There was this brief moment where star trek broke my suspension of disbelief. How is there not social media and the Internet in the star trek future? Sure they didn't have it when the show was written, but there still felt to be a disconnect.
Now I think, "how can there be a star trek future while we have social media and the Internet?"
Honestly, it's probably what started the eugenics war.
But as a pass time, I’m fair certain Holodecks buried pretty much everything else for good. Movies, songs, books, and as hard as it may be for tech people to believe..
Do you know how the Enterprise is this huge ship that carries a huge population, but yet very few people are seen working in each department? Yeah, the rest of them just stay in their bunks doomscrolling, subsisting on Doritos and soda from the replicator ("Diet Coke, cold"). A significant part of government provided basic housing is on starships, because it gives their working crews a sense of importance. When a ship is in range of other ships, space stations, or planets, transporter technology is used to seamlessly reallocate the population. The residents would notice if they bothered to look out their windows, but they mostly don't. It's also why the rest of the ship is so austere - the working crew knows that indulging base material desires is the fast track to becoming a bunk dweller.
In Star Trek they don’t have television. I remember there was an episode where it is mentioned as a dead medium from the 20th century.
I’m guessing they don’t have films either.
They do have written books though.
Now the Star Trek TNG film Star Trek First Contact takes place in the 21st century and features rock and roll and characters talking in “modern” parlance.
I’m guessing that in between the 21st century and the 24th century mankind advanced and stopped watching tv and movies and went back to reading books.
Perhaps they advanced and abandoned social media as well. The Star Trek’s version of forums and the internet could be an idealized version of Hacker News where everyone actually follows the rules and Dang the AI moderator can just chill and not do much. It’s very possible.
It doesn't help Joel Kaplan was their main policy executive until this year. It doesn't help either to read all the beans spilled in "Careless People" about how Zuckerberg and Sandberg discovered they could use Facebook's/Meta's reach to tilt the political landscape and force candidates to be on their side regarding regulations.
They've been doing this for a decade, no reckoning yet in sight.
Ah yes because the conservative movement at the moment is so entirely beaten down and hunched in a defensive crouch because they have exactly zero power in the world right now? I mean, it isn’t like ideologues on the right own the entire media landscape or anything right? Or are in the White House, hold both houses of Congress, and have little despots in training all over the fucking planet.
But yeah, sure it happens to Conservatives at the same rate. You just won’t hear about it here because the Evil Left controls a site run by Silicon Valley. In 2026.
Isn't the more likely reason due to suspicious bot activity? I doubt a trillion dollar org cares much about these small candidates.
I don't rule it out entirely. In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform. But this seems too low stakes
Yes an extremely contentious race if you pay attention to politics. A year ago if anyone had said Dems have a chance of a Senate majority during the midterms you'd have been laughed out of the building.
Small candidates have a lot of impact, especially when you want to (for example) build a data center. Not that this is necessary to explain it—the cost of the censorship to Meta is negligible (an employee presses a button or an AI makes an API call), so even a small reward is worthwhile.
> In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform.
It wasn’t coordinated, it was a bunch of social media companies responding to the same event, notably the president in question using his social media accounts to try to overthrow the US government.
It's not. Meta did the same thing during Brazil's elections. Left-wing politicians' and influencer's accounts suspended, while right wings' stayed working. Even with the widespread knowledge that the right is notorious for using bot accounts to inflate followers and to generate engagement.
The big tech companies are on the side of power and money.
Your initial implication is that left wing accounts get banned while right wing accounts don't (an already spurious point), despite right wing accounts being notorious for botting.
That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.
With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.
However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.
If you have a strong reaction to this, and had the opposite reaction when social media lockouts were used against the other party, I’d suggest a new approach: decide where you stand on the tool/weapon based on foundational principles, regardless of whether it’s currently being wielded by people you agree or disagree with.
Were any of the candidates blocked here inciting a violent insurrection in an attempt to overturn an election? Because I'm pretty comfortable with that being grounds for blocking.
Assuming your premise holds, that’s a fair example of a principle-based distinction, which is what I’m advocating for.
Would you hold the same standard, and react the same way, if the parties were flipped? The hard part is answering that before looking for differences. Confirmation bias is powerful, and if any of us start from a conclusion, we’ll always find a justification.
If an outgoing Democratic president had used his platform to undermine free and fair elections, they should not only be denied the megaphone they used. They should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and barred from any future office.
Agreed, that’s the point. The first part describes the inconsistency; the second is how to avoid it. If your principles lead you to react the same way both times, the test doesn’t apply to you.
>“We are calling on Meta to immediately restore the page and provide an explanation for its removal,” she continued. “Voters deserve access to critical election information, especially in these final days.”
>Nixon reported that the account was back up an hour later.
The account was created only 1 week earlier and was flagged as a campaign impersonation account.
Whether that's honest and truthful, we can only know if Meta is transparent. But, not including that information shows what the article's intent is.
> "During campaign season, we pay particular attention to accounts that could be impersonating candidates or campaigns and misleading voters. The account in question was created only a week and a half ago, so our systems automatically and mistakenly assessed it to be impersonating the Nixon for Senate campaign. The account was restored on Tuesday evening after three hours."
After what Facebook tried pulling in Brazil, it is incredibly naive to think this was just another oopsie-daisy that once again, one that just so happens to impact the left, again.
I love the main character syndrome on display. You have this regional Florida race, not particularly competitive. They do campaign events all day every day. They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.
> They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.
This isn't the first time Meta has pulled the plug on rallies and leftwing organizations [1]. It's also not out of character for them to try and push right wing narratives. [2]
You miss the big one where all the social media companies deplatformed a sitting us president but point taken. But I think this is all too low stakes for that kind of action
I mean, companies are responsible for the actions of their employees within a certain scope and it is not outside the realm of possibility that an individual interested in curtailing the momentum of this candidate works at Meta in a capacity that would allow interfering with the account.
Accusing them without due evidence is sloppy, but it's not like the claim carries genuinely zero possibility of being true.
You honestly think meta couldn’t setup an automated system to target democratic candidate’s accounts and mess with them during a scheduled rally or live stream? As if zuck has to personally do anything to make that happen? This is hardly tinfoil hat territory, it would be trivial to put in place, and until I see it is coincidentally happening to their R counterparts, it tracks with Zuck’s current political leanings.
I've been reading the book "Careless People," and I came upon these passages just yesterday, referring to Mark Zuckerberg in 2015:
> Mark opens the meeting by talking admiringly about what he calls “street fighter tactics” that Uber is employing against politicians around the world and how successful they’ve been.
> He launches into a spiel about Empereror Augustus, his favorite emperor, who led the transformation of Rome from a republic to an empire.
> He wants to establish a team within Facebook to figure out how to build the tools that will use the algorithm and platform to pressure adversaries, including politicians who oppose us, to bolster the policy team.
so, like most things, it's likely a blessed invididual in meta is given the privlege of doing whatever they want, as part of the "boys will be boys" club.
The simplest explanation is that it's chaotic damage from whatever overzealous autocensorship systems they have. The extent of the damage is moderated based on who you know - whether it's social media reach to someone employed there who knows the strings to pull, pay to play line to an account rep, or even ahead-of-time "this needs to be protected" due to threats/back scratching from/of the regime.
At least to me, this is a good working explanation - the conspiracy angles prove things that don't need to be proven to effect sustainable solutions. The real issue, as it has always been, is that we need to move away from these centralized communications technologies controlled by corpos. Their concentrated power is what makes their censorship inevitable.
So pragmatically as things stand - while it's completely understandable that political campaigns (and everyone else) need to engage with where people are, they should also be making it a point to nudge followers to distributed forums. Use censorship-eager popular forums to recruit new followers, but maintain your base of members with censorship-resistant communication methods.
Or politically, assuming a critical mass of people frustrated at this problem that we can effect change, what we need is anti-trust enforcement that breaks up these companies into smaller entities, chiefly by un-bundling apps (client software) from hosting services and mandating published APIs for the two markets to interact.
It's the simplest explanation, but it's also the explanation you or I would reach for as a fig leaf if we were trying to get away with something shady.
I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour. The longer the string, the less likely it is to be accidental. (But this assumes the bad actor isn't trying to cover their tracks in active ways. Ho hum).
The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
I honestly think these two simple changes would solve many of the problems we have today, as a society.
> I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour.
Sure, except, why? Such behavior is (unfortunately) not currently illegal, so it's not like proving it would mean it could be straightforwardly punished.
Then furthermore, the specific groups that feel aggrieved shift based on who is in power. The only way to get actual reform is to form a coalition with people who don't feel particularly aggrieved right now, but still respect that it could happen to them in the future.
Making it into a personal us-vs-them just makes it so people who don't care about your "us" aren't inclined to see the issue!
> The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
Sure, but keep in mind this is still a political solution, whether through regulation or merely through shaming the centralizers. Meaning it requires the political will I am describing above.
Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article. You need an additional point, to get there indirectly - if the only feeds shown were subscribed ("followed"), there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it or otherwise directly seek it out.
> Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article.
We're increasingly Balkanised. Part of that is algorithms that show us "the other" at its worst (outrage farming). This UX change would restrict outrage from being shoved down people's throats, and at least stop the problem getting worse.
It severely limits the reach of new outrage farmers, and attrition will take care of the current ones.
Knock-on effect, hopefully, is a return to some kind of sanity across the societal board. (Bearing in mind you can't turn an ocean liner on a sixpence).
> there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it.
Not what I'm describing. I'm suggesting a change that means you have to go looking for bots, they don't get shoved in front of you. (However you define "bots").
I wholly agree with where you're coming from, but I don't see how it's connected to the original article.
If you think the censorship is the problem, then how does what you're saying address that?
If you think the frustration with the censorship is the problem (ie part of the outrage farming), then I suppose what you're saying is a solution in a roundabout way. But trying to fix a small problem by casting it as one aspect of a much larger problem seems self-defeating.
Depressing and worrisome. But at least there is a small funny bit to it. When the president was a Democrat, Facebook did this to Republicans. When the president’s a Republican, they do it to Democrats. Evidently, they don’t even have a side. They just flip-flop to support whoever is in charge
Source? I recall major platforms suspending accounts that were literally posting nazi propaganda in violation of platform rules. I don’t recall a single instance of meta suspending the page of an otherwise rule-abiding Republican candidate’s account in the middle of a rally.
This is the assymetry that the left have to deal with. The far right spew hateful propoganda and get themselves banned. Suddenly the platforms are biased towards the left. Zuck even got in on this to curry favours
That’s exactly right. Every time I heard hand-wringing about some right-wing person getting suspended, it’d inevitably trace back to that person saying something incredibly outlandish, racist, or otherwise rule breaking. I did not see one example of anyone being suspended for being a Republican. Not one. Zero.
Fecebook out of all FAGMAN companies should be dissolved for good: it produces nothing of a value (they don’t make an useful products like email in google or a hardware laptop in MS for example), even big products like whatsapp or instagram were acquired, it is comically evil, it’s probably the first company to eavesdrop on its users daily convos through their apps to show ads, and it operates like a mafia or a syndicate, and you would know if you had your account auto flagged or banned, there’s no email or a person to talk to (that was before AI chat support too), you need to know someone who knows someone who knows someone to pull some strings inside to look at your account..
There was this brief moment where star trek broke my suspension of disbelief. How is there not social media and the Internet in the star trek future? Sure they didn't have it when the show was written, but there still felt to be a disconnect.
Now I think, "how can there be a star trek future while we have social media and the Internet?"
Honestly, it's probably what started the eugenics war.
It's a slippery slope from Yelp reviews to genetically engineered super soldiers.
It's not where I would have thought things would be going myself. But then there was that whole Myanmar thing with Facebook.
Funniest thing I read all day, thanks
Social media explains the Fermi Paradox. Once it arises technical civilizations regress.
How can they not have social media in a universe where FTL communications and travel exist? Unthinkable!
I posted it on my subspace story.
It wasn’t the FTL and travel..
But as a pass time, I’m fair certain Holodecks buried pretty much everything else for good. Movies, songs, books, and as hard as it may be for tech people to believe..
Even social media.
Why browse somebody's Facebook when you can simulate then with 98% accuracy on the holodeck.
And if you don't like somebody, punch them or worse... no flame wars in forums when you can use flamethrower
Maybe they had it and wisely decided to get rid of it.
Do you know how the Enterprise is this huge ship that carries a huge population, but yet very few people are seen working in each department? Yeah, the rest of them just stay in their bunks doomscrolling, subsisting on Doritos and soda from the replicator ("Diet Coke, cold"). A significant part of government provided basic housing is on starships, because it gives their working crews a sense of importance. When a ship is in range of other ships, space stations, or planets, transporter technology is used to seamlessly reallocate the population. The residents would notice if they bothered to look out their windows, but they mostly don't. It's also why the rest of the ship is so austere - the working crew knows that indulging base material desires is the fast track to becoming a bunk dweller.
In Star Trek they don’t have television. I remember there was an episode where it is mentioned as a dead medium from the 20th century.
I’m guessing they don’t have films either.
They do have written books though.
Now the Star Trek TNG film Star Trek First Contact takes place in the 21st century and features rock and roll and characters talking in “modern” parlance.
I’m guessing that in between the 21st century and the 24th century mankind advanced and stopped watching tv and movies and went back to reading books.
Perhaps they advanced and abandoned social media as well. The Star Trek’s version of forums and the internet could be an idealized version of Hacker News where everyone actually follows the rules and Dang the AI moderator can just chill and not do much. It’s very possible.
It's getting harder to believe this is accidental when it's 3 leftist situations in a row in such a short time.
Just look at the shenanigans Meta pulled in Brazil election.
It doesn’t help that Zuckerberg is recorded pledging his loyalty to Trump.
It doesn't help Joel Kaplan was their main policy executive until this year. It doesn't help either to read all the beans spilled in "Careless People" about how Zuckerberg and Sandberg discovered they could use Facebook's/Meta's reach to tilt the political landscape and force candidates to be on their side regarding regulations.
They've been doing this for a decade, no reckoning yet in sight.
Same Trump he banned a few years ago?
Lol what "loyalty" are you talking about?
Indeed, the real lesson is that these antisocial ghouls are the enemy of us all and should not be trusted in amy circumstance.
True
People that were cheering on when this happened to one side suddenly get surprised when the same thing happens to their side
Well well well how the turntables... [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFagogEOZz8
If you think Zuck has the same loyalties today as he did years ago then you are blind and willingly ignorant
Let me fix that for you: "If you think Zuck has loyalties then you are blind and willingly ignorant"
Much better
I assume it probably happens to right-wing candidates as well but I won’t hear about it on this website.
How about you find an example instead of assuming.
Donald Trump
Marjorie Taylor Greene
And others
Not comparable at all.
Lol what a hypocritical thing to say
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf
The audacity
You know a guy called Donald Trump?
When did that happens?
Ah yes because the conservative movement at the moment is so entirely beaten down and hunched in a defensive crouch because they have exactly zero power in the world right now? I mean, it isn’t like ideologues on the right own the entire media landscape or anything right? Or are in the White House, hold both houses of Congress, and have little despots in training all over the fucking planet.
But yeah, sure it happens to Conservatives at the same rate. You just won’t hear about it here because the Evil Left controls a site run by Silicon Valley. In 2026.
Really just shut the fuck up pal.
Let's not forget that Trump was banned as well by Meta
Oh, and what for?
For political speech
And Trump was banned for multiple years, this Dem account was blocked 1 hour and people are already crying wolf
Oh yeah, which exact political speech? Cause these two things are not symmetrical at all.
Lets compare the reasons and speeches rather then hiding behind "political" euphemism.
Yeah, they're not symmetrical, DT was treated much much worse
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf
> Lets compare the reasons and speeches rather then hiding behind "political" euphemism.
Lol here comes the thought police
No, DT got away with much more and longer. And there was no real infractuon here from their side
Orwell is turning in his grave hearing all the leftist nonsense spewed out nowadays
what's the point of moving the goalpost here?, are you gonna pull the terms and conditions of meta? trump wasn't prosecuted
Isn't the more likely reason due to suspicious bot activity? I doubt a trillion dollar org cares much about these small candidates.
I don't rule it out entirely. In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform. But this seems too low stakes
"Small candidates", for US senate?
It's not really competitive. She's down by ten points.
6 points according to the latest Siena Poll [1]. The gap has been narrowing ever since she won the primary.
Still likely to lose (IMO), but it's more competitive than we've seen in Florida for a long time.
[1] https://sri.siena.edu/2026/10/28/nytimes-siena-poll-of-likel...
This is a florida senate race
EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.
Angie Nixon is currently a Florida state rep who is running for US senate: https://angienixon.com/
Yes an extremely contentious race if you pay attention to politics. A year ago if anyone had said Dems have a chance of a Senate majority during the midterms you'd have been laughed out of the building.
Again, this isn’t a US senate race, it’s a Florida senate race.
EDIT: I’m mistaken, this is a US senate candidate. I was confused by the ambiguous wording in the article.
Small candidates have a lot of impact, especially when you want to (for example) build a data center. Not that this is necessary to explain it—the cost of the censorship to Meta is negligible (an employee presses a button or an AI makes an API call), so even a small reward is worthwhile.
> In 2021 we saw a coordinated deplatforming of a sitting president across practically every social media platform.
It wasn’t coordinated, it was a bunch of social media companies responding to the same event, notably the president in question using his social media accounts to try to overthrow the US government.
It's not. Meta did the same thing during Brazil's elections. Left-wing politicians' and influencer's accounts suspended, while right wings' stayed working. Even with the widespread knowledge that the right is notorious for using bot accounts to inflate followers and to generate engagement.
The big tech companies are on the side of power and money.
Lol, let's not forget Meta banned Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others before
You pretend like this is somehow a partisan issue
> Even with the widespread knowledge that the right is notorious for using bot accounts...
Are you, by chance, of the left?
Because the left came up with “flood the zone”
All research I’ve seen on this shows the right significantly outbotting the left.
Outbotting and implying it's a problem with the right, specifically are two very different things.
I don’t understand what you mean by this?
Your initial implication is that left wing accounts get banned while right wing accounts don't (an already spurious point), despite right wing accounts being notorious for botting.
That implies that left wing accounts shouldn't have been banned because they are not notorious for botting.
With the next reply, you hedge and say that the right "outbots" the left. That weakens your initial point that the left wing account bans are unjustified.
However, my initial reply was in response to the claim that it's "widespread knowledge" that the right outbots the left. That is not knowledge I consider to be self evident and I was assuming/asking that you got that knowledge from left leaning sources.
I am not the GP fyi.
It is widespread knowledge that the right outbots the left, presuming you bother to inform yourself about the issue.
If you have a strong reaction to this, and had the opposite reaction when social media lockouts were used against the other party, I’d suggest a new approach: decide where you stand on the tool/weapon based on foundational principles, regardless of whether it’s currently being wielded by people you agree or disagree with.
Were any of the candidates blocked here inciting a violent insurrection in an attempt to overturn an election? Because I'm pretty comfortable with that being grounds for blocking.
Assuming your premise holds, that’s a fair example of a principle-based distinction, which is what I’m advocating for.
Would you hold the same standard, and react the same way, if the parties were flipped? The hard part is answering that before looking for differences. Confirmation bias is powerful, and if any of us start from a conclusion, we’ll always find a justification.
If an outgoing Democratic president had used his platform to undermine free and fair elections, they should not only be denied the megaphone they used. They should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and barred from any future office.
> decide where you stand on the tool/weapon based on foundational principles
If you actually do this, then it doesn’t matter whether the outcomes seem to help one party vs another.
The second part of your comment invalidates the test in the first part of your comment.
Agreed, that’s the point. The first part describes the inconsistency; the second is how to avoid it. If your principles lead you to react the same way both times, the test doesn’t apply to you.
>“We are calling on Meta to immediately restore the page and provide an explanation for its removal,” she continued. “Voters deserve access to critical election information, especially in these final days.”
>Nixon reported that the account was back up an hour later.
This article is bait.
The account was created only 1 week earlier and was flagged as a campaign impersonation account.
Whether that's honest and truthful, we can only know if Meta is transparent. But, not including that information shows what the article's intent is.
> "During campaign season, we pay particular attention to accounts that could be impersonating candidates or campaigns and misleading voters. The account in question was created only a week and a half ago, so our systems automatically and mistakenly assessed it to be impersonating the Nixon for Senate campaign. The account was restored on Tuesday evening after three hours."
This is the same site owner that allows Alberta pro-separatism pages to operate out of Kenya and India with impunity.
After what Facebook tried pulling in Brazil, it is incredibly naive to think this was just another oopsie-daisy that once again, one that just so happens to impact the left, again.
Lol, let's not forget Meta banned Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others before
You pretend like this is somehow a partisan issue
That was back when Democrats were in power and the mask hadn't come off yet.
Lol what a hypocritical way to spin things
Trump was banned for years and that seems to be ok with you
A Dem account is banned 1 hour and you cry wolf "the mask has come off"
The audacity
Trump being banned wasn't during any election.
This was. As was the messing with Lula. That was when the mask really came off. Thankfully, the people prevailed.
Trump was banned in middle of 2021, for a full year and a half before the midterms of 2022
Now that's a real attempt to silence someone's political speech into obscurity
Clearly much much worse
I love the main character syndrome on display. You have this regional Florida race, not particularly competitive. They do campaign events all day every day. They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.
> You have this regional Florida race
It's a statewide race.
> They see an issue with their Instagram account which gets fixed an hour later and they immediately think it's Zuck behind the scenes in his war room following her race and rally with a big red button on his desk to cut her off at the crucial window. Incredible stuff.
This isn't the first time Meta has pulled the plug on rallies and leftwing organizations [1]. It's also not out of character for them to try and push right wing narratives. [2]
[1] https://www.ms.now/news/instagram-shut-down-a-no-kings-accou...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
You miss the big one where all the social media companies deplatformed a sitting us president but point taken. But I think this is all too low stakes for that kind of action
That's a non-sequitur to the discussion at hand.
It helps your point. That the social media agencies are interested and willing to coordinate and suppress opposition.
I mean, companies are responsible for the actions of their employees within a certain scope and it is not outside the realm of possibility that an individual interested in curtailing the momentum of this candidate works at Meta in a capacity that would allow interfering with the account.
Accusing them without due evidence is sloppy, but it's not like the claim carries genuinely zero possibility of being true.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You honestly think meta couldn’t setup an automated system to target democratic candidate’s accounts and mess with them during a scheduled rally or live stream? As if zuck has to personally do anything to make that happen? This is hardly tinfoil hat territory, it would be trivial to put in place, and until I see it is coincidentally happening to their R counterparts, it tracks with Zuck’s current political leanings.
They randomly suspend small business accounts too for no reason.
I've been reading the book "Careless People," and I came upon these passages just yesterday, referring to Mark Zuckerberg in 2015:
> Mark opens the meeting by talking admiringly about what he calls “street fighter tactics” that Uber is employing against politicians around the world and how successful they’ve been.
> He launches into a spiel about Empereror Augustus, his favorite emperor, who led the transformation of Rome from a republic to an empire.
> He wants to establish a team within Facebook to figure out how to build the tools that will use the algorithm and platform to pressure adversaries, including politicians who oppose us, to bolster the policy team.
so, like most things, it's likely a blessed invididual in meta is given the privlege of doing whatever they want, as part of the "boys will be boys" club.
The simplest explanation is that it's chaotic damage from whatever overzealous autocensorship systems they have. The extent of the damage is moderated based on who you know - whether it's social media reach to someone employed there who knows the strings to pull, pay to play line to an account rep, or even ahead-of-time "this needs to be protected" due to threats/back scratching from/of the regime.
At least to me, this is a good working explanation - the conspiracy angles prove things that don't need to be proven to effect sustainable solutions. The real issue, as it has always been, is that we need to move away from these centralized communications technologies controlled by corpos. Their concentrated power is what makes their censorship inevitable.
So pragmatically as things stand - while it's completely understandable that political campaigns (and everyone else) need to engage with where people are, they should also be making it a point to nudge followers to distributed forums. Use censorship-eager popular forums to recruit new followers, but maintain your base of members with censorship-resistant communication methods.
Or politically, assuming a critical mass of people frustrated at this problem that we can effect change, what we need is anti-trust enforcement that breaks up these companies into smaller entities, chiefly by un-bundling apps (client software) from hosting services and mandating published APIs for the two markets to interact.
It's the simplest explanation, but it's also the explanation you or I would reach for as a fig leaf if we were trying to get away with something shady.
I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour. The longer the string, the less likely it is to be accidental. (But this assumes the bad actor isn't trying to cover their tracks in active ways. Ho hum).
The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
I honestly think these two simple changes would solve many of the problems we have today, as a society.
> I guess the best approach is to look at a string of such events, and see if they add up to a consistent pattern of behaviour.
Sure, except, why? Such behavior is (unfortunately) not currently illegal, so it's not like proving it would mean it could be straightforwardly punished.
Then furthermore, the specific groups that feel aggrieved shift based on who is in power. The only way to get actual reform is to form a coalition with people who don't feel particularly aggrieved right now, but still respect that it could happen to them in the future.
Making it into a personal us-vs-them just makes it so people who don't care about your "us" aren't inclined to see the issue!
> The change I would like to see: feeds must be in date order, most recent first. Posts should only appear in feeds if you have actively chosen to "follow" the originating account in some way.
Sure, but keep in mind this is still a political solution, whether through regulation or merely through shaming the centralizers. Meaning it requires the political will I am describing above.
Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article. You need an additional point, to get there indirectly - if the only feeds shown were subscribed ("followed"), there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it or otherwise directly seek it out.
> Also from a technical perspective I don't see that this would directly address the problem in the article.
We're increasingly Balkanised. Part of that is algorithms that show us "the other" at its worst (outrage farming). This UX change would restrict outrage from being shoved down people's throats, and at least stop the problem getting worse.
It severely limits the reach of new outrage farmers, and attrition will take care of the current ones.
Knock-on effect, hopefully, is a return to some kind of sanity across the societal board. (Bearing in mind you can't turn an ocean liner on a sixpence).
> there should never be a reason to censor an account from speaking to people who have subscribed to it.
Not what I'm describing. I'm suggesting a change that means you have to go looking for bots, they don't get shoved in front of you. (However you define "bots").
I wholly agree with where you're coming from, but I don't see how it's connected to the original article.
If you think the censorship is the problem, then how does what you're saying address that?
If you think the frustration with the censorship is the problem (ie part of the outrage farming), then I suppose what you're saying is a solution in a roundabout way. But trying to fix a small problem by casting it as one aspect of a much larger problem seems self-defeating.
[flagged]
He had bodyguards.
They quit? I would too.
Depressing and worrisome. But at least there is a small funny bit to it. When the president was a Democrat, Facebook did this to Republicans. When the president’s a Republican, they do it to Democrats. Evidently, they don’t even have a side. They just flip-flop to support whoever is in charge
Source? I recall major platforms suspending accounts that were literally posting nazi propaganda in violation of platform rules. I don’t recall a single instance of meta suspending the page of an otherwise rule-abiding Republican candidate’s account in the middle of a rally.
This is the assymetry that the left have to deal with. The far right spew hateful propoganda and get themselves banned. Suddenly the platforms are biased towards the left. Zuck even got in on this to curry favours
That’s exactly right. Every time I heard hand-wringing about some right-wing person getting suspended, it’d inevitably trace back to that person saying something incredibly outlandish, racist, or otherwise rule breaking. I did not see one example of anyone being suspended for being a Republican. Not one. Zero.
Is there evidence that Facebook meddled in elections to benefit Democrats under a Democratic administration?
Fecebook out of all FAGMAN companies should be dissolved for good: it produces nothing of a value (they don’t make an useful products like email in google or a hardware laptop in MS for example), even big products like whatsapp or instagram were acquired, it is comically evil, it’s probably the first company to eavesdrop on its users daily convos through their apps to show ads, and it operates like a mafia or a syndicate, and you would know if you had your account auto flagged or banned, there’s no email or a person to talk to (that was before AI chat support too), you need to know someone who knows someone who knows someone to pull some strings inside to look at your account..