Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has today hit out at Twitter owner Jack Dorsey following blowback from the White House on twitter's plans to factcheck tweets. "Social media companies should not be acting as factcheckers and arbiters of the truth," announced Zuckerberg this afternoon, "also by the way I like to spread peanut butter on the wall and lick it off while naked."
The billionaire social media mogul, who spends his free time taking candy from children, instead suggested that social media companies should allow all speech on their platforms, and only intervene if there was a threat of imminent harm to someone's life, like the woman he keeps chained in his basement.
"On the other hand, I just really like the taste of goat urine," explained Zuckerberg thoughtfully, "can't get enough."
Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.
RIP Mark Zuckerberg, who died today at age 36.
Pretty weird that a Tech Billionaire got killed by ANTIFA at a George Floyd rally in Gulfport MS...
Should web/forum hosts be obligated to fact check anything posted to their site?
Should whoever hosts The Chaser's content be responsible for fact-checking their story? Should they have the power to take it down if they believe it to be untrue?
I'd make the same point about this blog, but I think you self-host on a rack in your basement. But still, do you fact-check comments that people post? All of them? Should there be penalties for not correcting/deleting one?
And that's without considering the factor of volume. Should forums be forced to limit themselves to a level of content that they have the time and manpower to fact check all of?
For someone who fucks dead corpses while eating poo you’ve made a really good point.
Have you stopped murdering children yet?
See reply in other comment.
Sigh. Of course I manage to fuck up the tricky act of "replying" in a comment making fun of someone by comparing them to a n00b. It's like a snowclone of Skitt's Law. FML
Maybe consider that the universe is telling you that you are wrong?
Maybe a site that actively radicalized large swathes of the population by recommending extremist groups to them should... you know... attempt to be better?
Perhaps we should improve society somewhat?
Hey, I'm not saying that Facebook doesn't suck. It's the fucking dumpster fire of all dumpster fires, which is why I'm not on it, and am surprised on an almost daily basis that the large proportion of non-extremist basically good people who keep using it despite admitting that it's terrible haven't fucked off somewhere else.
But do you really think that the solution is for content hosts to be responsible for fact checking what their users post? Or should it just be Facebook? Or Facebook and Twitter? Facebook and Twitter and Reddit? Facebook and Twitter and Reddit and public Friendica/Mastodon nodes?
Is that really the way you think the internet should go? I am not convinced, and all the "lol child molester Mark Zuckerberg" posts/comments I've seen haven't presented me with one substantial argument why I should be. I think that's more terrifying than the current Facebook situation.
Mark Zuckerberg is a gigantic fucking asshole, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everything he says or does is wrong or bad. Mark Zuckerberg probably eats breakfast and drinks coffee. Does that make eating breakfast and drinking coffee evil?
Your slippery slope arguments are ridiculous. Come back when my little blog has demonstrably caused a genocide and we'll talk about my comment moderation policy. I assume that will be around the time that DOJ is issuing some kind of antitrust consent decree to my pizza shop.
However, you are starting from the assumption of: "The internet mostly pleases me, so we (and by we I mean people less privileged than me) must put up with all this other shit, because I don't know how to fix it."
Let's assume for a moment the position that your slippery slope arguments are true. We have only two choices: on the one hand, we let the oligarchs continue to wield this tool to destroy democracy; and on the other, my blog can't have a comment section, or maybe doesn't even exist.
Well, if those are truly our only options in that asinine strawman world, then sure, burn it all down.
In conclusion, yes, we should improve society somewhat.
If it's not a slippery slope, which sites would you enforce this on? I'm not asking you to justify where the line should be, I'm just curious about it.
If not knowing what a good solution is didn't entitle someone to lodge an objection to either the status quo, or a proposal that they think is likely to things worse, then Occupy Wall Street, and the current protesters in Minneapolis wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. And while I'm sure that "let's just try not having cops" has been suggested by someone as a solution there, I'm sure plenty of the protesters would like to be able to point out that that probably won't make things better.
No, we don't. My criticism of the suggestion that social media sites should fact-check posts does not mean I think nothing should change. Just that I don't think that particular change would make things better. IMO you're getting close to the politician's fallacy of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done." The options are not just a) do this, or b) keep things exactly the same. That's a total false dichotomy.
How about trying to charge Facebook with actual crimes? Incitement, accessory, conspiracy. Show they've caused harm, show their policies were wilfully negligent, fine them for more than their net worth, shut the servers down, sell them for scrap, and donate the lot to victims' charities.
Before you say the government would never go for that - are you saying you think the current US govt would go for requiring social media sites to fact-check? Given their respect of "the reality-based community" as Karl Rove allegedly put it? Pull the other one.
Got another idea to fix the Facebook problem? Great. I'll listen and maybe support it if I think it's a good one. But I won't support a proposal just because the problem is real and it's the first half-baked brain fart that someone happened to squirt out.
Oh, fuck off.
This is entirely reasonable, and people are angry at you for interrupting their circlejerk.
Society is moving from consuming mass media - where regulations mean you need a team of people and a bunch of checks before publishing anything - to consuming social media where everyone can publish, instantly. And those publishers aren't faceless corporations, they're your friends and family.
In many ways, this is great! Why read the US press about the war in Syria, or even other countries press, when you read posts from Syrian citizens directly? And no longer can countries pretend things didn't happen
But there's also a downside. Journalists are throwing standards out the window, because if they wait to verify something is true, all the eyeballs will have already gone to someone who published it 30 minutes earlier. Those undiscerning eyeballs with unthinking brains go to who publishes first, or who has the most incendiary headline, not who has the most accurate or balanced view. The problem I have with my fellow humans is that they always want to blame the other and never themselves. We have met the enemy and he is us.
That's not to say the Big Evil Corporations have nothing to answer. They are enabling us to be stupid, insular, wilfully ignorant, emotionally driven fuckwits, and they do it because we reward them with more advertiser engagement. The more we get that warm fuzzy feeling that we are right, we are righteous, and those other fuckers are the most evil and wrong people on the planet, the more time we spend
Turns out pressing Enter posts things.
... didn't happen when there's live video footage broadcast around the world of it happening.
...the more time we spend with our friends, the advertisers, who believe the same things we do.
Perhaps we should take the same approach to fake news as we have for killer viruses recently. Limit how fast information can spread. Be more willing to look into groups that spread misinformation. But if the social-media-using masses don't want to change - they want to spam their pet topic to everyone who'll listen, if they intentionally go looking for something to get angry about, then even the FAANG won't be able to stop them.
Stop the 1-bit thinking.
No. When they are significant enough that misleading, inflammatory or wrong information posted by their users is causing significant bad consequences including, for instance, people dying then should they be required to do something about that, even at the cost of profitability? Yes, definitely.
Where is that point? I don't know. Have Facebook & Twitter passed it: yes, long ago.
Is what they should do fact-checking? I don't know. Just removing accounts might work as well, for instance. But do something that works.
Is the threshold just people dying? No. Is it clear where it is? Probably not, probably it's not even in a well-defined place. Have they passed it? Yes, wherever it is, yes.
Congratulations, you've learned how to flame. Welcome to the internet. Is this your first day?
I can tell, by the fact that you didn't even attempt to address it. Care to try again?
I wondered if Mark would work as old-timey rich man caricature. He does:
The problem with success, is you become what you detest. The problem with Facebook is the public. If the public wasn't there, no one would actually give a shit. It has always reminded me of when the unwashed masses started to invade the BBS scene.
Zuckerberg created Facebook so that he could creep on his female classmates with photos that he non-consensually scraped. So I'm not sure what it is that you imagine he "detests" that it has now become.