5 ms·

Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states. This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not h

Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now, far more powerful than most nation states. This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army, weapons, or literally anyone that would be willing to die or even be physically put out to defend it. I’m no Facebook fan, but let’s not let Facebook hysteria overrun these comments.

TuringNYC 7y ago
It is unrealistically limiting to think modern wars are fought only with armies. Most wars are quiet and fought with capital, thought, rhetoric, and policy. Armies only come into the picture if all else fails.
- dantheman 7y ago
  Can you point me to a 'modern war' without armies? I'm interested in what you actually think a war is?
  - ismail 7y ago
    Not op but will take a stab. The comment was in response to: “This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army” Op was pointing out that power != war with guns “Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now” The comment was how power could be achieved via other methods of warfare-including the ability to shape conversations. Another word for this would be competition. He has a point.
    - denton-scratch 7y ago
      Negative, Spock. The ability to shape conversations or to compete is not the same as making war (or you are relying on an idiosyncratic definition of "war").
      - ismail 7y ago
        It seems we are splitting hairs here on the definition of "war" and missing the actual message. Since you brought it up again. War (Noun) " - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism - a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a struggle to achieve a goal: " War (Verb): " - to be in active or vigorous conflict - to carry on active hostility or contention " The point still stands. War is an isomorphism for competition, conflict and tension between parties. One could probably use something like category theory and prove it. References: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war
  - degski 7y ago
    cyberwar springs to mind.
  - infominer 7y ago
    [edit/ downvote this all you like, pretending like warfare requires guns and armies when 2 different government elections have been attacked using social media, namely Facebook.] https://www.thegreathack.com/ https://www.thegreathack.com/ > Data has surpassed oil as the world’s most valuable asset. It’s being weaponized to wage cultural and political warfare. People everywhere are in a battle for control of our most intimate personal details. From award-winning filmmakers Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim, THE GREAT HACK uncovers the dark world of data exploitation with astounding access to the personal journeys of key players on different sides of the explosive Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data scandal.
    - gdy 7y ago
      Yanks to the rescue: the secret story if how American advisers helped Yeltsin win http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html Was that an act of war against democratic Russia?
  - AsyncAwait 7y ago
    Ask any country under crushing US sanctions.
sailfast 7y ago
One could argue they have a higher GDP and population than most countries right now (all depends how you measure “power”) but I’m with you: if it went down tomorrow, I’m not sure what the world would actually be losing, nobody would die, and the world would keep spinning.
StreamBright 7y ago
Yeah they only know everything about 1B people and can swing elections but other than these they are just a regular company selling stuff.
- downandout 7y ago
  There is zero evidence that any activity conducted on Facebook has ever actually swung a single election. As far as I can tell, that is hyperbole as well.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Absolutely. A $5 billion USD hyperbole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_d... "The governments of India[30][31] and Brazil[32][33] demanded that Cambridge Analytica report how anyone used data from the breach in political campaigning, and various regional governments in the United States have lawsuits in their court systems from citizens affected by the data breach.[34] On April 25, 2018, Facebook released their first earnings report since the scandal was reported. Revenue fell since the last quarter, but this is usual as it followed the holiday season quote. The quarter revenue was the highest for a first quarter, and the second overall.[35] In early July 2018, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office announced it intended to fine Facebook £500,000 ($663,000) over the data scandal, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the breach, saying Facebook "contravened the law by failing to safeguard people's information".[36] In March 2019, a court filing by the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Columbia alleged that Facebook knew of Cambridge Analytica's "improper data-gathering practices" months before they were first publicly reported in December 2015.[37] In July 2019, the Federal Trade Commission voted to approve fining Facebook around $5 billion to finally settle the investigation to the scandal, with a 3-2 vote.[38] Facebook established Social Science One as a response to the event."
    - downandout 7y ago
      Nothing you provided is evidence that any Facebook activity has ever swung any election. The very people that paid Cambridge Analytica for their services in 2016 said that the company’s strategies were ineffective at best, referring to it as “snake oil” [1]. You have provided evidence that people attempted to use Facebook to swing an election. Those two things are not the same. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/23/four-and-a-half-reasons-not-to-worry-that-cambridge-analytica-skewed-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/2...

TuringNYC 7y ago

It is unrealistically limiting to think modern wars are fought only with armies. Most wars are quiet and fought with capital, thought, rhetoric, and policy. Armies only come into the picture if all else fails.

dantheman 7y ago
Can you point me to a 'modern war' without armies? I'm interested in what you actually think a war is?
- ismail 7y ago
  Not op but will take a stab. The comment was in response to: “This is hyperbole at best. Facebook does not have an army” Op was pointing out that power != war with guns “Facebook is the most powerful private entity on the earth right now” The comment was how power could be achieved via other methods of warfare-including the ability to shape conversations. Another word for this would be competition. He has a point.
  - denton-scratch 7y ago
    Negative, Spock. The ability to shape conversations or to compete is not the same as making war (or you are relying on an idiosyncratic definition of "war").
    - ismail 7y ago
      It seems we are splitting hairs here on the definition of "war" and missing the actual message. Since you brought it up again. War (Noun) " - a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism - a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end - a struggle to achieve a goal: " War (Verb): " - to be in active or vigorous conflict - to carry on active hostility or contention " The point still stands. War is an isomorphism for competition, conflict and tension between parties. One could probably use something like category theory and prove it. References: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war https://www.dictionary.com/browse/war
- degski 7y ago
  cyberwar springs to mind.
- infominer 7y ago
  [edit/ downvote this all you like, pretending like warfare requires guns and armies when 2 different government elections have been attacked using social media, namely Facebook.] https://www.thegreathack.com/ https://www.thegreathack.com/ > Data has surpassed oil as the world’s most valuable asset. It’s being weaponized to wage cultural and political warfare. People everywhere are in a battle for control of our most intimate personal details. From award-winning filmmakers Karim Amer and Jehane Noujaim, THE GREAT HACK uncovers the dark world of data exploitation with astounding access to the personal journeys of key players on different sides of the explosive Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data scandal.
  - gdy 7y ago
    Yanks to the rescue: the secret story if how American advisers helped Yeltsin win http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html Was that an act of war against democratic Russia?
- AsyncAwait 7y ago
  Ask any country under crushing US sanctions.

sailfast 7y ago

One could argue they have a higher GDP and population than most countries right now (all depends how you measure “power”) but I’m with you: if it went down tomorrow, I’m not sure what the world would actually be losing, nobody would die, and the world would keep spinning.

StreamBright 7y ago

Yeah they only know everything about 1B people and can swing elections but other than these they are just a regular company selling stuff.

downandout 7y ago
There is zero evidence that any activity conducted on Facebook has ever actually swung a single election. As far as I can tell, that is hyperbole as well.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Absolutely. A $5 billion USD hyperbole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook–Cambridge_Analytica_d... "The governments of India[30][31] and Brazil[32][33] demanded that Cambridge Analytica report how anyone used data from the breach in political campaigning, and various regional governments in the United States have lawsuits in their court systems from citizens affected by the data breach.[34] On April 25, 2018, Facebook released their first earnings report since the scandal was reported. Revenue fell since the last quarter, but this is usual as it followed the holiday season quote. The quarter revenue was the highest for a first quarter, and the second overall.[35] In early July 2018, the United Kingdom's Information Commissioner's Office announced it intended to fine Facebook £500,000 ($663,000) over the data scandal, this being the maximum fine allowed at the time of the breach, saying Facebook "contravened the law by failing to safeguard people's information".[36] In March 2019, a court filing by the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Columbia alleged that Facebook knew of Cambridge Analytica's "improper data-gathering practices" months before they were first publicly reported in December 2015.[37] In July 2019, the Federal Trade Commission voted to approve fining Facebook around $5 billion to finally settle the investigation to the scandal, with a 3-2 vote.[38] Facebook established Social Science One as a response to the event."
  - downandout 7y ago
    Nothing you provided is evidence that any Facebook activity has ever swung any election. The very people that paid Cambridge Analytica for their services in 2016 said that the company’s strategies were ineffective at best, referring to it as “snake oil” [1]. You have provided evidence that people attempted to use Facebook to swing an election. Those two things are not the same. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/23/four-and-a-half-reasons-not-to-worry-that-cambridge-analytica-skewed-the-2016-election/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/03/2...