4 ms·

That's all fine until some special interest with money wants to launch a targeted propaganda campaign in your country. That can and has lead to effects ranging

by en-us 8y ago

That's all fine until some special interest with money wants to launch a targeted propaganda campaign in your country. That can and has lead to effects ranging from detrimental government policy to outright genocide. Nobody argues that Facebook keeping families in touch is a bad thing. It's the rest of it - the collecting and selling of data, the paid targeted propaganda campaigns, the intentional manipulation of user emotion - that people say is bad. But if you don't believe the number of Facebook employees who have quit in protest, even Chris Cox, then I guess my comment here isn't going to persuade you.

resters 8y ago
Ironically the fear-mongering about the propaganda campaign you are describing is intended to turn Facebook into an instrument of US government propaganda. Zuckerberg has been resisting that, which is why Facebook is being attacked from all sides at the moment.
- en-us 8y ago
  I've been saying that Facebook would do these things since around 2008. And now you're here telling me I'm part of some fear mongering campaing orchestrated by the US government. That's beyond absurd.
  - artificial 8y ago
    For the record I didn't infer that from their response. There was no reference to you being part of a fear mongering campaign, unless the comment was edited.
  - resters 8y ago
    My comment was not directed at you personally or at your past views on the subject.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  The US government has unlimited resources. If they want to use Facebook as a propaganda platform, they would do so, and Facebook would happily accept their cash. The Russian campaign that you’re dismissive of is consistent with the heritage of Russian intelligence services. Lenin’s newspaper was called “Iskra” (spark) in the context of “from a spark a fire will flare up.” The army of trolls is there to foment dissent, motivate nutcases on the right and left and create scenarios difficult for the battleship that is American democracy to navigate. Facebook is being attacked because it’s controlled with an iron fist by a guy who is over his head and possess extreme power without the foresight and vision to be a steward of it or the humility to delegate it. The company is harming the republic and the world.
  - resters 8y ago
    > Facebook would happily accept their cash It's not so simple, because not all employees would go along with it. It's possible that Zuck is stalling so he can figure out how to deliver what he's being asked for without creating too much turmoil. > consistent with the heritage of Russian intelligence services And also consistent with US intelligence services and a historic tit for tat. Russia's alleged $150K spend is being amplified because it fits the desired narrative, which is that social media needs to be much better controlled/censored, in this case for alleged national security reasons. > guy who is over his head ... without the foresight and vision to be a steward of it or the humility to delegate it... harming the republic and the world I would rephrase this as follows: A guy built an incredibly successful great firewall with built-in social credit system. In spite of his youth and inexperience he created something that governments have sought to create and control since before the modern information age. Now that he's created it and its value is (finally) understood by political leaders, there exists a desire to confiscate/control it to use it for the benefit of the republic. The impact of FB's news feed algorithm on the 2016 election dramatically accelerated the power grab. Zuck saw this move early which is why he testified to congress that "Facebook should probably be regulated". He is insisting on overt, public regulation of something he sees as a public utility, but officials have their eye on the much bigger prize which is the great firewall + social credit system. Such a thing requires secrecy and of course does not resemble Zuck's concept of a public utility.

by en-us 8y ago

resters 8y ago

Ironically the fear-mongering about the propaganda campaign you are describing is intended to turn Facebook into an instrument of US government propaganda. Zuckerberg has been resisting that, which is why Facebook is being attacked from all sides at the moment.

en-us 8y ago
I've been saying that Facebook would do these things since around 2008. And now you're here telling me I'm part of some fear mongering campaing orchestrated by the US government. That's beyond absurd.
- artificial 8y ago
  For the record I didn't infer that from their response. There was no reference to you being part of a fear mongering campaign, unless the comment was edited.
- resters 8y ago
  My comment was not directed at you personally or at your past views on the subject.
Spooky23 8y ago
The US government has unlimited resources. If they want to use Facebook as a propaganda platform, they would do so, and Facebook would happily accept their cash. The Russian campaign that you’re dismissive of is consistent with the heritage of Russian intelligence services. Lenin’s newspaper was called “Iskra” (spark) in the context of “from a spark a fire will flare up.” The army of trolls is there to foment dissent, motivate nutcases on the right and left and create scenarios difficult for the battleship that is American democracy to navigate. Facebook is being attacked because it’s controlled with an iron fist by a guy who is over his head and possess extreme power without the foresight and vision to be a steward of it or the humility to delegate it. The company is harming the republic and the world.
- resters 8y ago
  > Facebook would happily accept their cash It's not so simple, because not all employees would go along with it. It's possible that Zuck is stalling so he can figure out how to deliver what he's being asked for without creating too much turmoil. > consistent with the heritage of Russian intelligence services And also consistent with US intelligence services and a historic tit for tat. Russia's alleged $150K spend is being amplified because it fits the desired narrative, which is that social media needs to be much better controlled/censored, in this case for alleged national security reasons. > guy who is over his head ... without the foresight and vision to be a steward of it or the humility to delegate it... harming the republic and the world I would rephrase this as follows: A guy built an incredibly successful great firewall with built-in social credit system. In spite of his youth and inexperience he created something that governments have sought to create and control since before the modern information age. Now that he's created it and its value is (finally) understood by political leaders, there exists a desire to confiscate/control it to use it for the benefit of the republic. The impact of FB's news feed algorithm on the 2016 election dramatically accelerated the power grab. Zuck saw this move early which is why he testified to congress that "Facebook should probably be regulated". He is insisting on overt, public regulation of something he sees as a public utility, but officials have their eye on the much bigger prize which is the great firewall + social credit system. Such a thing requires secrecy and of course does not resemble Zuck's concept of a public utility.