4 ms·

Did you just compare a Silicon Valley tech company selling ads to IG Farben? It’s very hard to take this post seriously even though your point stands.

hinkley 2y ago
The tech company that got Donald Trump elected, and helped make all of our grandparents into lunatics? That Facebook?
- zer0zzz 2y ago
  2017 called they want their meme back.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - hinkley 2y ago
    You remember that Facebook customer who got sued for breaking privacy agreements and profiling FB users? That’s the most public one. Also the Russians sitting around posting on social media meme is still actively in use. I’ve seen it at least a handful of times this month
- kridsdale3 2y ago
  Wasn't that Twitter? You know, the site he actually used?
stiray 2y ago
Not only my point stands, I still remember a world almost without narcissists, people traveling for fun, not to take a photo to brag, times where people listened to doctors not some people recommending horse dewormer, UK not suffering due to Brexit consequences ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8425058/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8425058/ ), people actually bonding in person,... Or in words of Umberto Eco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco ): “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” You are underestimating the horror that Facebook did to human society. I am accusing them of crime against humanity. And all that, just for selling ads - where you will be able to see the comparison with IG Farben, do whatever it takes, to earn money. I accept the argument, that if they wouldn't, someone else would, but nevertheless THEY did it or we would be talking about someone else.
- RealityVoid 2y ago
  At most, it just laid bare to see what were the normal social interactions and thoughts of millions of people and made possible far more viral spread of ideas. On the last one, I don't even think it's social media's fault, it's probably the whole internet at large, it's just these sorts of interactions happen most there.
  - stiray 2y ago
    I was thinking a lot about it, but at the times of IRC and forums (and modems ;) ) this was not an issue on society scale. Facebook actually revolutionized it and made it available to anyone including showing the more contraverse opinions to other people as it was more likely for them to click. They were/are literally pumping up all the bad in society, to earn more money.
    - zer0zzz 2y ago
      So your argument is that making computers and the internet easier to use for normal people is cause for societal destruction? I can’t be convinced, but that does seem like more of an indictment on people than it does tech.
      - kridsdale3 2y ago
        His entire argument amounts to Eternal September[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
      - stiray 2y ago
        Not my argument. You are fighting Umberto Eco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco ) here. Let me repeat him as you probably didnt catch it (I dont understand how, but this is one of the things, I dont understand, so I wont argue about it): “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” I can just confirm that what he has seen and described is correct. And the more that you are standing your ground, the more you are proving, he was correct.
JimDabell 2y ago
Why are you downplaying them as “a tech company selling ads” when the most relevant characteristic of theirs is facilitating genocide in Myanmar, then obstructing the investigation, and fuelling ethnic violence in more places like Ethiopia? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb... https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-gambia/ https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/07/facebooks-role-in-myanmar-and-ethiopia-under-new-scrutiny https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/07/facebooks...
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what the extent of the "facilitation" was in the first link, so what I'm about to say might be a little vague, but the second doesn't appear to be about them covering up their role in said "facilitation", but rather their refusal to provide so much user data to The Gambia looking to prosecute Myanmar officials for war crimes. The way you've phrased that makes it sound as though Facebook were trying to hide the actions they took to facilitate things, which I think is a miscommunication.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  I think the Myanmar experience has a lot to do with why Facebook tries to disappear politics talk on Threads. I mean, negative talk about your neighbors is how political violence starts. People on the Fediverse get high and mighty about the Myanmar incident but in a Fediverse world the Myanmar government would have run the big instance in their language and would have defederated anyone who tried to stop them, alternately outsiders could have defederated but then they wouldn't have any influence. Fediverse folks could have refused to run a server to support genocide but there is no way they could stop their software from supporting genocide. A centralized system like Facebook does have more control and more responsibility but when they took that responsibility later on Myanmar kicked them out https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-censorship-virtual-private-network-facebook-79fb4cc0c3c4317844d0c00b0be1d9d1 https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-censorship-virtual-privat...
nick486 2y ago
Why ? The discussion is about fixing brand reputation, and he quotes probably one of the most disgustingly successful rebrands in history. If even IG Farben managed to successfully rebrand, surely a company that just went "a little too far" with private data, can too. Looks quite on topic to me.
- zer0zzz 2y ago
  It’s a level of hyperbole that could only be taken seriously by an autistic person or someone in tech. That’s why.

hinkley 2y ago

The tech company that got Donald Trump elected, and helped make all of our grandparents into lunatics? That Facebook?

zer0zzz 2y ago
2017 called they want their meme back.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hinkley 2y ago
  You remember that Facebook customer who got sued for breaking privacy agreements and profiling FB users? That’s the most public one. Also the Russians sitting around posting on social media meme is still actively in use. I’ve seen it at least a handful of times this month
kridsdale3 2y ago
Wasn't that Twitter? You know, the site he actually used?

stiray 2y ago

Not only my point stands, I still remember a world almost without narcissists, people traveling for fun, not to take a photo to brag, times where people listened to doctors not some people recommending horse dewormer, UK not suffering due to Brexit consequences ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8425058/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8425058/ ), people actually bonding in person,... Or in words of Umberto Eco ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco ): “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” You are underestimating the horror that Facebook did to human society. I am accusing them of crime against humanity. And all that, just for selling ads - where you will be able to see the comparison with IG Farben, do whatever it takes, to earn money. I accept the argument, that if they wouldn't, someone else would, but nevertheless THEY did it or we would be talking about someone else.

RealityVoid 2y ago
At most, it just laid bare to see what were the normal social interactions and thoughts of millions of people and made possible far more viral spread of ideas. On the last one, I don't even think it's social media's fault, it's probably the whole internet at large, it's just these sorts of interactions happen most there.
- stiray 2y ago
  I was thinking a lot about it, but at the times of IRC and forums (and modems ;) ) this was not an issue on society scale. Facebook actually revolutionized it and made it available to anyone including showing the more contraverse opinions to other people as it was more likely for them to click. They were/are literally pumping up all the bad in society, to earn more money.
  - zer0zzz 2y ago
    So your argument is that making computers and the internet easier to use for normal people is cause for societal destruction? I can’t be convinced, but that does seem like more of an indictment on people than it does tech.
    - kridsdale3 2y ago
      His entire argument amounts to Eternal September[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
    - stiray 2y ago
      Not my argument. You are fighting Umberto Eco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umberto_Eco ) here. Let me repeat him as you probably didnt catch it (I dont understand how, but this is one of the things, I dont understand, so I wont argue about it): “Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots” I can just confirm that what he has seen and described is correct. And the more that you are standing your ground, the more you are proving, he was correct.

JimDabell 2y ago

Why are you downplaying them as “a tech company selling ads” when the most relevant characteristic of theirs is facilitating genocide in Myanmar, then obstructing the investigation, and fuelling ethnic violence in more places like Ethiopia? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-faceb... https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-gambia/ https://time.com/5880118/myanmar-rohingya-genocide-facebook-... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/07/facebooks-role-in-myanmar-and-ethiopia-under-new-scrutiny https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/07/facebooks...

robertlagrant 2y ago
I'm not sure exactly what the extent of the "facilitation" was in the first link, so what I'm about to say might be a little vague, but the second doesn't appear to be about them covering up their role in said "facilitation", but rather their refusal to provide so much user data to The Gambia looking to prosecute Myanmar officials for war crimes. The way you've phrased that makes it sound as though Facebook were trying to hide the actions they took to facilitate things, which I think is a miscommunication.
PaulHoule 2y ago
I think the Myanmar experience has a lot to do with why Facebook tries to disappear politics talk on Threads. I mean, negative talk about your neighbors is how political violence starts. People on the Fediverse get high and mighty about the Myanmar incident but in a Fediverse world the Myanmar government would have run the big instance in their language and would have defederated anyone who tried to stop them, alternately outsiders could have defederated but then they wouldn't have any influence. Fediverse folks could have refused to run a server to support genocide but there is no way they could stop their software from supporting genocide. A centralized system like Facebook does have more control and more responsibility but when they took that responsibility later on Myanmar kicked them out https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-censorship-virtual-private-network-facebook-79fb4cc0c3c4317844d0c00b0be1d9d1 https://apnews.com/article/myanmar-censorship-virtual-privat...

nick486 2y ago

Why ? The discussion is about fixing brand reputation, and he quotes probably one of the most disgustingly successful rebrands in history. If even IG Farben managed to successfully rebrand, surely a company that just went "a little too far" with private data, can too. Looks quite on topic to me.

zer0zzz 2y ago
It’s a level of hyperbole that could only be taken seriously by an autistic person or someone in tech. That’s why.