13 ms·
“Dear Mark. I am writing this to inform you that I shall not comply”
- finid 10y agoA VIP reason to have popular alternatives to services like those provided by the likes of Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter that are not controlled by monster corporations.
- 5ilv3r 10y agoI joined the sysad.org diaspora pod and am enjoying it quite a bit.
- rocky1138 10y agoI run a GNU Social install for local hackers. Feels good to run my own shit.
- Razengan 10y agoA very important person reason? Also, I think the actual problem isn't these corporations, it's ultimately the governments of the world. Even if the major social networks allow something highly controversial to remain, sooner or later they may be required by the government to take it down. Even someone as big as Apple will have trouble standing their ground, as was shown recently. The government and the law is what's supposed to protect people's right to information and free speech, yet they are also the ultimate source of censorship.
- Mendenhall 10y agoIts ultimately the people. Governments just give the people exactly what they allowed to happen.
- Vertrauen 10y agoI wonder how monopolized publishing is these days. If you want to get the message out about something, how much are you at the mercy of a few distribution channels and how much do we have an open ecosystem that gives everybody equal rights? I am honestly not sure. How important is it to be on Facebook? On Twitter? On Reddit? On HN? Indexed by Google? Have connections to the Huffington Post? If you have something interesting to say, can those forces stop you? Or will it spread because it is interesting? If you make great art, will it become popular just because it is great? Or does it depend on your marketing skills? Could we have technology that makes interesting, helpful content spread no matter what? Do we have to invent some kind of "internet voting" system to accomplish this? Can blockchain technology help with this?
- CM30 10y agoIt certainly makes it a lot more difficult to get the message out about something without those channels. And if those forces don't like what you're saying, it becomes much harder to find for other people. Popularity depends a lot on your marketing skills too. If you can 'figure out' the secret to success on social media sites, or how to get your site's SEO to be good, that helps a lot more than the quality of the work at the moment. Unfortunately. Not sure if you can make interesting, helpful content spread no matter what. Seems like it could be a challenge to have any system to find interesting content that isn't dependant on any third party services or search engines. And even more of a challenge to get people to use it.
- dmitrygr 10y agoA very valid point, which will sadly be entirely ignored.
- howeyc 10y agoFacebook removes post. The fact that other people believe this post should stay (for whatever reason) is immaterial. It's not their site. Water is wet, news at 11.
- howeyc 10y agoSorry for the honesty folks. This is what happens when you give up control to a central authority that has absolutely no requirement for consistency or even a requirement to allow anything.
- davesque 10y agoYes, and that's the point of the article. So why are you trying to downplay it?
- howeyc 10y agoBecause the point of the article is to shame Facebook. I'm making a different point.
- Miner49er 10y agoThis is how it works. Sure FB has a right to remove stuff, but if their users don't like it, they're going to potentially lose users and money. This article is a user telling FB that they don't like what they're doing.
- mickronome 10y agoSo what is your point then ? What you wrote lend itself to several interpretations, most rehashed to death already. What then is this point that is so grand ? How can we come to know the secret, I'm curious! Unless it's -"Don't use Facebook", because we already know we can do that, and unfortunately it doesn't appear to actually solve the problem except under unreasonable assumptions, and then the next thing will likely have the same problems anyway until we as a society decide. Decide under what rules corporations must act when they become big enough that their (currently legal) censorship has as great effect as almost any states censorship would have. A censorship that for the most part is illegal in quite a few countries. It will probably always be more lucrative to censor and invade users privacy, until we either create some rules and possibly laws, or get the entire society to display an emergent behaviour that strongly punishes that kind of behaviour. Both of these need good writers that explain and inspire those that will either spearhead creating those rules, or educate the public to create a social norm strong enough. Snark however will get us nowhere, fast.
- jshevek 10y agoExcerpt from http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-saddened-by-facebook-s-focus-on-nudity-1.773232 http://www.dagsavisen.no/verden/the-girl-in-the-picture-sadd... “Kim is saddened by those who would focus on the nudity in the historic picture rather than the powerful message it conveys”, writes spokesperson Anne Bayin to Dagsavisen. Kim Phuc says that it has been painful to see the picture, but that it represents an important moment in history. “She fully supports the documentary image taken by Nick Ut as a moment of truth that captures the horror of war and its effects on innocent victims”, writes the Kim Phuc Foundation in a statement.
- Torgo 10y agoYou're a serf on the content farm, begging your lord for a favor.
- riboflava 10y agoAt least he knows who the lord is and in principle the lord can set things straight. A step above complaining to the void or casting a throwaway vote.
- celticninja 10y agoSimilar situation with Saddam or Gaddafi really. I don't understand why people were so upset with them.
- xupybd 10y agoSo you are saying that Mark Zuckerberg is a dictator and no one has the freedom to leave his rule? This is so different, if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations create one. But under Saddam and Gaddafi, you don't like them, keep quiet or you might disappear, if the wrong person over hears you.
- nix0n 10y ago> if you don't like Facebook use a competitors service. If a good one doesn't exist that lines up with your moral aspirations, create one Is anyone working on this?
- Torgo 10y agoThey exist. But they need love.
- linkregister 10y agoThe product manager for Google Plus just punched a hole in his hat. On a serious note, there were platforms that used to dominate discourse on the internet before Facebook. Usenet, ICQ, AOL, Myspace. Now there are alternatives. Medium for blogging; Reddit and 4chan for discussion; Twitter for sharing breaking news, trolling celebrities, and complaining about customer service; LinkedIn for connections and keeping in touch; Pinterest for sharing photos and links; Snapchat for sharing photos and videos; et cetera. I have a few friends, particularly in the 25-and-below generation, who don't have a Facebook but are very active on Snapchat or when it was trendy, Vine. Don't forget countries where Facebook is a minority player. Weibo, Renren, WeChat, VKontakte are examples of thriving social networks that could possibly grow beyond their borders.
- fsloth 10y agoFacebook - context oblivious censorship on the other hand - reality-bubble forming curator algorithms on the other. Somehow the term "negative feedback loop" comes to mind every time Facebooks mechanisms to filter and market content is brought forth. I don't think internet search engines should try to be helpful. Guessing what the recipient would like to see removes chance for serendipity and creates and information bubble with a radius given by the algorithms parameters... and then, for what is brought out, they remove the too-saucy bits. This is worse than censorship.
- ajoy39 10y agoFacebook hasn't been filtering their trending news for about a week now, and in that time some of the top stories have been - A man having sex with a chicken sandwich - A fake story about Fox News firing Ann Coulter - A fake article about the iphone 8, claiming tim cook said Siri is going to do your chores for you. So yeah maybe the people were kinda needed?
- Miner49er 10y agoDepends on what function you want the trending news feature to serve. If you want an unbiased view of what's currently popular on FB, this is better. If you want real, noteworthy news the this is probably worse.
- robryan 10y agoYou can get away without people when you have a set list of sources like google news does.
- tormeh 10y agoThey did this previously. The problem was that this disqualifies most news outlets operating on the fringes of reality. Since this includes most of the favorite news sources of tea-partiers it obviously can't stand. I don't particularly like the Democratic party, but any news site labeling itself as "right wing news" is for nutters. Facebook censored those sites and the nutters got angry and that's how we got here.
- hiddenkrypt 10y ago> "Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world, myself included, on a number of levels." Wrong. Facebook is for making money. If providing users with pleasure or benefits makes them money, then that's lucky for the users. > "Facebook has become a world-leading platform for spreading information, for debate and for social contact between persons. You have gained this position because you deserve it." Also wrong. The second sentence, I mean. I agree with the intent here. I agree with the outrage at Facebook. The author of this piece, too, seems to understand the futility of this open letter, and I do think it's a good thing that he's making the statement regardless. I just think that maybe he's being too generous to Mark and Facebook.
- mavrc 10y ago> Wrong. Facebook is for making money. I know you're not wrong here, but at what point does social responsibility trump profit? Should it?
- rocky1138 10y agoAm I the only one getting a 404 for the image in question?
- mixedCase 10y agoWell that's funny. I cannot find the picture anywhere. I even tried disabling uBlock and then was promptly reminded of why I use it.
- joemi 10y agoThe picture appear numerous times in the article. If disabling uBlock still didn't let you see it, then you've got some issues with your browser.
- huac 10y agoNo, all of their images return 404 here as well, with ublock off.
- StavrosK 10y agoIt's this one: http://www.people.com/article/nick-ut-napalm-girl-photo-kim-phuc http://www.people.com/article/nick-ut-napalm-girl-photo-kim-...
- lake99 10y agoFor me, it was HTTPS Everywhere that was causing the problem. Disabling it showed me the pictures.
- mixedCase 10y agoThat was it. I wish Google would start with the red alerts already so webmaster may start getting their shit together.
- lake99 10y agoI have five privacy tools on this browser: uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, HTTPS Everywhere, NoScript, and a free VPN. It was quite tedious to go through each of them before I figured out it was an HTTPS issue.
- 10y ago
- viraptor 10y agoI wonder what the solution to this is. From what I know about reviewing reports about content, it's basically a case of someone reporting the post, then the report being farmed to reviewers, then the reviewers can check the post and I optionally the context to either kill the post or leave it alone. That means your post is one of hundreds this person sees that day and their guidance is likely "no genitalia, no nipples, and definitely never any naked children". So they act accordingly. So what's the ideal path from here? Do you educate them about art? What's the line after that? Is this photo ok? What about the famous album cover? What about private party pictures? Etc. Can we even describe a reasonable line? Do we expect them to reverse image search every single photo for context? (Not many people could recognise that photo on its own) How many more people would be needed for clarification? What's the incentive to get them?
- Miner49er 10y agoOne solution is to not remove anything until told to do so by law enforcement. If people don't like what's posted they can choose to not view it.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI really don't get why sites don't think this way. If you take the hands-off route, you can deflect a lot of criticism: "We don't endorse it, we just let people post what they want". But as soon as you censor, or curate, or promote one item/subject, you become responsible for everything else on your site. Why add extra load on yourself?
- the8472 10y agoOr you could even let them tag content as inappropriate for those who only want to see fluffy bunnies and have an "give me an unfiltered view" option for everyone else.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI am 100% behind letting the user decide what they want to filter out. If beheadings offend you, filter them out! If tan-colored books offend you, filter those out as well! I guess it's weird to me that some people can't just "filter" and move on.
- endswapper 10y agoI'm posting mostly just to make the chorus louder. This was a well-thought out, articulate criticism of Facebook's policy. It's relevant to free-speech, art, censorship, the means of production, etc., and the fact that Facebook plays a role underscores their power, and why this matters. It a slippery slope when policy fails to achieve an appropriate, nuanced perspective.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maxlybbert 10y agoThere are some good arguments, but I think the post really boils down to "our community guidelines don't match Facebook's; here are good arguments why our guidelines are what they are; we really want to use Facebook; we think news sites (and only news sites) should have exemptions from the community guidelines." Given the wide variety of news sites and media companies, I don't think Facebook will give blanket exemptions. But Facebook has been willing to make small changes to the guidelines ( e.g., breastfeeding), so perhaps we can look at this as an opening offer in a negotiation.
- typeiierror 10y agoSometimes I wonder that when we shower criticism on Facebook about privacy concerns, we're missing the forest for the trees. The bigger issue I see is the sheer amount of eyeballs trained exclusively to Facebook's content. What does it mean for society when Facebook can demote a challenging but important article (say, of war reporting) in your newsfeed so it can promote your friend's Wedding photos, because an algorithm says that challenging articles cause people to leave FB, reducing page views and ad revenue?
- Torgo 10y agoIt's a man-in-the-middle attack on culture.
- dredmorbius 10y agoWhich turns out be the general argument against centralised authority. Autocratic rule, monopoly power, monoculture agriculture, etc. You've only got one system, one set of preferences, one set of decision algorithms, often with its own preferences (even if unconscious, though very often not), determining outcomes for all. Any wealth or power imbalance tends toward this result.
- hnbroseph 10y agojust like tv, radio and newspapers. perhaps even churches, temples and mosques... though that might be more controversial to say.
- dustingetz 10y agoShould be titled "Dear USA Govt"
- bambax 10y ago> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world Wait, what? Facebook is more like tobacco: addictive, very bad for you, and very profitable.
- mthoms 10y agoYou shouldn't really try to sum up Facebook in a single sentence any more than you would do the same with the internet as a whole. The truth, of course, is much more nuanced than a short sentence permits. For instance Facebook allows me to communicate with friends and family I wouldn't otherwise be able to communicate with (at least not as efficiently). I can't see that being bad. As a matter of fact it's something I derive a great sense of satisfaction and wellbeing from.
- exodust 10y agoI wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the Internet as a whole. Facebook is just one service you happen to use. Some of your friends happen to use it too. Please don't pretend that cutting it off would mean you couldnt communicate with your friends anymore. You and your friends are resourceful. You would find another way. The Internet is a big place with many pipes for you and your friends to use.
- mthoms 10y agoAs a matter of fact I communicate with some people who I would almost certainly have no way of communicating with or, in fact, knowing if they are alive or dead. (I moved a lot as a child) I get your point that it's not the only solution to this problem. But it is currently the best choice, even if only because of the network effect. >I wish people would stop kidding themselves that Facebook is the same as the Internet as a whole. I never said that. That's ridiculous. I said it's complex enough that summing it up in a single dismissive sentence is probably disingenuous. >Please don't pretend that cutting it off would mean you couldnt communicate with your friends anymore. Never said that either.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wehadfun 10y agoI suggest they do a bait and switch make the headline be about a lipstick or a boy band then hit the reader with the horrors of bombing 12 year old little girls with Napalm.
- carapace 10y agoI think of FB users as a kind of peasant. It is an unpleasant thought, but I cannot escape it. Digital serfs.
- joesmo 10y agoSoon, people will start to realize that for actual information, news, and debate, you have to venture outside of Facebook, just like you have to venture outside of TV for those things currently in the US (not a single actual news program available on broadcast or cable but plenty of "News" entertainment programs). Otherwise you're just processing mindless drivel that you already agree with and that you already know. Which is exactly the state of being Zuckerberg and other people trying to push garbage products onto people prefer. Until then, our society will probably just keep pretending that Facebook is something other than brain junk food because most people don't want to admit to themselves that they are being controlled and manipulated, and most people simply just don't give a fuck about news, history, historical photos, or anything beyond petty celebrity gossip or other such nonsense (that's why those things are pulled from timelines).
- eCa 10y ago> If you take the liberty to challenge Facebook’s rules, you will be met – as we have seen – with censorship. You are in Marks living room. He has asked you not to bring certain kinds of photos to his place. You did anyway so he took the photo from you. You brought another copy the next time. Now he is getting angry with you. Maybe you should meet at your place in the future? Or maybe you shouldn't be friends with Mark at all.
- pwinnski 10y agoIt seems that the analogy breaks down badly when the "private property" is treated 99.9% of the time as a public property, and the entire world is invited (except for those with important political messages that don't go well with advertising). I'm not saying Facebook isn't Mark's to do with as he pleases, but... something isn't right here.
- exodust 10y agoDon't confuse Facebook with the Internet. One has terms and conditions and policies and moderators and shateholders, the other does not. If our governing authorities took measures to pull such photos from the web, then we'd have a problem worth protesting. If Facebook.com pulls the photo and points to its policies as the reason... then simply publish the photo elsewhere.
- yazaddaruvala 10y agoI hate physical metaphors for digital things. They always seem so succinct, and without possible counter argument. You're absolutely right that if this happened in someone's living room, their rules should apply. However, there are 1.3 billion people in "Mark's living room". Is it still his?
- palerdot 10y agoUnfortunately it is still his. When people sign up, there is a line hidden somewhere that says "This is my living room and you agree you stay here on the condition that you will agree to whatever I might ask you in future". In a way, some physical metaphor like this one drives the point home well. Though Mark might not say bluntly that "You are in my living room, just adhere to what I order you", he is actually saying something like "I'm not permitting this in my living room because it is an inconvenience to other people". The ugly truth is 1.3 billion people are guests and no matter how big they are they have to agree with the host.
- k_sze 10y agoRelevant: http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-algorithm-accident-results-expos-53841 http://www.theonion.com/article/horrible-facebook-algorithm-... For those who don't understand why this is relevant: the important point is that Facebook was never, is not, and will never be meant for dispersing information and fostering meaningful discourse. Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules. If you are trying to bring up meaningful discourse on Facebook, you're not getting the right audience, because Facebook is all about reinforcement of the user's existing believes and world views. I have friends and ex-colleagues who hold different political views than me. I virtually never see their posts on Facebook, because algorithm and machine learning. And I'm aware of that fact when I use Facebook. Afterposten is in the media business, they understand the unwritten rules. Call me a cynic, but I feel that the only point of their open letter is to sound righteous and generate publicity.
- posterboy 10y ago> Its only raison d'être is entertainment and generating revenue for its shareholders, so it's rather pointless to try to fight their arbitrary rules. How does it do that without users? I was taught, anyone with any interest in the operation is a stakeholder. If easy dispersion of information is their offer to users, they should be liable for that. If they aren't, the user should either seek support from the government to hold the debtor (facebook) accountable in an anti-trust issue, or consequently reevaluate the offer, if the original intent can not be expected anymore. Since FB uses advertisement, which is controversial, this is not a clear cut case to me. Because of multiple share holders, facebook has to arbitrate the interests in their own interest. This is also controversial in the question of delivering the best experience regardless of the advertisement. The advertisement just makes it so much more complicated, because it often times borders on deception, if not fraud.
- dismantlethesun 10y ago> But, dear Mark, you are the world’s most powerful editor. If we want to treat Mark as the editor to Facebook, then he wants to tailor its content to the type of audience he wants to attract and business he is in. Would Teen People or Vogue print a picture of napalmed children on its cover?
- joncp 10y ago> Facebook is for the pleasure and benefit of the whole world I wish that were true, but Facebook is actually for selling the world's eyeballs to advertisers.
- ImTalking 10y agoDoes not Facebook get to decide it's own morality, just like anyone else?
- lomnakkus 10y agoI think you meant to say "[...] like any other legal person?", perhaps? :)
- ImTalking 10y agoWhy complicate it? Morality is upto the individual entity whether it is a person, or a business, or a govt-body. For example, I believe there are still 'dry' counties in the US. They have decided that a no-alcohol policy is the morality they want to have within their town. I say fine, and I can accept that or move or try to change it... totally up to me. And as long as their morality does not infringe upon my rights to have my own morality, and that is certainly the case with this Facebook example, then it's all good.
- lomnakkus 10y agoOh, I thought you were being sarcastic :/. There's quite a bit of difference between corporations and people which means that granting corporations "personhood" is quite... crazy, IMO. In particular, almost all corporations are (almost by definition) asocial, don't care about what their peers think of them, etc. etc. They're basically sociopaths. Besides that they are (when big enough) effectively invulnerable to judicial sanctions, etc. etc. It should be obvious why this is a bad idea.
- ImTalking 10y agoBut we allow this to happen across society. The Catholic organisation, for example, has it's own morality. And it is completely accepted that you should not join that church if you do not agree with that morality.
- 10y ago
- beedogs 10y agoFacebook is terrible. I wish people would cease using it.
- PavlovsCat 10y agoBetween this and stuff like youtube's ideas of "advertiser-friendliness" [0][1] the major websites are shaping up (down?) to be so. freaking. spineless. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn3-Q1lY7fU [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwdBc0-uq8
- greggman 10y agoWhile I get this is not the main point this part stuck out for me > Furthermore, Facebook should distinguish between editors and other Facebook-users Sigh ... so he's asking to be marked as one of the "elite" by FB while us plebs should be treated lessor?
- eleitl 10y agoHe would have had a point, had he not a Facebook presence. Yes, it is very easy to avoid having a Facebook page: just don't make one.