3 ms·
I suggest OF is the bigger bad actor here, this is not really a META story.
by jollybean 4y ago
I suggest OF is the bigger bad actor here, this is not really a META story.
- im3w1l 4y agoIf they can be bribed once they can be bought twice. And it's a reminder to everyone that if you aren't getting the engagement your content deserves then it's a possibility that you are being deliberately sabotaged.
- jollybean 4y agoMETA was not bribed. Individuals were bribed, that's a monster difference. Also, if you're not getting 'engagement' it's 99.999% chance that something other than 'bribery' is happening. Shenanigans are common, but this specific kind is not very common. I'm doubtful people at META are going in on some schemes like this.
- jessaustin 4y agoShenanigans are common, but this specific kind is not very common. How could anyone know that? No government cares to investigate this sort of thing, and those individuals who could become aware would mostly be subject to NDA.
- jollybean 4y agoBecause it's not hard to figure out 'something' is going on, and, the level of 'bribery' in general for these kinds of things at above board corporations is rare.
- jessaustin 4y ago"Not hard" for whom? The individual private porn producers? ITT you specifically disbelieve those exact people! Only those who work in the right positions within Meta or one of these other horrible companies would have a good view into this, and they have no incentive to set things right.
- lovelearning 4y agoIf Meta employees can flag anybody they want without (effective) internal checks and balances, then I'd say Meta is guilty by omission.
- jollybean 4y agoThat's fair. Flagging someone should require some kind of legitimate attribution.