manjushri

5 ms·

1.
by manjushri 8y ago
>But when "refraining from censorship" ends with advertisers (your main source of income) pulling out, your options become "censor videos" or "shutdown the service". False dichotomy, there are other business
2.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Specifically, Facebook is not managed by a "political unit". It's managed by its owners, who have authority over it because it is their property and they have property rights. Governments do not own their citizens. They o
3.
by manjushri 8y ago
The definition you cherry picked still seems to describe the management of Facebook. What specific part of the definition do you think excludes FB from being called a government? >nobody ever uses the word "government" to descr
4.
by manjushri 8y ago
>By that definition, every conceivable grouping of human beings that has any sort of leadership has a government, but that definition is so broad as to be useless. Well, that is in accordance with the dictionary definition. The bigger an
5.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or community. Is Facebook a community? If so it would seem it fits the plain dictionary definition.
6.
by manjushri 8y ago
WRT #3, the problem seems to be moreso consciously executed covert and overt political censorship/demonetization of undesireable speech rather than the problem of unconscious biases of developers. It's as simple as refraining from
7.
by manjushri 8y ago
1. Hire more support 2. Provide clearly defined guidelines as they relate to the algo and be equitable with enforcement 3. Be politically neutral This will not guarantee safety from violence, but it could increase it.
8.
by manjushri 8y ago
Seems like hunting hackers is a lot like hunting witches. What is considered as evidence/proof is extremely superficial and can easily be faked. The convenient enemy of the day is the one who gets blamed, whether or not they actually h
9.
by manjushri 8y ago
Indeed. When you hold a child up as a political shield don't be surprised when it gets attacked.
10.
by manjushri 8y ago
>FB had been in denial about the politics issue, I suspect they still don't fully grasp it. They're not a neutral platform. They grasp it. They've been running research studies on elections[1], politics, and "emotiona
11.
by manjushri 8y ago
>shares nothing with the China being discussed right now. Seems like apples to oranges, assuming the implied comparison is with western post-industrial age nations, which began industrializing centuries ago, as compared to decades ago wi
12.
by manjushri 8y ago
Haven't US special forces been in Syria for years now?
13.
by manjushri 8y ago
It does seem to violate the CFAA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
14.
by manjushri 8y ago
If information is power, then that is like asking if having more power is more profitable than having less power.
15.
by manjushri 8y ago
Is there a prominent ideology that hasn't lead to murders?
16.
by manjushri 8y ago
>We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science and technology. And this combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces. Who is
17.
by manjushri 8y ago
>power doesn't lie with the people who can press “Like” (etc.), it lies with the people who select and continuously tweak based on observed effect the algorithm by which Likes and similar actions are used to shape the flow of inform
18.
by manjushri 8y ago
So it seems the theory here is that strong AI whose primary objective is to make money is ultimately self destructive?
19.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Literally anyone with software to generate NOAA SAME tones, together with a software-defined radio and amplifier, can walk near one of a handful of "primary entry points" and belt out an alert that gets mindlessly repeated acr
20.
by manjushri 8y ago
Showing how billions of people's psychological profiles can be algorithmically weaponized against them would be highly informative I would think. That way the average user would understand the types of things they are "consenting&
21.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Very few people ever read "Terms & Conditions" and that's a problem. People don't read them because they can't read them. >read: look at and comprehend the meaning of (written or printed matter) by ment
22.
by manjushri 8y ago
>I'm having a hard time understanding why any of what is known is at all a surprise to someone who understands tech. The vast majority of FB users don't understand tech, and that's the root problem. These hearings aren&#
23.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Data collection is what enabled the Nazis to find Jews and homosexuals It's also worth noting that a certain American tech company was responsible for this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
24.
by manjushri 8y ago
Are you implying 49% of the US population voted for Trump? It was closer to 19% of the population (63,000,000 / 326,000,000)
25.
by manjushri 8y ago
That's a good point but at least Google won't be able to disable your gmail account and lock you out of all the accounts and media you had tied to it.
26.
by manjushri 8y ago
>Important keys are unlikely to be leaked. The more important the key, the more sought after it will be by hackers, especially one which could theoretically decrypt an entire countries communications. It's only a matter of time.
27.
by manjushri 8y ago
Facebook has been doing their own internal research on election manipulation since at least 2010. Subtle UI variations can be targeted at users to effectively increase and decrease voter turnout as desired. https://www.scientific
28.
by manjushri 8y ago
That's wrong. Insiders can leak the private key, or hackers can take it.
29.
by manjushri 8y ago
>I've heard them explicitly sell the information of an entire user's friends list to anyone willing to pay. So does FB actually sell data to third parties? I've seen many on here say that is not the case.
30.
by manjushri 8y ago
>We're also seeing very concerning trends in the readerships and profitability of print media Why is it "very concerning" (assuming no financial interests) that a legacy form of media is struggly to dominate in terms of pr

More ›