Facebook: Troll Farms Reaching 140 Million Americans a Month

[Elegiac]

Umm, this doesn't even make any sense. You edited out the bulk of my comment, then added in something else in quotes. Who is supposedly saying that?

You, with your claim that China's social media policy is less noxious than nationalizing social media.

Not sure you understand that public ownership of a company is not the same thing as micromanaging that company's clients to suppress dissent.

[Machismo]

In a void, maybe.

In a broader context? Not so much.

I'm not interested in ignoring context because that's the only way your argument holds up.



Slippery slope arguments are inherently irrational. If you can't connect every single step, I have no reason to consider it at all.


What the hell are you even talking about? Mods here weren't picked by someone like Trump.

The issue is that context is going to be entirely subjective, and we're talking about a billion posts a day, on one site. How many people do you want to put on that job?

I pointed to actual quotes from actual anti-vaxxers. All of them are true, and all of them are misinformation.

Censoring any of them would be problematic, because you are censoring the truth, no matter how shitty of a light that truth may be cast in.

- - - Updated - - -

You, with your claim that China's social media policy is less noxious than nationalizing social media.

Not sure you understand that public ownership of a company is not the same thing as micromanaging that company's clients to suppress dissent.

Which is why I wanted people to clarify their stances.

They could not.

This isn't just public ownership of a company, but the public ownership of tens of thousands of them. Honestly, I have no idea how many social media sites, and forums there are. it could be way, way more.

[Elegiac]

This isn't just public ownership of a company, but the public ownership of tens of thousands of them.

That's nice.

Not sure you understand that public ownership of a company is not the same thing as micromanaging that company's clients to suppress dissent. This doesn't automatically change if you add more companies to that umbrella.

Does the 5000th or the 5001st company cross the line?

[Machismo]

That's nice.

Not sure you understand that public ownership of a company is not the same thing as micromanaging that company's clients to suppress dissent. This doesn't automatically change if you add more companies to that umbrella.

Considering they are dealing with billions of posts a day, and want to restrict that stuff... that seems like you'd need a lot of resources.

Or, do you have a plan to deal with it all?

[Shadowferal]

What the hell are you even talking about? Mods here weren't picked by someone like Trump.

A one man troll farm and you guys are in it... You don't need to shine up fresh manure...or even stale manure.

[Elegiac]

Considering they are dealing with billions of posts a day, and want to restrict that stuff... that seems like you'd need a lot of resources.

Failing to see how this supports your assertion that it's above and beyond what China does.

[Machismo]

Failing to see how this supports your assertion that it's above and beyond what China does.

Because... it's on a much grander scale.

[Elegiac]

Because... it's on a much grander scale.

With a much smaller scope and far more benign intent, which is what actually makes the difference rather than complaining that a government for an excess 320 million people might need to be big.

[Machismo]

With a much smaller scope and far more benign intent, which is what actually makes the difference rather than complaining that a government for an excess 320 million people might need to be big.

Once again, I have yet to see it be on a smaller scope. Considering we have people here wanting to censor verifiable facts, I have my doubts.

Or, we can look at the legislation you want to push, that is as vague as it comes.

As was pointed out, if a mod were to look at 1k posts a day, it would take 1 million of them just to police Facebook.

[Shadowferal]

With a much smaller scope and far more benign intent, which is what actually makes the difference rather than complaining that a government for an excess 320 million people might need to be big.

C'mon...he won't ever admit that there's a middle ground.

[Machismo]

C'mon...he won't ever admit that there's a middle ground.

Maybe you can define what legislation he wants.

What would that "middle ground" look like? How would you go about doing it. I'll take any failure to respond as an admission that you have no idea.

[Elegiac]

Once again, I have yet to see it be on a smaller scope.

Gee maybe that's because social media is practically an infant in political terms.

[Machismo]

Gee maybe that's because social media is practically an infant in political terms.

Which is another reason why I'm skeptical of how people want to regulate it.

This all feels like knee-jerk reactions, without any regard to the consequences of those actions.

[Elegiac]

Which is another reason why I'm skeptical of how people want to regulate it.

This all feels like knee-jerk reactions, without any regard to the consequences of those actions.

Which is a function of you not paying attention to the shit leading up to Western governments discussing regulation of social media, or understanding what an analogue is (i.e. between social and other forms of media which actually are regulated).

[Machismo]

Which is a function of you not paying attention to the shit leading up to Western governments discussing regulation of social media, or understanding what an analogue is.

You mean the regulations you couldn't even explain?

If they have been discussing it, then let's see their work they did for you.

[Elegiac]

If they have been discussing it

The only reason this thread exists is because of said discussions, dude. To say nothing of shitsquillion news articles covering said discussions that have been circulated since 2016.

Not sure why you thought you had a win here.

[Machismo]

The only reason this thread exists is because of said discussions, dude. To say nothing of shitsquillion news articles covering said discussions that have been circulated since 2016.

Not sure why you thought you had a win here.

It's not a win, I wanted to see what you said they were discussing. You spoke of Western governments discussing regulations and restrictions, but that's not really covered in this article.

I was going to let you ride their coattails in explaining your stance.

[Shadowferal]

Not sure why you thought you had a win here.

Because he supports Trump's fiscal policies.

[Orange Joe]

Facebook Says It Supports Internet Regulation

Unless I'm seriously mistaken the correct title should be

Mark says one thing in public, but takes actions against it in private.

[Shadowferal]

Unless I'm seriously mistaken the correct title should be Mark says one thing in public, but takes actions against it in private.

Fair point.
Industries typically want to be publically well-regarded so they say all the right things...publically. Then haggle away all the things they claim to want. Public Relations 101 aka "pay to play."