10y ago

Im sick and tired of facebook. Yesterday I shared a picture from Syria depicting a homosexual being executed by being thrown off a building - In a political discussion, of course this gets censored within hours. Meanwhile there is groups where this picture also appears, albeit in a another context that actually encourages this type of punishment, and it gets to stay on facebook.

efdee 10y ago
It seems kind of obvious what happens - the picture you posted was reported by your peers in the discussion. The group that encourages this type of punishment probably will not have members that report the picture, so it doesn't get deleted (as fast). You don't need to blame Facebook for this.
- Raphmedia 10y ago
  But would it really be hard to have checks for that kind of groups automatically? How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this group called "death to all jew" is hate speech? Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world a better place.
6stringmerc 10y ago
Did you read Zuckerberg's letter yesterday? I wrote a response that didn't go over super well here but comparing how Facebook is an idealistic experiment versus capitalistic exercise is enlightening. Facebook can truly heal the world! Well, if it doesn't help destroy it first...

vladtaltos 10y ago

apart from the pro/con arguments here, I want to ask whether you can call anything a 'manifesto' if you keep changing it ?

danieltillett 10y ago
Call it what it is - Manifesto du jour.

tokenizer 10y ago

> So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Geex, let me guess. You are left leaning too! People like me think mainstream media promotes the most fake news. So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. Disagree? I have plenty of evidence... http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334551064.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334952201.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487334952201.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487335558586.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487335558586.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336058867.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336058867.png http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336641521.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336641521.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336663207.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336663207.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336681334.jpg http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1487336681334.jpg But sure, keep supporting the censors so we keep getting more divided. I don't mind, the right wing is getting most of generation z, and more and more people see the lies as what they are by MSM - FAKE NEWS!

ue_ 10y ago
>So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days. I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content. Whether the news falls under that, I don't know, but I sure don't think censorship means 'division'. The idea that words should be awarded an innate right to be said I see no reason for. The rise of the right wing is worrying for a Communist like me.
- tokenizer 10y ago
  Most people are tired of censors who propagate their moral rulesets self righteously. In the 70s/80s/90s it was the Christian right against music and video games. Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that... "So much for the tolerant left!" is probably wat you were going to say next. I do not call people Nazis and fascists, I wish to remove actual Nazis and fascists from the discourse. Same goes for 'alt-right', a movement composed mainly of toxic "rationalists", anti-feminists, neo-Nazis and the redpill community. I only intend to refer to these, not others. I have no support for bourgeois progressivism.

SadWebDeveloper 10y ago

I hate facebook not because of this bullshit but because using facebook is so utterly "normal" on the society that some websites are facebook-exclusives (facebook login only), people only seems to like the idea of using the fucking facebook chat for everything and now even customs ask you to unlock your phone so they can analyze your friends... hoping one day, some terrorist attacks facebook servers so we can get rid of everything online and start to forget about it.

tjbiddle 10y ago
What customs have you gone through where they do that? I travel internationally regularly and have yet to come across this.
- dboreham 10y ago
  I haven't seen it myself, but I have seen it on TV in a reality show based on the real-life activities of the US and Canadian customs and immigration agencies. It is standard procedure when they are questioning someone they suspect of entering the country for work (but stating they are visiting as a tourist) to ask to see their phone SMS message history. In the show they often find messages from their friends saying "good luck at the job interview tomorrow dude" and the like.
- SadWebDeveloper 10y ago
  https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-scientist-detained-us-border/ https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/02/nasa-scientist...

1024core 10y ago

There's no way this can work well IRL. I was talking to a friend who follows the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Apparently, the terrorists knew (correctly, I presume) that phone calls were being monitored. So they switched to using allusions in their conversations. Grenades became "potatoes". An AK-47 became a "broom". Explosives became "flour". And so on. So a request for more arms sounded like a shopping list for a grocery store: send some potatoes, and we also need a couple of brooms.

6stringmerc 10y ago
Doesn't take long to figure out codes like that - the DEA has been doing it for years. If anything it's even easier to catch those using the codes who think they're being very very clever.

EGreg 10y ago

If it's AI that flags stuff instead of people reading your private messages, then that's good. I was thinking the same thing. How do you help prevent actions nearly mo one wants to happen (human trafficking, violent attacks) while at the same time allowing dissidents to talk etc. You need an AI to be the one to flag it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

AlexejK 10y ago

I'm not entirely surprised that Facebook does this. After all, Facebook is also the company that not only does the same as Google when it comes to targeting you with ads, but also sells data about you to other companies. More reasons not to trust or use Facebook for me at least :)

omidraha 10y ago

I think, there is no `private` section on the social network, everything is public, just accessing to that section is limited for someone or one scope and not for other one. But scope of this accessing is growing through the time, without we know about that. For example, from small circle of our friends or family to the whole of the world.