BS: Facebook, Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 May 17 - 10:18 AM

When sanctimonious people are attacked on FB from the left or right it is clear many of them do not take it well, and overstate the case in their own defense just like folks here at BS. Issues spin out of control from the perceived personal offense even if a rational life saving POV is correct and the main point is lost. People who make defense against alt right forces and holocaust deniers are made to sound like what they believe is a bad thing - censorship.

The main point is free speech in the world of keeping a critical rational point of view surrounding the subject of holocaust. The issue is global, the squabbles are personal. Does FB employ psychiatrists? Even if they did it wouldn't help because 20% of their members are going to be either sociopaths or psychopaths with near zero conscious empathy. There simply is no legal cure to treat Amygdala disorders at this time.

I am not that different from a bigot except I do not identify the Jews or Muslims or Blacks or Mexicans as the 'Bad Hombres' and enemy.
I identify the 20% of the successful socio and psychopaths as the enemy but even then they still may serve a purpose in sustaining the species.


Cliff note version: Half of half of all people are crazy. What are ya gonna do?

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 May 17 - 09:16 AM

Thank you Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 May 17 - 06:49 AM

Exactly Jim. They could be absolutely anybody.

I'm a bit worried, because when I type my husband's name on Google, there's a reference to Facebook, and in one click a photo of him appears, complete with the name of our nearest town. I'm totally non-techno savvy, but this seems to me to be rather dodgy.

And if one is going to get hot under the collar at some of the content permitted on Facebook, I should think it is as nothing compared to what can be accessed in the fathomless troughs of the Internet in all its glory!

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 05:57 AM

"friends and friends-of-friends, "
Described, aptly, I think as "imaginary friends"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 17 - 05:50 AM

" business and as such can make whatever rules and directives about content it pleases. "
All businesses are subject to national laws
INTERESTING PIECE OF INFORMATION HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 25 May 17 - 05:34 AM

Maybe some people leap in without thinking. I'm on it but I have only been building up the repertoire of things I do and features I use very slowly. It's too complicated and unpredictable but some of it works okay.

"Holocaust denial" is tricky because the laws about it vary so much between nation states, from positively encouraging it to using it as a pretext for censorship of statements which have nothing to do with the Holocaust. You'd need a comparative law degree just to work out the differences between what was permitted in England and Scotland. And if FB took it on themselves to impose restrictions that ignored the legal systems of countries they operate in, they'd immediately run foul of generic freedom of speech laws.

There isn't a simple answer, but they could (a) put more money into dealing with this sort of thing and (b) be more open about what their enforced policies actually are.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Senoufou
Date: 25 May 17 - 03:53 AM

I'm not on Facebook (I only go on lovely Mudcat) but several of my friends are. From what I hear, it's a minefield of personal details of one's life being broadcast to friends and friends-of-friends, and eventually perfect strangers.

It seems to engender an enormous amount of distress and anger. Even my sister (who should know better) finds it a Bit Much at times, but nonetheless keeps at it, 'de-friending' and 'friending', tub-thumping about SNP antics and so on.

As far as I can see, it facilitates stalking, rumour-mongering, disseminating viciousness and lies, and boasting. ('Here is a photo of the pile of presents we got our little Johnny this Christmas' 'Photo of our brand new Mercedes' etc)
Even my husband is on it, and tells me he has about 300 'friends'. Daft banana!
The way to avoid being enraged by evil remarks on Facebook is never to venture there.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 May 17 - 02:43 AM

Goes to show ya, the conspiracy theorists are not only on the right wing....

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 May 17 - 12:18 AM

Nothing disappeared from this thread, Greg. They evidently didn't "take" when you submitted the messages.

Facebook has supposedly hired 300 more people to try to police this stuff - but considering the amount of nonsense out there, you probably should download the "Facebook Purity" app and add keywords you want to block. On facebook you can't talk about the app, only refer to it as "Fluffbuster Purity." Go figure. There has been a problem with a fake Chrome app by the same name, so best to download it from the site https://www.facebook.com/fluffbustingpurity/

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Donuel
Date: 25 May 17 - 12:16 AM

Before there was Facebook there was the chalk board in every bar in America. Sometimes the chalkboard just had a menu but sometimes it contained great wisdom like, DUE TO VIOLENCE - SHIT FACED MONDAYS WILL BE CANCELED.

Face book is just a digital chalkboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 May 17 - 09:28 PM

No, Amos - I could buit I won't as several posts of mine on this thread have already been disappeared, There's no point.

What Farcebook should NOT be doing is directing their employees to look the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 17 - 08:52 PM

Greg:

Can you articulate exactly what you think FB should be doing about the kinds of speech which you despise? I mean, I despise them too, you understand; but I am not sure how FB is supposed to control them, and who should define what sorts of things (other than the ones you put on the list yourself) should be added to the list of forbidden statements.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 17 - 08:29 PM

Old man yells at cloud.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 May 17 - 06:40 PM

Rather like FuxNews, eh Bobad - in the business of disseminating hate and bullshit for profit.

Idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Jeri
Date: 24 May 17 - 06:38 PM

Greg, it's not Facebook, it's the Internet. You should probably just get the fuck off of it. (It would improve my day not to have to listen to you bitch about what people I don't control are doing on it. YOU fix it, or stop whining.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 17 - 06:38 PM

Facebook is not a public service it's a business and as such can make whatever rules and directives about content it pleases. As always it's caveat emptor.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 May 17 - 06:08 PM

Sure is difficult to police, Charm, if your directives tell your employees NOT to police.

You really should think these things thru, you know.

And its long past time that obnoxious lying idiots stop using "free speech" as an excuse for being obnoxious lying idiots.

Subject: RE: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Charmion
Date: 24 May 17 - 05:20 PM

Greg, has it occurred to you how difficult it would be to police all Facebook posts for Holocaust-denial content? Is it even feasible? Also, many countries where Facebook operates have free speech laws that prevent Internet publishers -- Facebook is a publisher, in case you didn't know -- from unilaterally removing content posted by users. The company is relying on people who care to identify the noxious content and complain in terms that justify removing it.

Not that I carry any water for Facebook, but you really should think these things through before griping.

Subject: BS: Facebook, Again.
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 May 17 - 12:53 PM

As if anyone needed another reason to loathe Farcebook:

How Facebook flouts Holocaust denial laws except where it fears being sued

Leaked guidelines for moderators also reveal refugees are not protected by hate speech rules because they are a 'hot topic'.

The company will only consider blocking or hiding Holocaust denial messages and photographs if "we face the risk of getting blocked in a country or a legal risk".


https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/24/how-facebook-flouts-holocaust-denial-laws-except-where-it-fears-being-sued