Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[jonnysensible]

Like with Youtube, there really aren't. Any attempt to break it up destroys the main draw of the platform. Now, I might find that acceptable in the case of Facebook (seriously, folks, privacy is lovely), but Youtube only exists largely as it does because that's what consumers want. Any breaking up of that model isn't just an action against Youtube, it's an action against those users. Against all the Youtubers who make a living off the site, as it is, for instance, and likely won't survive if they have to pick one subsidiary and a fraction of their old audience.

There's ways to reform Youtube, but I'd frankly support nationalization to institute a non-profit model over any kind of breakup.

surely breaking up youtube = breaking up google, making youtube standalone

[Elegiac]

People making claims, then running away.

That's troll farm tactics.

Even if that were the case, admitting you're falling for such tactics is a brave move.

Not a sapient one, but brave.

[Machismo]

Not really.

It sets the precedent that it's not acceptable to use true things to tell false stories. Most of us are capable of making that distinction rather than engaging in silly absolutist bullshit, lol.

If you say "Trump is a bastard," that could be censord.

"The GOP are a death cult."

"It's clear that Republicans don't care about people."

"Republicans want a government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus."

All of that could then be censored by that same governing authority.

[uuuhname]

People would just make a different one, one that is privately-owned, and switch to that.

so what? they're free to do that now. people still use public libraries for the simple fact they're free....

[Machismo]

I mean, force them to sell off competitors they purchased despite having their own services offering similar things. Like WhatsApp and Instagram.

That's like, the least imaginative step to take and it's a hugely obvious first step. Facebook is absolutely part of an oligopoly of social media companies, and is by far the biggest and most aggressive when it comes to buying out potential competitors early and either killing off the brand and integrating them into their services or simply keeping the brand that's already popular and profiting off of it.

When I keep talking about a failure of imagination, it's shit like this.

But, Facebook itself would still be fully intact, right? They would still be able to allow messaging between people, and the sharing of photos. Of course, if you strip it down too much, people will just shift to a replacement. Remember MySpace?

- - - Updated - - -

Even if that were the case, admitting you're falling for such tactics is a brave move.

Not a sapient one, but brave.

Yes, we've managed to increase the irony even more.

This is exactly what those farms do.

[Elegiac]

If you say "Trump is a bastard," that could be censord.

"The GOP are a death cult."

"It's clear that Republicans don't care about people."

"Republicans want a government small enough to fit inside a woman's uterus."

All of that could then be censored by that same governing authority.

Yeah, and if my auntie had nuts she could be my uncle.

Hustler v. Falwell is a thing. The existence of libel/slander laws hasn't destroyed free speech so your fearmongering about how cutting down on social media misinformation would do so is kind of baseless.

(Incoming "but China, because as Edge pointed out I have no political imagination and am just going to recycle Republican talking points")

[Machismo]

so what? they're free to do that now. people still use public libraries for the simple fact they're free....

Yes, they are free to do it now, which means trying to nationalize it would do nothing at all, but break up a company, to form another large company.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, and if my auntie had nuts she could be my uncle.

Hustler v. Falwell is a thing. The existence of libel/slander laws hasn't destroyed free speech so your fearmongering about how cutting down on social media misinformation would do so is kind of baseless.

(Incoming "but China, because I have no political imagination as Edge pointed out and am just going to recycle Republican talking points"),

Hustler won that... it was a win for free speech.

You guys are opposing free speech. This is the second time you posted a lawsuit tat went directly against your narrative.

[Elegiac]

Yes, they are free to do it now, which means trying to nationalize it would do nothing at all, but break up a company, to form another large company.

Which is owned by the state and accountable to the general public as a result, as opposed to being privately owned and accountable only to its investors.

[Machismo]

Which is owned by the state and accountable to the general public as a result, as opposed to being privately owned and accountable only to its investors.

As was pointed out, people would just leave, and go to one that is privately-owned.

The government could make their own page, today... and people wouldn't use it.

They could make their own video sharing service, and it would be a ghost town.

[Milchshake]

Like with Youtube, there really aren't. Any attempt to break it up destroys the main draw of the platform. Now, I might find that acceptable in the case of Facebook (seriously, folks, privacy is lovely), but Youtube only exists largely as it does because that's what consumers want. Any breaking up of that model isn't just an action against Youtube, it's an action against those users. Against all the Youtubers who make a living off the site, as it is, for instance, and likely won't survive if they have to pick one subsidiary and a fraction of their old audience.

There's ways to reform Youtube, but I'd frankly support nationalization to institute a non-profit model over any kind of breakup.

Do people not realize that Google owns Youtube? Is it too fucking obvious to start by breaking off Youtube, Andriod, from Google<Alphabet>?

Stupid levels of pedantry are just another form of Lack of Imagination.

[Machismo]

Do people not realize that Google owns Youtube? Is it too fucking obvious to start by breaking off Youtube, Andriod, from Google<Alphabet>?

Stupid levels of pedantry are just another form of Lack of Imagination.

YouTube was the biggest before Google even bought them.

[Shadowferal]

Imagine being so self-important that you think people refusing to engage in any seriousness with a bad faith poster isn't a commentary on yourself rather than their point.

Yea...
When the opposition isn't really interested in convincing anyone and revealing that his beliefs are rotten to the core, then there's no point at all at providing facts, research..truth.

Don't waste the time, effort, and passion. It's not worth it.

[Elegiac]

Hustler won that... it was a win for free speech.

Yes, they did: and in the process the legal precedent was set regarding what kind of misinformation is permissible and what isn't.

I.e. free speech and prohibition of things like slander/libel/misinformation are not mutually exclusive.

Not my fault you don't read the fucking rulings, rofl.

You guys are opposing free speech. This is the second time you posted a lawsuit tat went directly against your narrative.

The lawsuit which demonstrates that free speech and censorship are not irreconcilable? That lawsuit?

[Machismo]

Yea...
When the opposition isn't really interested in convincing anyone and revealing that his beliefs are rotten to the core, then there's no point at all at providing facts, research..truth.

Don't waste the time, effort, and passion. It's not worth it.

Which is why the other guy refused to back up his own argument...

Once again, I do enjoy the irony.

[Edge-]

But, Facebook itself would still be fully intact, right?

Why wouldn't it be? Facebook the service would remain unchanged, Facebook the company would simply actually have some actual competitors.

[uuuhname]

cool, that still doesn't make the case against a publicly owned video sharing platform existing.

[Machismo]

Yes, they did: and in the process the legal precedent was set regarding what kind of misinformation is permissible and what isn't.

I.e. free speech and prohibition of things like slander/libel/misinformation are not mutually exclusive.

Not my fault you don't read the fucking rulings, rofl.



The lawsuit which demonstrates that free speech and censorship are not irreconcilable? That lawsuit?

And none of those quotes I previously pointed out about anti-vaxxers were libelous, or slanderous. They were true statements.

You see your problem, yet?

Libel laws don't work, if a person is telling the truth.

- - - Updated - - -

cool, that still doesn't make the case against a publicly owned video sharing platform existing.

Once again, the government could start one... today.

How do you think that would go?

[Elegiac]

As was pointed out, people would just leave, and go to one that is privately-owned.

And if the privately owned one isn't administered well, the public alternative exists to set a baseline of quality assurance and service for consumers.

Congratulations on finally grasping dirigism.

- - - Updated - - -

And none of those quotes I previously pointed out about anti-vaxxers were libelous, or slanderous. They were true statements.

Being used to tell false stories. Try to keep up.

Libel laws don't work, if a person is telling the truth.

Bzzzzzt.

The litmus test is not truth, it's believability by a reasonable person.

[uuuhname]

How do you think that would go?

pretty well considering it doesn't need to make a profit to stay operational.

[Machismo]

Why wouldn't it be? Facebook the service would remain unchanged, Facebook the company would simply actually have some actual competitors.

I mean, not really. It would still be the biggest game in town, by a ton. And anything that they lost, would simply be done in house. They simply bought those companies, because it was expedient, and they had copyright/patent protections. But, there would be plenty of time to develop their own, and use it.

- - - Updated - - -

And if the privately owned one isn't administered well, the public alternative exists to set a baseline of quality assurance and service for consumers.

Congratulations on finally grasping dirigism.

- - - Updated - - -



Being used to tell false stories. Try to keep up.



Bzzzzzt.

The litmus test is not truth, it's believability by a reasonable person.

So, have the government start their own social media site, and own video sharing site.

The litmus test is if the comments are true, or false. That burden falls to the person claiming libel. if you can show something to be objectively true, then I highly doubt a libel case will go far. But hey, good luck with that.

- - - Updated - - -

pretty well considering it doesn't need to make a profit to stay operational.

So, have the government start one. No need to nationalize anything.

How many users do you think it will have? I mean, have you seen how the government runs computer systems, databases, and their own websites?