Society/Culture It's time to kill facebook!

[Mofra]

Pretentious ******. Im still on geocities.

Well there goes my online hipster cred

 

[Frank Bunn]

Who actively uses Facebook these days apart from bogans and single mums who post 15 times a day about their bastard children?

I just use it to say happy birthday to people a few days late when I bother to sign in.

 

[Pie eyed]

Isn't this what beancoin is doing here?

Beancoin is good though....
(I think that earns me a Beancoin Chief...No?)

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Well there goes my online hipster cred

Get on Hi5 and redeem yourself

 

[Total Power]

Get on Hi5 and redeem yourself

whats hi5?

 

[Snake_Baker]

whats hi5?

Fap material

 

[Judd2Sewell]

whats hi5?

Myspace before Myspace

 

[Bombermania]

The Facebook feed has become such a joke, instead of actually showing the most recent stuff from pages you have liked, it tries to show you stuff you might want to see, Facebook is only useful for staying in touch with mates within having to send an email or sms, or at uni it is useful for group assignments.

 

[AM]

Yep! Hit 'em in the pocket.

Making cyberspace safe shouldn’t be that hard. All that is needed is to provide companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter with a strong financial incentive to clean up their platforms.

The vastness of cyberspace means that no single regulator can hope to make it safe by reigning in its worst excesses. Even criminal acts in cyberspace are rarely prosecuted.

Any effective regulatory response must ensure that individuals who are harmed or threatened with harm are empowered to act quickly to seek a legal remedy including compensation and injuctions against the online platforms. Give victims of cyber-hate the legal tools to sue Google, Facebook, Twitter and others and the effect would be dramatic. Big Tech companies would be compelled to commit serious resources to cleaning up their platforms.

http://bit.ly/2FhVUfX

 

[ShanDog]

Yep! Hit 'em in the pocket.



http://bit.ly/2FhVUfX

Yeah, gotta blame someone for other people being bad. That's all we need - incentivising companies like Google and Facebook to scrutinise everything we say and do online even more closely. I'm sure only good things come of that.

 

[AM]

Yeah, gotta blame someone for other people being bad. That's all we need - incentivising companies like Google and Facebook to scrutinise everything we say and do online even more closely. I'm sure only good things come of that.

That's not what is being put. It's about enabling people defamed or bullied to have reasonable means of seeking redress.

btw. If you think Google doesn't already know what you figuratively had for breakfast then you believe the 'do no evil' palaver. Never use it.

 

[King Brown]

Yep! Hit 'em in the pocket.



http://bit.ly/2FhVUfX

Can you put the full URLs in what you post?

 

[AM]

Can you put the full URLs in what you post?

Why?

 

[King Brown]

Why?

So people know what they're clicking on and what the reference is if they choose not to click.

 

[Bradesmaen]

A thread about Facebook and P35 still manages to somehow connect it to deep state. That's when you know someone has a problem. Get well soon P35.

 

[ShanDog]

That's not what is being put. It's about enabling people defamed or bullied to have reasonable means of seeking redress.

btw. If you think Google doesn't already know what you figuratively had for breakfast then you believe the 'do no evil' palaver. Never use it.

Yeah I get all that. Shooting the messenger doesn't seem like reasonable redress. Also doesn't make the messenger open to carrying messages anymore.

 

[jenny61_99]

Apart from the Messenger feature and the occasional event invitation, what is Facebook even good for anymore?

All it is now is people tagging their friends in shitty re-posted memes from pages like LadBible/UniLad/whatever other pages that post nothing but stolen content. It's a really ugly looking website now. And that's before even getting into their blatant information farming and censorship.

Apps like Instagram and Snapchat - made exclusively for narcissists who think that mundane events in their boring life are worth sharing to hundreds/thousands of people - aren't a lot better. But at least they're a little cleaner and aren't complete cancer like Facebook currently is.

I personally use it as a diary and a way to keep up with friends/fam that I don't get to see IRL because life gets in the way.

 

[AM]

Yeah I get all that. Shooting the messenger doesn't seem like reasonable redress. Also doesn't make the messenger open to carrying messages anymore.

In view of there being an issue here and it's a David and Goliath matter how would you even the playing field so steps to redress an issue like that mentioned in the quoted case could be taken, including pursuit of compensatory damages? Keeping in mind those who publish and disseminate such information are also culpable and it is invariably where the funds to cover compensation are located. You can't absolve them from responsibility.

 

[ShanDog]

In view of there being an issue here and it's a David and Goliath matter how would you even the playing field so steps to redress an issue like that mentioned in the quoted case could be taken, including pursuit of compensatory damages? Keeping in mind those who publish and disseminate such information are also culpable and it is invariably where the funds to cover compensation are located. You can't absolve them from responsibility.

It seems like you're framing your arguments around the fact that companies like Facebook are wealthy and the disparity in wealth and power between them and victims of cyber bullying etc. All of that might be true, but it doesn't make for justice. Being wealthy isn't a crime and nor should it be default make you responsible for other people's crimes. The issues of fault need to be argued on merit, not comparing bank accounts.

 

[AM]

It seems like you're framing your arguments around the fact that companies like Facebook are wealthy and the disparity in wealth and power between them and victims of cyber bullying etc. All of that might be true, but it doesn't make for justice. Being wealthy isn't a crime and nor should it be default make you responsible for other people's crimes. The issues of fault need to be argued on merit, not comparing bank accounts.

Oh please - the hoary old politics of envy. Of course wealth gained with propriety is fine.

What isn't fine, fair and reasonable are people/companies who avoid responsibility for their actions by virtue of their wealth, power and influence. We see it all the time.

No one should be excluded from equality before the law through exclusion due to a gigantic power imbalance.

I get back to my question, how do you suggest that someone like the person mentioned in the piece, who is limited due to finances, can achieve redress?

This time without digression, please.

 

[ShanDog]

Oh please - the hoary old politics of envy. Of course wealth gained with propriety is fine.

What isn't fine, fair and reasonable are people/companies who avoid responsibility for their actions by virtue of their wealth, power and influence. We see it all the time.

No one should be excluded from equality before the law through exclusion due to a gigantic power imbalance.

I get back to my question, how do you suggest that someone like the person mentioned in the piece, who is limited due to finances, can achieve redress?

This time without digression, please.

So it's a digression, yet you've just re-stated the power dynamic that frames your whole argument?

 

[King Brown]

In view of there being an issue here and it's a David and Goliath matter how would you even the playing field so steps to redress an issue like that mentioned in the quoted case could be taken, including pursuit of compensatory damages? Keeping in mind those who publish and disseminate such information are also culpable and it is invariably where the funds to cover compensation are located. You can't absolve them from responsibility.

Your argument should be framed as curbing their monopoly power. If they fail to deal with trolls and abuse properly, they should not have a monopoly on the 'social graph'. The US (and other jurisdictions) should legislate that Facebook either be broken up, or open the proprietary data they hold on you're friendship network to other social networks, such that you and friends can move elsewhere seamlessly.

 

[AM]

So it's a digression, yet you've just re-stated the power dynamic that frames your whole argument?

Your positions simply were:

*I don't want to give these bodies more power to scrutinise.#35

* Don't shoot the messenger #41

* Moved the matter to being a crime to be wealthy - although there was no suggestion it is - and continued your view that companies publishing bullying and defamatory material should not be culpable in any way. #44

Defamation law in this country already covers the publishing and dissemination of defamatory material, particularly when action is not taken to remove the material or prevent it from display.

So it's not such a huge step to include legislated fines - up to - and empower the average cit to seek a remedy where lack of reasonable care can be established.

 

[ShanDog]

your view that companies publishing bullying and defamatory material should not be culpable in any way.

I said that did I?

 

[AM]

I said that did I?

"Shooting the messenger doesn't seem like reasonable redress"

"Being wealthy isn't a crime and nor should it be default make you responsible for other people's crimes."

I'd suggest the implication is fairly clear.