I forgot that google did that, but facebook was just in your face with it. I was talking to a friend on facebook about some ice climbing and if it was ok for a beginner, and very shortly after I saw ads on my facebook for ice climbing lessons. With google the worst I see if I search for something sometimes I see ads for those.
Zuckerberg was a creeper, if you look at what he did initially with Facebook and people's information who trusted him with that information, you can tell what his basic operating premises are. And they are anti-social. He never has cared for what people might think of him or fb, as long as they keep using it. And so I think that's Zuck's deep insight into people, anti-social behavior does not matter. People are stupid and they will keep using the platform anyway. Regardless of the total and complete lack of privacy and social skills.
If he can detect bullying where people are afraid to report it. Then going forward with the authoritarian shit happening in government, what's next? Hear people verbally fighting and report that to the police. Hear kids getting yelled at and report it to the police as child abuse. Disputes and altercations are always reported to the police. The walls have ears. All this is possible with FB. It's a surveillance nightmare as bad as anything Orwell could've prophesied and yet people continue to use FB.
People continue to use it because it provides value to them. Additionally they either don't have concern for your worries or are naive and unaware of the implications. Regardless it won't change any time soon because most are not interested in becoming more technical or trying to understand a magic black box that shows them family and friend happenings.
And Googles version is probably much more successful. I noticed the same with Facebook and I don't think it's very effective. Talk once about a topic or like a page and you'll see related ads for a long time. Google seems to have smarter algorithms that try to detect a trend to figure out if you're really interested in something or just mentioned it once.
Amazon is a similar offender.
"Oh, you bought a fridge yesterday? How about you buy another one?"
Actually,the really creepy thing about Amazon is that if I use their iPhone app to browse for stuff I get ads on my Facebook account for the stuff I searched.
Mind you, I am near tinfoil-level conscious of "cross contamination". I use Firefox on iOS for Facebook, and I never use it for any other browsing other than FB. My name is not my real name on FB, and it's written in a non-latin alphabet. I never discuss products on Facebook, and besides these events happen immediately after.
I have no idea how Facebook is targeting me with Amazon ads for things I just browsed on the Amazon app.
Facebook isn't targeting you, Amazon is. Amazon is targeting you on Facebook for things you just browsed on Amazon's app.
If you're logged in during your browsing, Amazon knows who you are. If you're not logged in, they presumably have enough heuristics to estimate who you are (based on previous logins from the device).
I don't know about their current programmatic bidding capabilities, but even on their Facebook's normal self-serve platform you can be targeted specifically by email (there's a minimum audience size for pseudo-anonymity purposes, but it's only like ~20 individuals).
Edit: You can go here to see the list of advertisers that currently have you in their audience lists for ad targeting. Currently mine has Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, one of Netflix's new shows listed, and some weird political thing that isn't even for the state that I live in.
Thanks for that link. It says Amazon has my contact info, but I'm not sure what they could have that ties my Amazon identity to my Facebook identity. I use a different email, different name, no phone number, no address on FB... I don't get it. It would be good if FB said what info they have.
I agree that it'd be nice to know which data point was used for audience building.
> I use a different email, different name, no phone number, no address on FB... I don't get it.
Interesting. Now that I think of it, for the last few months FB has been relentlessly trying to get me to associate my phone number with my account - and they even display it in Firefox (which was surprising that a browser could pull a phone number). After what you said, I wouldn't be surprised if they associated it anyway.
Try it with a vpn, I use airVPN, https://airvpn.org/?referred_by=287899. There are plenty of alternatives.
Google doesn't need a better algorithm; search is simply a stronger buy-signal than conversation.
Not to mention, with google I actually get something out of it. Instant search for my flight info (even my Google home knows about it) is still my favorite thing.
Seems like the ice climbing lesson ads were very relevant and something you might actually be interested in?
Maybe because moxie marlinspike keeps telling the general public WhatsApp is using signal? Which is bullshit... because WhatsApp isn't auditable, it admits it uses metadata collection, it has the ability to cache identical messages (supposedly notnpossible with unique encryption keys, right?) amongst a host of other super suspicious shit. Now Facebook can audit the content of those messages, well big fucking surprise it's not private or the same as signal then is it?
It doesn't seem like they are actually targetting "extremists" since islamist sharia groups get to stay on facebook while all groups opposing such a movement gets shutdown instantly.
There is a difference between sharia groups and extremists. They are not at all the same.
One group ponders on the implifications and simplifications of rules, and how they can follow it with ease.
While extremists try to take the most painful interpretation of rules and use demagogue speech to enforce it.
Wierd how Sharia is not extremism as it encourages death for apostacy among other harsh rules...
Doesn't the bible?
Exodus 35:2 " For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."
Most Christians will interpret this in an enlightened way, either death meaning "spiritual death" or some other explanation. However if you are a biblical literalist, I mean the bible encourages death for nonbelievers, among other troubling stuff.
Many, perhaps most, Christians (especially Biblical literalists) would also point out that Acts (particularly 15:22-29) explicitly states that requirements and penalties of the Jewish law, but for a short list of enumerated exceptions, do not apply to non-Jews (particularly, non-Jewish Christians), only Jews (whether or not they are actually Christians), whether or not they also view the penalty in an "enlightened" way where it does apply.
If we are trully being literal, the 10 commandments only applies to the Jews as well. Gentiles only had to follow Noahide laws which doesn't even require worship or acknowledgement of the one true God. They tend to leave those bits out.
So, they cherry pick. I don't know anything about Sharia but I'm sure there are lots of cherry pickers among its followers as well.
Islamist groups get shut down on Facebook all the time.
And not because they are islamist per se.
I would be surprised if [random company] would read private messages only to "serve ads".
WhatsApp is from Facebook and it implements the Signal protocol which offers end-to-end encryption. That's why Facebook with WhatsApp cannot do the same as Google does with Gmail. If they do, then their E2E encryption is fucked up.
Whatsapp is from whatsapp inc, founded by two former yahoo emplyees, then facebook bought for 19 billions dollar. Very different from "being from facebook".
You can probably trust whatsapp end to end encryption as much as you can trust facebook to protect your privacy .
I'm aware Facebook bought WhatsApp. I don't think that changes matters much though. WhatsApp is one of the "private channels" that Facebook Inc owns, and in Zuckerberg's manifesto  you can read:
"We are strong advocates of encryption and have built it into the largest messaging platforms in the world -- WhatsApp and Messenger."
My point is that "end-to-end encryption in private channels" and "using AI to analyze data in private channels" is incompatible.
Who's to say that they aren't purposefully using encryption that they've made breakable so they can read the messages while making it difficult for anyone else to do so (other than the intended recipient?)
Historically speaking, Zuckerberg isn't trustworthy. The "Stupid fucks" comment from long ago should've been the first indicator of his shady character.
Going on a tangent. I don't like Facebook as a company due to its policies. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if one of these days the WhatsApp end-to-end encryption is "discovered" as broken, followed by a quick scramble to explain it was a temporary glitch and that they found it quickly and closed it. It would just make the headlines for a day or two and then be forgotten. Most people using WhatsApp never cared about any kind of encryption or thought a lot about privacy, and most people using it now still don't.
Hasn't that already happened a couple times ? (except they not pretended to a temporary glitch and fixed it, they just went and said this is not a security flaw, this is a feature!).
> WhatsApp is from Facebook and it implements the Signal protocol which offers end-to-end encryption
You have no way to know what is actually running on their servers.
True. It's possible they _might_ lie and they don't implement E2E encryption correctly.
However, saying that they implement E2E encryption and at the same time they will use AI to analyze what goes through the connection doesn't have to do with lies. It's just impossible. To analyze data you need to be able to read it. And you cannot read it if it's encrypted.
Well, Whatsapp does have an app on your phone that can read your decrypted messages
That's WhatsApp, but I doubt it applies to Facebook Messenger.
I've always assumed my Facebook Messenger (and other private messages) were being monitored or otherwise datamined.
Corporate surveillance, with the intention of advertising to me no doubt, or selling what they can learn about me to advertisers.
I also assume any text messaging over Facebook Messenger can be used against me in a court of law. I don't imagine it's encrypted whatsoever.
google doesn't call gmail "private email"... that is the difference. if they did, they could be sued. facebook lawyers realized this, and fixed it.
you're all idiots. 
If Gmail reads private emails to target ads , why would people think that Facebook isn't doing the same thing? Also many companies (including Facebook) have agreed to share hashes and cooperate to "remove extremist content from their websites" . It would be naive to think that they are excluding private messages from their searches.
> because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship
Facebook fired its "news curators" in response to criticism of it suppressing "news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential 'trending' news section" . This happened in May of last year.
Right, in an effort not to appear as though they are editorializing legitimate news stories for one side or the other via what appears in the trending news section, they threw the baby out with the bath water. Fake news is not legitimate news. It's a form of spam. They did nothing to remove this spam once they got rid of the human editors. So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam. Now they want to use automated methods to police your private messages when they couldn't be bothered to figure out an automated method to remove spam from their trending news section when it really mattered.
The policing of private messages is not new or sudden. Facebook has censored "offensive" (yet legal) private messages for years. One can assume they also already detect and report criminal activity to some degree. But it's understandable that they wouldn't want to shine the spotlight on this practice.
I know I was having difficulties sharing a link to porn video. I was using private message, but it didn't let me to send the damn link.
For a while there it was headline news every time a breastfeeding mother got censored.
AFAIK those are images posted publicly or semi-publicly and getting flagged by prudes, or at least that's how it gets portrayed. But my friend sent a series of Middle East carnage images to me in "private" messages, and they were removed a few days later with a message about being inappropriate for the site. Neither of us flagged them.
Those same photos might have just been posted elsewhere on Facebook publicly and flagged there. Not that I am supporting Facebook or censorship or anything, but on the technical aspect, maybe there's an explanation that doesn't involve reading the private messages.
There is an easy to prove that they do read private messages. Send a private message with a link that points to your private website. Wait a few minutes and you should see in your server's logs that Facebook's bot is trying to crawl that url.
True, but they also show a preview of the page in the message, which would require fetching it. Pretty much every messaging service does that now. Also, there are legitimate reasons to scan URLs (malware, for example). Again, not trying to defend Facebook or absolve them of violating privacy, just saying that for these specific criticisms, there are technical explanations.
If you're scanning the URL for malware, why wouldn't you pick up some data mining info for the involved users while at it?
Because that takes (a lot) more effort, and you're on a schedule?
Yeah but you make money if you do, even if you spend the resources. This is not really a convincing answer.
Or because they were raking in money off the back of it.
This maybe true, but the mechanics of it escape me?
Many fake news sites were destination sites which carried ads. It seems unlikely that the margin on that traffic would have been enough to pay for significant Facebook traffic.
The version of this play which I've heard was:
- Create fake "news" site with outrageous stories.
- Cover it with ads (from Google and others)
- Seed it in Facebook groups
- Rely on organic reach to generate traffic.
I maybe wrong about the ability to to arbitrage on this traffic. If anyone has numbers I'd love to see them.
I believe the parent means Facebook makes money off of this indirectly. The more salacious fake news on Facebook, the higher the user engagement rate with the news feed, and the more time spent on Facebook reading and sharing this stuff. This translates to more ad revenue for Facebook.
Yeah, maybe, if we are stretching.
But I wouldn't describe that as "raking in money" - more like a marginal increase which might have been matched by other changes in the news feed algorithm.
When our granparents did this, they called it satire and had to chop down a lot of trees to like and share.
> Facebook sat idly by
if you think that, you have been reading Fake News
Facebook sat idly by during an election cycle as their platform was used to propagate fake news because blocking this stuff would amount to censorship, and now they suddenly have the moral imperative to police your private messages? I am so glad I quit Facebook a long time ago. They are the big tech company I like the least.
He's probably preparing for public office. While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost).
I don't think that he'd want to manage a company that just fights off rivals. Becoming a politician and (trying to) make a change sounds more like him. He has the money, people mostly like him and he'd only have to find a CEO for Facebook to get rid of conflicts of interest, as he isn't involved in many other businesses.
> While Facebook is very successful, there's little vision in it now, compared to earlier. Most of the connected world is already on Facebook (if it's not blocked in their country). And while VR is nice, it's unlikely that it could attract a billion users anytime soon (esp because of cost).
Facebook could always give away VR headsets for free (disguised similar to the Free Basics program). Facebook has already run out of space to put ads on the Facebook platform, and so it has started trials on Messenger (in a couple of countries). One way to put ads everywhere is to install large screens (like in Sci-Fi movies or like those in Times Square). Another way is to give a small screen to people that's always in front of them and put ads there based on what the person is looking at, the location, time of day and other factors - that's what VR, or rather AR, will be about whenever Facebook gets serious about it (in relation to Wall Street and earnings). Google Glass probably had the same long term intent in mind when it was developed.
>> people mostly like him
I think that depends on geography and demographics. He's popular in SV and the tech community, but perhaps not as popular elsewhere. It's hard to find objective data on it. The only thing I could find was a silly cbinsights bracket vote.  It would be interesting to see what his Q score is.
> ...and he'd only have to find a CEO for Facebook to...
He already has a CEO: Sheryl is more than capable of running the business. Sure, she'd need a tech-visionnaire CTO (like a Jony Ivy for her Tim Cook-style), but I think FB would be perfectly fine without Mark.
Well, he did hire Bush and Obama campaign managers:
Associated hn discussion:
He's banking on millenials to carry him into office in 20+ years like the boomers did Trump.
What is Mark Zuckerberg up to right now? He's doing a lot of of outreach, and even meet and greet tours. It's a bit like he's on the campaign trail, planning on running for political office, but maybe not exactly that.
What customs have you gone through where they do that? I travel internationally regularly and have yet to come across this.
I haven't seen it myself, but I have seen it on TV in a reality show based on the real-life activities of the US and Canadian customs and immigration agencies. It is standard procedure when they are questioning someone they suspect of entering the country for work (but stating they are visiting as a tourist) to ask to see their phone SMS message history. In the show they often find messages from their friends saying "good luck at the job interview tomorrow dude" and the like.
I hate facebook not because of this bullshit but because using facebook is so utterly "normal" on the society that some websites are facebook-exclusives (facebook login only), people only seems to like the idea of using the fucking facebook chat for everything and now even customs ask you to unlock your phone so they can analyze your friends... hoping one day, some terrorist attacks facebook servers so we can get rid of everything online and start to forget about it.
It seems kind of obvious what happens - the picture you posted was reported by your peers in the discussion. The group that encourages this type of punishment probably will not have members that report the picture, so it doesn't get deleted (as fast).
You don't need to blame Facebook for this.
But would it really be hard to have checks for that kind of groups automatically?
How can Facebook read all of my private chat message, find out what the conversation was about and serve me accurate ads, but can't find out that this group called "death to all jew" is hate speech?
Oh wait, the first case brings in money and the second simply makes the world a better place.
Did you read Zuckerberg's letter yesterday? I wrote a response that didn't go over super well here but comparing how Facebook is an idealistic experiment versus capitalistic exercise is enlightening. Facebook can truly heal the world! Well, if it doesn't help destroy it first...
Im sick and tired of facebook. Yesterday I shared a picture from Syria depicting a homosexual being executed by being thrown off a building - In a political discussion, of course this gets censored within hours. Meanwhile there is groups where this picture also appears, albeit in a another context that actually encourages this type of punishment, and it gets to stay on facebook.
I was also confused similarly, more so with the headline that sounded as if this was a malicious move meant to hide the intent to monitor private messages (not that I would put it past Facebook not to do such horrific things).
This article is so poorly written that I couldn't tell which version was the original and which the revised (or whether there were one or two revisions) until I'd read it three or four times. After I'd figured that out (I think), I had to go back again to understand what point the author was trying to make.
Then again, it's just Mashable. I don't know why I worked at it so hard.
It is quite simple, if you are not paying for the product, you are the product and even if you are paying in some cases. This is well known. Also well known, is expect no privacy online.
Always assume everything you do online is being monitored and do your best to encourage everyone you know to use encryption, or to prefer encrypted services, wherever they can.
You don't need to trust Facebook to see inconsistencies in their message.
WhatsApp is one of Facebook's "private channels" that it's said to implement the Signal protocol, which is supposed to offer end-to-end encryption. If we assume all what Facebook claims is true, the only way to analyze WhatsApp messages for AI purposes is to leak data to Facebook servers before starting the E2E encrypted connection. But that would be just an exploitable back door that defeats the purpose of Signal, right?
My pessimistic guess is that end-to-end encryption will be removed from WhatsApp, Allo, etc., in a matter of time with flowery language like, "...to provide the best possible experience that our users expect and deserve, and to empower our users with choice, we're switching the default (to quick plaintext communications)...the communication will still be secure through encryption on the network from client to server to client."
Then it'll become like Messenger, where end-to-end encryption is an explicit choice (similar to Secret Chats in Telegram). Not that people using WhatsApp would really care. The stickiness factor is quite high.
How could anyone not know that your private messages represent valuable data to Facebook that they're going to use for ad revenue and service improvement?
Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy. Most services do not.
Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved.
Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.
I thought the same thing once I read the quote before & after. So I looked at the headline again and decided the wording was accurate but I'd gotten the wrong idea about it's meaning. The headline could say "AI monitoring of private messages", that might have cleared up one minor angle on it for me. But whatevs I suppose, headlines are misleading all the time, that's why you always have to read the article, right?
I also wondered whether it's possible this edit doesn't mean what people are assuming it means. I have no doubt whatsoever about Facebook monitoring private channels via AI or humans. But, technically, it's speculating to say Zuck's edit is motivated by the desire to hide the activity while doing it anyway. It could mean they are choosing against doing it in some form or completely. It could mean there are legal problems with the monitoring or the announcement of monitoring. It could mean there are business concerns with publicizing, that the loss of money could outweigh the loss of trust. Who knows? But it's possible (though slim) this edit is a good thing for privacy. It's also possible (and likely) that this is bad for privacy, but Zuck can't be as transparent as he truly wants to be.
The headline is slightly misleading. It would be more salacious had the manifesto been published long ago and had the line been recently added.
In actuality it was there in a draft recently and now they realized they don't want to message that outright and have decided not to publicize it.
Doesn't take long to figure out codes like that - the DEA has been doing it for years. If anything it's even easier to catch those using the codes who think they're being very very clever.
There's no way this can work well IRL. I was talking to a friend who follows the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Apparently, the terrorists knew (correctly, I presume) that phone calls were being monitored. So they switched to using allusions in their conversations. Grenades became "potatoes". An AK-47 became a "broom". Explosives became "flour". And so on. So a request for more arms sounded like a shopping list for a grocery store: send some potatoes, and we also need a couple of brooms.
I think, there is no `private` section on the social network, everything is public, just accessing to that section is limited for someone or one scope and not for other one.
But scope of this accessing is growing through the time, without we know about that.
For example, from small circle of our friends or family to the whole of the world.
If it's AI that flags stuff instead of people reading your private messages, then that's good.
I was thinking the same thing. How do you help prevent actions nearly mo one wants to happen (human trafficking, violent attacks) while at the same time allowing dissidents to talk etc.
You need an AI to be the one to flag it.
I'm not entirely surprised that Facebook does this. After all, Facebook is also the company that not only does the same as Google when it comes to targeting you with ads, but also sells data about you to other companies. More reasons not to trust or use Facebook for me at least :)
Call it what it is - Manifesto du jour.
apart from the pro/con arguments here, I want to ask whether you can call anything a 'manifesto' if you keep changing it ?
Please don't post partisan rants to HN. These topics are flamebait; by going full combustion you amplify the destructive effect when you ought to be dampening it. Regardless of your politics, the only kind of discussion we want here is thoughtful.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13667018 and marked it off-topic.
In the correct usage of the term, "fake news" does not refer to partisan opinion. It refers to sites that completely made up stories or conspiracy theory peddling, often with click-bait friendly headlines.
Natural News for instance is a widely cited "fake news" site -- it basically denies the science-based medical community in favor of an "alternative" form of medical quackery, often with a huge dose of "establishment" paranoia and conspiracy theory. (It is not surprise that Natural News is owned by someone who sells supplements and alternative medicine.)
So, for instance, a political decision by the India government that affected the Bill and Melinda Gates vaccination program over there, largely to diminish a perception of foreign meddling more than anything else (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-health-bmgf-idUSKBN1...) gets turned an implication that Bill and Melinda Gates are killing hundreds of girls in India with an HPV vaccine that contains "extreme side effects" (http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-02-14-india-tosses-out-gates...). The only "proof" Natural News offers is provided by links to the front page of several other suspicious conspiracy-theory websites.
This is the type of thing easily seen as "fake news". I don't think there's anything even in heavily partisan media (your Fox News and Huffington Posts) that come as close to having as many falsehoods, let alone in more sober media.
I really dislike how "fake news" has come to represent "news that has a different opinion than mine", because that was not what the original context was about.
i'll take the bait i guess.
1. side by side your images might convince someone unwilling to give it a moment of deeper thought. in actuality, if you look into the articles, maddow's problem with Pat Smith's statements are that they were explicitly partisan and explicitly against the findings of the congressional committees investigating benghazi, including:
>“She deserves to be in stripes,” [Pat] Smith said of Clinton…. “I personally blame Hillary Clinton for the death of my son,” Smith said while fighting back tears.
It seems her biggest problem was that the GOP continues to bring up Benghazi, despite several congressional committees finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
I didnt pay attention much to benghazi, but your image elicits a much stronger sentiment of partisanship than exists between the two articles.
2. hillary wore white, melanie wore white. Two completely different authors took something different away from this, and wrote articles reflecting their opinions of the outfits. Both articles are from 'Style' or 'Fashion' writers and are in the appropriate category for that topic, neither appear to have been advertised as news of any kind. To claim this as an example of 'fake news' is plainly dishonest.
3. a tweet from AP's FactCheck service they were doing during the debates (no indication of how factual the statement was regarded in the screenshot) investigating Trumps statement that Assad is fighting ISIS. The other image is a tweet from AP quoting Assad a few weeks earlier saying he had taken Palmyra from ISIS. If you look at the AP fact check article, they rate Trumps statement as Partially True, noting:
> His overstretched military is mainly focused on combating Syrian opposition groups, some of which are supported by the United States. Assad does use air power against IS-held areas
4. An image of the wall street journal with two different headlines, claiming that the differing headlines were a result of buying them in 'different markets'
Newspapers often print update versions of their papers as events evolve. in this case, the headline 'Trump Softens His Tone' was an earlier edition of the paper, printed after Trumps visit with the Mexican President, but before Trumps return to the US and reaction to the Mexican President's Tweets that they will not pay for the wall; at which point Trump got tougher as a reaction to the tweets - no longer having a softened tone, the WSJ rightly updated the headline to better reflect the current reality of Trumps position.
5.I dont even know what this one is, its a bunch of pictures of the DailyMail and the NYPost, two notorious conspiracy rags - again completely dishonest to use something like this to paint real news sources as dishonest. The pictures are from Bush/Saddam goings on so they must be at least a decade old. (wouldnt it be trivial to find more modern examples of these two magazines lying?)
6. This is just meaningless screenshots with text that implies that the IC telling us that they have evidence of russia hacking the presidential election is equivalent to congress telling us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no attempt to provide any evidence for this claim, but there is a quote from a Russian Foreign Affairs representative saying that Russia is sick of these claims that they interfered with the lection - very convincing.
7. This, again, simply makes the assertion that the media has lied without providing evidence of any kind. the text says:
>The Mainstream Media has been caught Lying to protect the government, lying about their sources credentials, lying to start foreign wars, and lying to start domestic wars. But please, tell me more about how bad 'Fake News' on the internet is.
Is this really it? This is the alt-rights argument that AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBc, et al are fake news? because someone wrote it in meme font over an image?
>So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days.
I disagree, I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content. Whether the news falls under that, I don't know, but I sure don't think censorship means 'division'.
The idea that words should be awarded an innate right to be said I see no reason for.
The rise of the right wing is worrying for a Communist like me.
Most people are tired of censors who propagate their moral rulesets self righteously. In the 70s/80s/90s it was the Christian right against music and video games.
Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...
>Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...
"So much for the tolerant left!" is probably wat you were going to say next.
I do not call people Nazis and fascists, I wish to remove actual Nazis and fascists from the discourse. Same goes for 'alt-right', a movement composed mainly of toxic "rationalists", anti-feminists, neo-Nazis and the redpill community.
I only intend to refer to these, not others. I have no support for bourgeois progressivism.
> I only intend to refer to these, not others. I have no support for bourgeois progressivism.
Well then I can only beg you to ponder about the consequences of ostracizing a large proportion of people to this "alt-right".
Defenders of free speech, and enemies of censors, in todays political climate, will gain popularity versus opposing ideologies which the political elite espouse or pretend to espouse like globalization (relevant as Zuckerberg mentioned this).
I'm curious how you see this turning out in the US especially, being that Trump is president and they have the 1st amendment. And it seems the main target of fake news is alternative media and conservative media, which are rallying around each other due to being attacked.
The newer target is Trump calling MSM fake news, trying to turn the whole smear campaign against them. I'm curious what a self professed communist thinks where this will end up? Did you know PewDiePie was a Nazi?
> I'm perfectly fine with censoring racist/sexist/homophobic etc. hateful or fascist content.
With how liberally those terms are being thrown around now, I have no confidence in any non-human and even most human curation.
To them that means you are an other, a despicable person for not agreeing with them.
Then, as their brains start to churn, they realize your opinion HELPS those people with bad opinions!
Their brains are really fired up now! Especially the admygdala, and they realize that you, yes you, must also be sexist/racist/homophobic/islamaphobic/etc.
Why else would you stand in their way?
--Pretty sad state of affairs these days...
i can't even tell if your post is satire.
I don't think so. Communists and many authoritarians of all spectrum want to terminate any opposing views, and slander them as evil, wrong.
Obviously fascism is wrong, but I don't think PewDiePie or Trump are Nazis...
> So the trending news section went from left leaning legitimate news stories under human editors to a bunch of spam.
Geex, let me guess. You are left leaning too! People like me think mainstream media promotes the most fake news.
So it's dangerous to censor any news, being that Truth is a hot topic these days.
Disagree? I have plenty of evidence...
But sure, keep supporting the censors so we keep getting more divided. I don't mind, the right wing is getting most of generation z, and more and more people see the lies as what they are by MSM - FAKE NEWS!