Doesn’t everyone remember the case of AOL v. Nutbag McNutty wherein it was decided that a poorly worded statement that contradicts legal documents that you consent to when you join a service is both permissible in court, binding, and takes precedence over all other consented documents?
This is fifth grade stuff here, guys.
Most American’s legal advice comes from Freedom.Eagle Esquire
Also, legal documents signed whilst joining a service are null and void inside the confines of the US Admiralty Court, look for the fringe on the flag.
Pod
1676
As long as you’re only travelling through an online service the articles of EULA-federation don’t apply to you.
Clay
1677
I haven’t watched this but it sounds interesting:
So Jack doesn’t know Jack about security? Not surprising.
But it’s all fine, because it was done by friends of the platform!
One of the first tweets sent from his “compromised” account was the N-word. Another, sent minutes later, praised Hitler.
aka that time Jack thought he was logged into an alt
This was an interesting read:
It’s based on a recent paper by a couple of Danish researchers working with an American:
Matt_W
1683
This interview with Randall Munroe (the guy who draws xkcd) is really quite good:
That’s the thing that I think I criticize the most often about how the Internet has developed, which is that it lets small communities — people who are dedicated — manipulate larger communities to give the impression of a peer consensus around some topic. Or if someone’s targeted by a handful of people, it doesn’t take very many people to completely dominate every public forum, or comment thread about something on the Internet and give the sense that like, “Oh wow, if I support this person, I’m in a small minority, because everyone seems to be mad at them.”
And this is something where even if you’re relatively savvy … like for me it’s really still really hard not to have my impression swayed by what I see in the first couple of comments. I really do think we need our norms to catch up to where we can respond to this kind of stuff better and we can build systems that are more robust in these ways. And I feel anxious and urgent about it.
It’s like in the era of email forwards, where there would be like a chain letter that’s like, If you don’t do this, you’re going to have terrible luck , or Bill Gates is going to send a dollar to everyone who forwarded this email . It was everywhere, it flooded email. It isn’t that we built something that stopped those emails. We didn’t have to rearchitect things, but we did need everyone’s email behavior to catch up.
I think we need a combination of both of those, and I feel frustrated that it doesn’t feel like it’s happening as quickly as it should, but I think it’s happening. So I dunno. I think that the more we talk about the kind of, for example, harassment people get on the Internet — if they are a certain kind of person, or express certain views, the way that it can leak into every part of the Internet and completely destroy someone’s ability to exist in the digital space — how easy it is to launch those kinds of campaigns, and how easy it is for the rest of us to be swayed by them, not really realizing that what we’re seeing is not representative. I guess that comes back to — it’s like that Marvel Cinematic Universe thing.
We only ever hear from the superfans, but that means that it’s pretty easy for a group of people to decide to be super fans and really sway things for everyone else. And you know, sometimes that’s how activism gets done and that’s good. But I think that we really haven’t come to grips with exactly what that means for digital spaces. That’s the most pressing and scary thing for me. We need to figure that out. And whether it’s a technical thing or a norms thing, or probably both, I really wish that would hurry up. Before, you know, democracy collapses or we all destroy each other over some dispute over a dress or whatever the heck.
Ex-SWoo
1685
I can see the logic from FB for doing this - they
a) Don’t want people to be able to claim that it’s FB censoring based on internal policies - moving it to a 3P makes it easier to deflect
b) Know that politicians lie/mislead all the time, so any 3P fact checker will flag most politicians.
Yeah, I agree. It’s unreasonable to ask Facebook to police legitimate political ads from candidates. Most lie, or at least bend the truth. It’s the nature of politics.
Now, if we want to have a discussion as a society about how commonplace lying is in political ads, I’d welcome that.
Facebook is utterly immoral and unethical. The sooner it gets shut down the better.
The US tech community should seriously think about freezing Facebook and other socmedia employees out of their social circles. They are engaged in evil, wilfully and knowledgeably working with the worst humanity in the West and pursuing profit without any restriction to the basics of decency.
Zylon
1689
I use Facebook to maintain contact with people I want to maintain contact with, and to coordinate events with same. I ignore the ads. I don’t use it as a news source.
Apparently this is some super difficult, near-impossible feat.
RichVR
1690
So you use it in a moral vacuum? Nothing else matters but your particular use?
Zylon
1691
I use a vacuum to clean my floors. If some other people use a vacuum to bludgeon penguins, that’s their malfunction.
Nesrie
1692
If they had a good way to keep in touch with everyone, friends, family, co-workers, including the under 20s and under crowd, without the ads and the massive misinformation campaigns, I would use it. The problem is, you’d have to pay for it and there is not real assurances that the young would like it enough to even do that.
Maybe they need to do something like we did here… move the politics and religion content to a separate platform so it doesn’t poison the more generally good-for-humanity aspects of FB like staying in touch with friends and sharing things you find interesting or funny. Too many people use it wrong and indulge in it like an unhealthy addiction.
