Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

CNBC: Ex-Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya: Social media is 'ripping apart" society

Zguy28

By Zguy28
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted

After like 4 years of resisting, I finally accepted my mom's FB friend request a few weeks back.

 

It was then I realized that she was one of those people.

 

You know the ones.  Comments things on posts like "this is so cute" and then recounting some other story, or re-posts animal videos.

 

Society was a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, nonniey said:

And there lies the problem people go and get the information they want. It takes some discipline get the information you need.

 

Exactly. It's about what you want.

 

If you want easy, caters to your worldview, makes you feel happy about what you already know/think then you can do that.

 

If you want stuff that challenges you, stuff that's outside what you already know, and stuff that takes a while to read and digest and requires follow up, that's out there too.

 

The problem is too many people want the former, not enough want the later.

 

And you'll notice many of the people who want the former, claim otherwise, and want someone else to give them the later. Which is the fundamental problem. 

 

People say they want quality stuff. Their actions show they actually want cheap and easy. We see it in news/information, but we see it in pretty much everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

After like 4 years of resisting, I finally accepted my mom's FB friend request a few weeks back.

 

It was then I realized that she was one of those people.

 

You know the ones.  Comments things on posts like "this is so cute" and then recounting some other story, or re-posts animal videos.

 

Society was a mistake.

I don't understanf how her doing that is a big deal.  I'd prefer that over the "make everything a political debate" types.  That's exploding because people can yell their f'd up opinions at top of their lunges but not to anyones face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I don't understanf how her doing that is a big deal.  I'd prefer that over the "make everything a political debate" types.  That's exploding because people can yell their f'd up opinions at top of their lunges but not to anyones face.

I'm mostly joking.

 

It's one of those things whwre I'm like "mooooom, you're embarassing me, from dozens of miles away no less."

 

Used to be you have to be in the presence of the person to be so thoroughly embarassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DogofWar1

DogofWar1

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

What’s wrong with cute cat videos?!?

The latest one was a video of a guy playing a piano to an elephant, tagging me and telling me to break out the keyboard for my new dog.

 

Now the Russians know I play piano (but joke's on them, I suck).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
On 7/26/2018 at 10:19 AM, DogofWar1 said:

I'm mostly joking.

 

It's one of those things whwre I'm like "mooooom, you're embarassing me, from dozens of miles away no less."

 

Used to be you have to be in the presence of the person to be so thoroughly embarassed.

Most of us have been there, I certainly have (and no I'm not providing examples), but mom's are special.  Best you can do is embrace all that silly stuff and laugh with her.  Don't be afraid to tell her you appreciate her publicly too, it will make her friends jealous and she needs to hear it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 months later...
China

China

Posted
Posted

How Facebook Screwed Us All

 

A country riven by ethnic tension. Spontaneous protests driven by viral memes. Violence and riots fueled by hateful fake-news posts, often about “terrorism” by marginalized groups.

 

It’s a story we’ve seen play out around the world recently, from France and Germany to Burma, Sri Lanka, and Nigeria. The particulars are different—gas prices were the trigger in France, lies about machete attacks in Nigeria—but one element has been present every time: Facebook. In each of these countries, the platform’s power to accelerate hate and disinformation has translated into real-world violence.

 

Americans used to watch this kind of stuff with the comforting conviction that It Can’t Happen Here. But we’ve learned that the United States is not as exceptional as we might have thought, nor are contemporary societies as protected from civil conflict as we had hoped.

 

Just picture a reasonably proximate scenario: It’s the winter of 2020, and Donald Trump—having lost reelection by a margin closer than expected—is in full attack mode, whipping up stories of runaway voter fraud. Local protest groups coalesce around Facebook posts assailing liberals, murderous “illegals,” feminists. (This is basically what happened in France last year with the “anger groups” that birthed the yellow vest protests.) Pizzagate-style conspiracy theories race through these groups, inflaming their more extreme members. Add a population that is, unlike those of France and Nigeria, armed to the teeth, and the picture gets pretty dark.

 

In other words, though it has already facilitated the election of a demagogue committed to stoking racial prejudice, enriched his family, and sold out America’s national interest, social media may not yet have shown us the worst it can do to a divided society. And if we don’t get a handle on the power of the platforms, we could see worse play out sooner than we think.

 

This prognosis may sound grim, but it’s not intended to get you stockpiling canned goods or researching New Zealand immigration law. It’s simply to ratchet up the urgency with which we think about this problem, to bring to it the kind of focus we brought to other times when a single corporation—Standard Oil, AT&T, Microsoft—amassed an unacceptable degree of power over the fate of our society.

 

In the case of social platforms, their power is over the currency of democracy: information. Nearly 70 percent of American adults say they get some of their news via social media. That’s a huge shift not just in terms of distribution, but in terms of quality control, too. In the past, virtually all the institutions distributing news had verification standards of some kind, no matter how thin or compromised, before publication. Facebook has none. Right now, we could concoct almost any random “news” item and, for as little as $3 a day to “boost” it via the platform’s advertising engine, get it seen by up to 3,400 people each day as if it were just naturally showing up in their feed.

 

This is no hypothetical. It’s precisely what Vladimir Putin’s minions, and the Trump campaign and its allies, did in 2016. And why not? Facebook showed them the way, dispatching staffers to campaigns to make sure they knew how to get exactly the messages they wanted in front of exactly the people most susceptible.

 

Facebook—and all of us—got a wake-up call when we learned how bad actors put those types of lessons into practice. But make no mistake: While Facebook and YouTube, Twitter, and the other platforms may have been genuinely shocked by what happened in 2016, disinformation and man­ipulation are not a bug in their businesses. It’s the very core of the model, which is why they will never fix it on their own.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted

i think focusing on hate and hate groups misses the mark.  Those groups are awful, certainly, but I think they’re an unavoidable (and entirely predictable) byproduct of fear mongering and political radicalization.  Social media has given the loudest voices to the angry political periphery and made it easier for vultures to use extremism to in service of the major parties as well.  Anyone is free broadcast their messages of division and distrust without having to answer to anyone.  Even foreign governments.  They can just assert, sincerely or otherwise, that some group of people wishes to do harm... and then pay, or manipulate, social media companies to expand their reach.

 

Think about it, is there any group in the country right now that isn’t being constantly bombarded by the argument that some other group is out to harm them?  When this is the case, why would anyone be surprised that political violence and hate is on the rise?  What else could such an environment be expected to produce?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
China

China

Posted
Posted

Mark Zuckerberg reportedly has an escape hatch in his office in case of emergency

 

t’s a strange world we live in when tech CEOs need stringent security protection, but that’s sadly the state of affairs these days. Notably, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg needs particularly rigorous protection, a dynamic which arguably isn’t all that surprising given the tremendous amount of influence Facebook wields in the political arena and how visible Zuckerberg has become as a public figure.

 

Highlighting the extent of Zuckerberg’s security detail — which in itself is a reflection of the seriousness of the threats he faces — Facebook last year revealed that it spent $7.3 million protecting Zuckerberg in 2017. Not surprisingly, much of that protection centers on personal security guards stationed at his house and while traveling.


As Facebook noted in a SEC filing last year, the security costs associated with Zuckerberg “address safety concerns due to specific threats to his safety arising directly as a result of his position as our founder, Chairman, and CEO.”

 

BusinessInsider recently spoke to a number of individuals familiar with Facebook’s security team and revealed a number of interesting tidbits about the measures used to keep Zuckerberg out of harms way. Without question, the most intriguing tidbit centers on a “panic chute” that may or may not be in Zuckerberg’s office.

 

There’s also a persistent rumor among Facebook employees that he has a secret “panic chute” his team can evacuate him down to get him out of the office in a hurry. The truth of this matter remains murky: One source said they had been briefed about the existence of a top-secret exit route through the floor of the conference room into the parking garage, but others said they had no knowledge of it.

 

What’s more, no one is allowed to park directly below Zuckerberg’s office due to concerns that a car laden with explosives might position itself there. Additionally, some of Zuckerberg’s personal security detail reportedly dress up as regular Facebook engineers in an effort to blend in more seamlessly.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malapropismic Depository

Malapropismic Depository

Posted
Posted
On 12/13/2017 at 9:34 AM, Zguy28 said:

CNBC:  Ex-Facebook executive Chamath Palihapitiya: Social media is 'ripping apart" society

 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/12/12/ex-facebook-executive-chamath-palihapitiya-social-media-is-ripping-apart-society.html

 

Interesting conversation and thoughts from Chamath Palihapitiya on social media and how money coupled with social media can convince people that what is popular is true and what is unpopular must be untrue.

 

While this is a true statement, you could remove the word "social" from the headline, and it would actually be much truer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/why-is-facebook-the-world-s-largest-publisher-immune-to-publishing-laws

 

Why Is Facebook, the World’s Largest Publisher, Immune to Publishing Laws?

 

"Mark Zuckerberg may not think he needs a new job, but he does. It’s long past time Facebook be classified as a publisher, where it can be held responsible for the content that appears in posts on its system.

 

The issue here is the special exemption to liability that Facebook and other internet platforms get from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This law was passed in the early days of the internet and was intended to set up rules for governing communications that paralleled the ones for print and broadcast media. At the time, Congress decided to include Section 230, which protects Facebook and other internet platforms from the same sort of responsibility for content that print or broadcast media face.

 

To see what is at issue, suppose that a Facebook post becomes widely circulated saying that Donald Trump has stolen $20 million from charity. Imagine in this particular case, it happens not to be true, and Trump can prove this fact.

 

Because of Section 230, Facebook bears no responsibility for spreading this false accusation. In fact, it is not even obligated to remove the false accusation from its platform, although it would likely choose to do so under the circumstances. If Trump could determine who had initiated the post, he could pursue legal action against them, but Section 230 would protect Facebook from any liability."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...