banads

12 ms·

121.
by banads 6y ago
FB has the metrics. The precedent is Cambridge Analytica.
122.
by banads 6y ago
Their job is to make money. Censoring world leaders from your platform is a sure fire way to lose a lot of users and money
123.
by banads 6y ago
Not necessarily. Nothing raises engagement quite like a good rage flame war
124.
by banads 6y ago
Don't the all believe in the God of Abraham?
125.
by banads 6y ago
>You'd first have to a establish a definition for the term "control" Let me google that for you: >control: the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
126.
by banads 6y ago
>“though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas whe
127.
by banads 6y ago
It seems like most people (especially mainstream news such as CNN) focus the majority of their criticism on the police, while ignoring the politicians of both parties that are the root cause.
128.
by banads 6y ago
>If there was a point in history where they somehow severed ties with their racist origins and underwent fundamental, institutional change, I've yet to learn about it. The opposite, actually. The civil rights movement of the 60s was
129.
by banads 6y ago
>The police system as a whole is racist. Anybody who chooses to participate in and support that system everyday of their lives is racist. What about all the Democrats and Republicans who are ultimately responsible for the laws governing
130.
by banads 6y ago
What measurement would you suggest we use to approximate the number of people whose communication is under the control of a particular organization? >If someone opens up the Facebook app for 5 minutes a month they are considered a MAU. S
131.
by banads 6y ago
>I'm not saying don't audit. I'm pointing out your initial claim that this will find anything unusual. By "unusual" I mean anything that has intended or unintended negative effects on society, such as what was se
132.
by banads 6y ago
Zuckerberg > Murdoch
133.
by banads 6y ago
>Do you actually work in security research? Yep! >You're confusing finding accidental bugs with an actor trying to hide behavior. The latter you will not find if the actor is as big as a FAANG or nation state. Wrong, wrong, wrong
134.
by banads 6y ago
I quit FB many years ago, because I'm technically and historically literate. And yet there are billions of other people who are not, and who do use it, and this strongly effects my life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki&#
135.
by banads 6y ago
Try again, your only example that comes close to the scale and number of users of FB (2.6B MAU), is PRC (1.4B citizens), and that does not exactly help your case that FB is too powerful.
136.
by banads 6y ago
>control: the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events
137.
by banads 6y ago
Then who controls the code that their platforms run on, and how is FB able to conduct emotional manipulation experiments? https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/every...
138.
by banads 6y ago
"To know that you do not know is the best. To think you know when you do not is a disease. Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it."
139.
by banads 6y ago
Has any group of people in history ever had so much control over public discourse at such a large scale as Facebook, or Twitter?
140.
by banads 6y ago
>auditing the open code means nothing if and when something before that code in the stack manipulates the outcome of the code. In terms of software security vulnerabilities, there is so much low hanging fruit making exploitation trivial.
141.
by banads 6y ago
>No, I am pointing out that your statement implying one can know if there's anything unusual in the code can be found by an audit. It cannot. This is so plainly false its silly. Have you ever heard of a code review? What do you thin
142.
by banads 6y ago
>It’s also not possible to audit the code for anything unusual without taking it all the way back through all tools source, all hardware, down through the chips, through the doping in the chips, and even lower. Are you implying that sinc
143.
by banads 6y ago
It's silly to so confidently assert that opening up a closed source algorithm to 3rd party analysis will "do absolutely nothing". How could you possibly know there is nothing unusual in the code without having audited it your
144.
by banads 6y ago
Yep, if you don't have anything interesting to say, people won't be interested in listening to you. If you get deplatformed, then you're even further shit out of luck, because even if you did have something interesting to say
145.
by banads 6y ago
If FB wanted to "let discourse happen naturally" and not be paternalistic, they wouldn't use an opaque, non-chronological algorithm to control who gets to see what in such a way that primarily benefits FB's bottom line.
146.
by banads 6y ago
Social media companies have played a primary role in overthrowing governments and manipulating elections across the world.
147.
by banads 6y ago
Why do you have so few platforms available to you?
148.
by banads 6y ago
He wasn't ignored, he was deplatformed. >He voices far out opinions to take advantage of his audience and doesn't have anything actually interesting to say. Agreed, though corporate mass media in general also takes advantage of
149.
by banads 6y ago
That was the first thing he asked about.
150.
by banads 6y ago
Alex Jones was censored (deplatformed) by all the major platforms, which acted in unison against him. Joe Rogan bringing him on his podcast helped break that veil of censorship.

More ›