"If we make more angry content, we get more engagement."
October 4, 2021 3:42 AM Subscribe
Whistleblower Frances Haugen will give congressional testimony later this week about internal Facebook research and communications she gave to the SEC, in the form of tens of thousands of pages that document the company's deliberate and deceitful amplification of hate, violence, and disinformation to maintain ad revenue and profits, across all its social media network properties. A former product manager at Facebook, Haugen gave an interview with CBS News 60 Minutes that was broadcast last night.
Additional interview segments are available online, in which she goes into more detail about how management chose not to sufficiently staff and later shut down the team assembled to protect users around the world from authoritarian governments, including users targeted by China. She discusses the company's algorithmic prioritization of user engagement with malicious content, and the very real, violent consequences of this decision as it plays out in markets served by Facebook, around the world — including the Myanmar genocide and the January 6, 2021 Trump insurrection.
Additional interview segments are available online, in which she goes into more detail about how management chose not to sufficiently staff and later shut down the team assembled to protect users around the world from authoritarian governments, including users targeted by China. She discusses the company's algorithmic prioritization of user engagement with malicious content, and the very real, violent consequences of this decision as it plays out in markets served by Facebook, around the world — including the Myanmar genocide and the January 6, 2021 Trump insurrection.
Anyone got a link the the 60 Minutes episode that isn't geolocked?
posted by dobbs at 4:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by dobbs at 4:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Given Facebook's origin story (so a lonely boy could categorize college girls by their looks), they've come so, so....not far at all in terms of class and morality.
Burn it down.
posted by wenestvedt at 4:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [53 favorites]
Burn it down.
posted by wenestvedt at 4:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [53 favorites]
+1 for burning it to the ground. I completely deleted my Facebook identity about 4 years ago (which is much harder than it should have been) and it was a happy day.
posted by greenhornet at 4:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by greenhornet at 4:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
I have not deleted fb, I have to do it for work, but would also prefer to see it dismantled. There has to be a better way for people to keep in touch with older relatives
posted by eustatic at 5:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 5:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
Coincidentally:
Twitter appeals French court order to detail efforts against hate speech
Twitter appeals French court order to detail efforts against hate speech
Twitter has appealed a French court decision that ordered it to give activists full access to all relevant documents related to the company's efforts to fight hate speech, lawyers and a judicial source said on Saturday.posted by Joe in Australia at 5:16 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
A French court ordered Twitter to grant six French anti-discrimination groups full access to all documents relating to the company's efforts to combat hate speech since May 2020. The ruling applied to Twitter's global operation, not just its presence in France.
The San Francisco-based company was given two months to comply with the ruling, which also said it must reveal how many moderators it employs in France to examine posts flagged as hateful as well as data on the posts they process.
Twitter has appealed the decision […]
Facebook is awful. It has become an itchy little habit of mine to fight against what it wants my timeline to be. I regularly clean out every little tidbit it tries to log in my ad preferences, block every advertiser I see more than once.
More than that, I block every page anyone shares for any reason. Funny meme you have there, ol' college pal. I'm blocking that page now. Solid article there, cousin. Also blocking that news page. Your politics are my politics, ex-roommate. Blocking that stuff anyway; save it for Twitter.
I'd like to tell you that it works and the experience is lighter, more fun. And it is, sort of. The 30% of the time I spend reading FB is all vacation pics, baby photos, funny anecdotes shared by people I like, birthdays, anniversaries, and kids playing sports or making the honor roll. There are people I like being in touch with but may never actually see again IRL and FB is how I stay connected to them. My friend Stacey from high school raises goats and makes artisanal cheese from their milk. This woman Erin I used to work with is a live-in nanny for a literal princess. I like seeing their stuff.
The problem is that the other 70% of the time I spend nuking the bullshit that desperately tries to creep in and overtake those simple pleasures is irritating.
It does not surprise me at all that FB knows it is awful, that it knows that the celebrity/meme/political content it profits from is ruining not just the experience of me seeing my brother's baby pics, but is actually ruining the social balance of the country in which I reside.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:28 AM on October 4, 2021 [50 favorites]
More than that, I block every page anyone shares for any reason. Funny meme you have there, ol' college pal. I'm blocking that page now. Solid article there, cousin. Also blocking that news page. Your politics are my politics, ex-roommate. Blocking that stuff anyway; save it for Twitter.
I'd like to tell you that it works and the experience is lighter, more fun. And it is, sort of. The 30% of the time I spend reading FB is all vacation pics, baby photos, funny anecdotes shared by people I like, birthdays, anniversaries, and kids playing sports or making the honor roll. There are people I like being in touch with but may never actually see again IRL and FB is how I stay connected to them. My friend Stacey from high school raises goats and makes artisanal cheese from their milk. This woman Erin I used to work with is a live-in nanny for a literal princess. I like seeing their stuff.
The problem is that the other 70% of the time I spend nuking the bullshit that desperately tries to creep in and overtake those simple pleasures is irritating.
It does not surprise me at all that FB knows it is awful, that it knows that the celebrity/meme/political content it profits from is ruining not just the experience of me seeing my brother's baby pics, but is actually ruining the social balance of the country in which I reside.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:28 AM on October 4, 2021 [50 favorites]
We need to regulate the maximisation of engagement (which is, more often than not, a euphemism for addiction).
If, say, washing-machine manufacturers designed their products to make you want to wash more clothes, that would be absurd. And yet pretty much every app, social network and other online service seems to spend most of its time A-B testing ways to hook users and keep them hitting the button like lab rats, in a way that only gambling establishments previously did.
posted by acb at 5:36 AM on October 4, 2021 [49 favorites]
If, say, washing-machine manufacturers designed their products to make you want to wash more clothes, that would be absurd. And yet pretty much every app, social network and other online service seems to spend most of its time A-B testing ways to hook users and keep them hitting the button like lab rats, in a way that only gambling establishments previously did.
posted by acb at 5:36 AM on October 4, 2021 [49 favorites]
"I don't do Facebook" seems to have become what "I don't have a TV" was a decade or two ago. (Full disclosure: I've become an "I don't do Twitter" person, so I'm a bit guilty of this myself.)
posted by gimonca at 5:38 AM on October 4, 2021 [23 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 5:38 AM on October 4, 2021 [23 favorites]
You know, there was a time back in the mid-2000s when I was asking myself “am I spending an unhealthy amount of time on Metafilter?”
It was the first time that I began wondering whether the endless engagement of the internet was a good thing or not. I eventually concluded that yes, I did spend a lot of time here, but I was also ending up informed about a lot of things that many of my peers didn’t know. The engagement here was natural, a result of many people with insight and information, provided for the most part without any overt agenda. And there was always room for disagreement, and the mods did an excellent job of keeping folks from being trolls. What the mods didn’t catch, the $5 entry fee prevented.
I’ve been reading this site since before the Great Membership Lockdown and finally squeaked in as a member in 2004. I’m still here nearly daily, and Metafilter remains the first web link I open on most days.
Facebook, on the other hand, I think I made it only a few years before I was disgusted with the site, disgusted by the policies and the leadership. I flat stopped logging in, I deleted the apps, I’ve run the Facebook Disconnect add-on in my browser forever now. My profile exists as an empty echo, you can tag me in stuff or send a message but it will never generate a response. I refuse to log in even to delete the account. I won’t engage with a group or business if Facebook is their only web presence.
Metafilter has been a part of my normal life for damn near 20 years now. I will happily wear my MeFi t shirt in public. I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing something with a Facebook logo on it. Metafilter has been a source of enjoyment, a place in which I have found ways to improve myself, my outlook, my interactions with others. Facebook taught us that being trolls and spreading hate has no consequence; Metafilter showed me that even a throwaway joke comment can cause injury, and that people absolutely will call you on it.
If Metafilter didn’t exist I am sure that the world would be worse off for it; as flawed as this place can be, it serves a purpose and does some good. If Facebook was burned to the ground tomorrow, it would be a step in the right direction.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:41 AM on October 4, 2021 [124 favorites]
It was the first time that I began wondering whether the endless engagement of the internet was a good thing or not. I eventually concluded that yes, I did spend a lot of time here, but I was also ending up informed about a lot of things that many of my peers didn’t know. The engagement here was natural, a result of many people with insight and information, provided for the most part without any overt agenda. And there was always room for disagreement, and the mods did an excellent job of keeping folks from being trolls. What the mods didn’t catch, the $5 entry fee prevented.
I’ve been reading this site since before the Great Membership Lockdown and finally squeaked in as a member in 2004. I’m still here nearly daily, and Metafilter remains the first web link I open on most days.
Facebook, on the other hand, I think I made it only a few years before I was disgusted with the site, disgusted by the policies and the leadership. I flat stopped logging in, I deleted the apps, I’ve run the Facebook Disconnect add-on in my browser forever now. My profile exists as an empty echo, you can tag me in stuff or send a message but it will never generate a response. I refuse to log in even to delete the account. I won’t engage with a group or business if Facebook is their only web presence.
Metafilter has been a part of my normal life for damn near 20 years now. I will happily wear my MeFi t shirt in public. I wouldn’t be caught dead wearing something with a Facebook logo on it. Metafilter has been a source of enjoyment, a place in which I have found ways to improve myself, my outlook, my interactions with others. Facebook taught us that being trolls and spreading hate has no consequence; Metafilter showed me that even a throwaway joke comment can cause injury, and that people absolutely will call you on it.
If Metafilter didn’t exist I am sure that the world would be worse off for it; as flawed as this place can be, it serves a purpose and does some good. If Facebook was burned to the ground tomorrow, it would be a step in the right direction.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:41 AM on October 4, 2021 [124 favorites]
As I think about this more - really, if I hadn’t been on Metafilter for years before Facebook existed, would I have even recognized how bad it really was? Having seen an actual online community, having seen honest engagement and reasonable debate, the shitshow of Facebook is really obvious, but I highly doubt many new members there even realize it. It’s just normal for them. Endless September and all that. The toxicity breeds more toxicity.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [36 favorites]
posted by caution live frogs at 5:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [36 favorites]
I keep seeing shitty right-wing posts show up on my time-line because progressive friends of mine make outraged comments on them but that does more harm than good because it causes that shitty post to show up on all of their friends' time-lines.
posted by octothorpe at 6:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [32 favorites]
As I think about this more - really, if I hadn’t been on Metafilter for years before Facebook existed, would I have even recognized how bad it really was?
Counterpoint: I dunno, it's not hard to notice that you are constantly being connected to lots of really shitty people on Facebook. But, I am like you in that I've been online since the BBS days.
What baffles me is that more viable alternatives haven't really survived the marketplace. Social media is clearly a thing that people want, so why can't you get a more humane way to see what Aunt Bertha and your local favorite brewery are up to?
Here is my billion-dollar idea that you can have for free - curated people. Use the "people who like this also like that" algorithm to filter the content, the comments, everything. And even more important would be "people who hate this also hate that." Sure, it'll make a bubble of like-minded people for you, but I am not convinced that is such a bad thing in a product that you are voluntarily using for your own enjoyment.
Also, charge $5 to join.
posted by anhedonic at 6:18 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
Counterpoint: I dunno, it's not hard to notice that you are constantly being connected to lots of really shitty people on Facebook. But, I am like you in that I've been online since the BBS days.
What baffles me is that more viable alternatives haven't really survived the marketplace. Social media is clearly a thing that people want, so why can't you get a more humane way to see what Aunt Bertha and your local favorite brewery are up to?
Here is my billion-dollar idea that you can have for free - curated people. Use the "people who like this also like that" algorithm to filter the content, the comments, everything. And even more important would be "people who hate this also hate that." Sure, it'll make a bubble of like-minded people for you, but I am not convinced that is such a bad thing in a product that you are voluntarily using for your own enjoyment.
Also, charge $5 to join.
posted by anhedonic at 6:18 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
all vacation pics, baby photos, funny anecdotes shared by people I like, birthdays, anniversaries, and kids playing sports or making the honor roll
Instagram is sort of like that. Among those I follow, there are no spammy news and meme reposts, few to no ads, no groups. Instagram's way of "increasing engagement" is to try to recommend stuff to you, but most of that can be avoided too. Most of what's in my feed is cute pet pictures, with stuff that people have made that they're proud of in second place, and then nature photos and weird music gear and funny things that people saw. And it even seems to be in chronological order, more or less.
Because it's owned by Facebook, I'm sure there is something nefarious about it. Certainly it depends on how you use it; the "search" page is full of recommended content which includes a lot of branded stuff, models and questionable TikTok content and really lame psuedoscience/"positive thinking" memes and other garbage. But overall it doesn't generate constant rage and fatigue that Facebook did before I quit it.
posted by Foosnark at 6:19 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Instagram is sort of like that. Among those I follow, there are no spammy news and meme reposts, few to no ads, no groups. Instagram's way of "increasing engagement" is to try to recommend stuff to you, but most of that can be avoided too. Most of what's in my feed is cute pet pictures, with stuff that people have made that they're proud of in second place, and then nature photos and weird music gear and funny things that people saw. And it even seems to be in chronological order, more or less.
Because it's owned by Facebook, I'm sure there is something nefarious about it. Certainly it depends on how you use it; the "search" page is full of recommended content which includes a lot of branded stuff, models and questionable TikTok content and really lame psuedoscience/"positive thinking" memes and other garbage. But overall it doesn't generate constant rage and fatigue that Facebook did before I quit it.
posted by Foosnark at 6:19 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think Zuck harbors weapons of mass destruction. Cheney would say send in the Marines.
posted by nickggully at 6:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by nickggully at 6:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'd find it hard to quit first of all because I admin the neighborhood's FB group and also it's the only way to keep in touch with my photography friends.
posted by octothorpe at 6:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 6:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
I keep seeing shitty right-wing posts show up on my time-line because progressive friends of mine make outraged comments on them but that does more harm than good because it causes that shitty post to show up on all of their friends' time-lines.
This. I make sure I don't follow anyone who is a right-wing asshole on their own (so many people from high school...), but I have several friends who seem to spend a lot of time deliberately following right-wing stuff just to get into arguments, and, of course, FB makes sure I see those.
posted by briank at 6:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
This. I make sure I don't follow anyone who is a right-wing asshole on their own (so many people from high school...), but I have several friends who seem to spend a lot of time deliberately following right-wing stuff just to get into arguments, and, of course, FB makes sure I see those.
posted by briank at 6:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
I'm so happy that the evil and danger of Facebook is finally being more known (if frustrated at the slowness). I couldn't forgive them for their assistance to Trump being elected, but that's only one tiny data point in how bad they are for individuals and for society.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:35 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:35 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's going to be grim watching the cognitive dissonance of the Big Tech Silences Right Wing Voices! crowd as they are exposed to this information, which lays it pretty bare that those voices are in fact given wide latitude to say all kinds of dangerous, destructive, and demonstrably untrue things. I have 100% confidence this will change nothing for them, that they will somehow make this work for them within their circles. But it will be a matter of morbid curiosity to see how this is achieved.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:36 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 6:36 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Instagram is not so much a social app (or a photo sharing site) as a casino with sharing-photos-with-friends as bait. The timeline is an opaque algorithm, designed to never let you be sure you haven't missed a friend's important post/cool influencer's thirst-trap selfie/whatever and to keep you reloading. Also, there is no way to switch off autoplaying video, because they know that they can get away with it.
Worst of all, there is no fully functional web mode, so everything is controlled by the app which controls your experience; at least with Facebook, you can defang it slightly by using things like Friendly or Social Fixer. Instagram, being a post-web experience, encloses even that meagre part of the commons.
posted by acb at 6:45 AM on October 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
Worst of all, there is no fully functional web mode, so everything is controlled by the app which controls your experience; at least with Facebook, you can defang it slightly by using things like Friendly or Social Fixer. Instagram, being a post-web experience, encloses even that meagre part of the commons.
posted by acb at 6:45 AM on October 4, 2021 [21 favorites]
I closed down my FB account after the 2016 election. It was used to be a way for me to keep in touch with friends back home in Atlanta after I moved to Canada. And then somehow I thought it was a good idea to accept friend requests from high school friends, family members (Narrator: it was not a good idea), and it seemed that I was spending too much time trying to avoid ugly shit. So I nuked it, and a poster upthread is right, they do not make it easy to do that.
FB is so intrinsic and vital to online presence for businesses, podcasts, etc. I resent it for that. A couple of folks I support on Patreon have FB groups for fans and supporters to discuss the latest episode or similar, and I wish I could take part but I just can't bring myself to do so. I would love to chat with other Dirty Little Horror fans but I refuse to be back on FB to do that.
posted by Kitteh at 6:46 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
FB is so intrinsic and vital to online presence for businesses, podcasts, etc. I resent it for that. A couple of folks I support on Patreon have FB groups for fans and supporters to discuss the latest episode or similar, and I wish I could take part but I just can't bring myself to do so. I would love to chat with other Dirty Little Horror fans but I refuse to be back on FB to do that.
posted by Kitteh at 6:46 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
The problem is that the other 70% of the time I spend nuking the bullshit that desperately tries to creep in and overtake those simple pleasures is irritating.
There is a browser extension, Facebook Purity, that does this for you and I swear by them. It's free, the creator has come up with versions for every browser, and they regularly update it as Facebook makes changes to its own code that help push the unwanted content back onto user's feeds. It's highly customizeable - you not only can filter out annoying little things like "pokes" or solicitations to join games, you can also ask it to filter out notifications that a friend commented on a post, ask it to filter out those annoying goofy colored backgrounds on posts, and you can even ask it to filter out specific words or phrases (like, say your friend starts talking a LITTLE too much about potty-training their kid, you can filter out anything with the word "potty" in it and still get to see the OTHER posts your friend makes).
And perhaps most pleasing - Facebook does NOT like when people post about it on Facebook. I've tried linking to its web site in posts and in comments, and Facebook quite simply will not allow me to do so. It's the only time I've tried to post a link to something that Facebook will not allow.
I have it on my computer at home and it makes a HUUUUUGE difference. The most vocal groups on my own feed are my local Buy Nothing group, the Rancho Gordo group and this "Hygge Life" group, because FB Purity is filtering out all of the other gack. I don't even see ads.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2021 [41 favorites]
There is a browser extension, Facebook Purity, that does this for you and I swear by them. It's free, the creator has come up with versions for every browser, and they regularly update it as Facebook makes changes to its own code that help push the unwanted content back onto user's feeds. It's highly customizeable - you not only can filter out annoying little things like "pokes" or solicitations to join games, you can also ask it to filter out notifications that a friend commented on a post, ask it to filter out those annoying goofy colored backgrounds on posts, and you can even ask it to filter out specific words or phrases (like, say your friend starts talking a LITTLE too much about potty-training their kid, you can filter out anything with the word "potty" in it and still get to see the OTHER posts your friend makes).
And perhaps most pleasing - Facebook does NOT like when people post about it on Facebook. I've tried linking to its web site in posts and in comments, and Facebook quite simply will not allow me to do so. It's the only time I've tried to post a link to something that Facebook will not allow.
I have it on my computer at home and it makes a HUUUUUGE difference. The most vocal groups on my own feed are my local Buy Nothing group, the Rancho Gordo group and this "Hygge Life" group, because FB Purity is filtering out all of the other gack. I don't even see ads.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2021 [41 favorites]
What baffles me is that more viable alternatives haven't really survived the marketplace. Social media is clearly a thing that people want, so why can't you get a more humane way to see what Aunt Bertha and your local favorite brewery are up to?
Since a lot of us are on Facebook mostly to keep up with our non-tech-savvy relatives, we're not going to stop using Facebook unless we can get our non-tech-savvy relatives to use something else. And a lot of our non-tech-savvy relatives are the people who aren't going to learn a new social media site unless they absolutely have to. Every new wave of popular social media has been driven by early adopters - tech and journalism people on Twitter, influencers on Instagram, teenagers on TikTok. None of them has offered what Facebook offers people who don't want to learn a new social media site: it's familiar, and their friends are already there.
I think it's just really hard to find a good answer to the question "How do you get Aunt Bertha to abandon Facebook?" and even harder to find a good answer to the question "How do you get Aunt Bertha and her relatives and her church friends to all abandon Facebook?"
posted by Jeanne at 6:49 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
Since a lot of us are on Facebook mostly to keep up with our non-tech-savvy relatives, we're not going to stop using Facebook unless we can get our non-tech-savvy relatives to use something else. And a lot of our non-tech-savvy relatives are the people who aren't going to learn a new social media site unless they absolutely have to. Every new wave of popular social media has been driven by early adopters - tech and journalism people on Twitter, influencers on Instagram, teenagers on TikTok. None of them has offered what Facebook offers people who don't want to learn a new social media site: it's familiar, and their friends are already there.
I think it's just really hard to find a good answer to the question "How do you get Aunt Bertha to abandon Facebook?" and even harder to find a good answer to the question "How do you get Aunt Bertha and her relatives and her church friends to all abandon Facebook?"
posted by Jeanne at 6:49 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
The 30% of the time I spend reading FB is all vacation pics, baby photos, funny anecdotes shared by people I like, birthdays, anniversaries, and kids playing sports or making the honor roll. There are people I like being in touch with but may never actually see again IRL and FB is how I stay connected to them.
This is what Facebook seemed to me ten years ago, when I found it neutral at best, or perhaps even a small net positive for exactly the reasons you outline. Oh, hey, Ryan and Catherine have had a son, or Gemma has moved from Australia to Japan.
Now mostly it reminds me that I have known people who find it oppressive that they are being urged to take a free lifesaving pharmaceutical that can protect them and those around them from the worst pandemic in a century.
TL; dr — some of my friends need bigger problems.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is what Facebook seemed to me ten years ago, when I found it neutral at best, or perhaps even a small net positive for exactly the reasons you outline. Oh, hey, Ryan and Catherine have had a son, or Gemma has moved from Australia to Japan.
Now mostly it reminds me that I have known people who find it oppressive that they are being urged to take a free lifesaving pharmaceutical that can protect them and those around them from the worst pandemic in a century.
TL; dr — some of my friends need bigger problems.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:52 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
FB is so intrinsic and vital to online presence for businesses, podcasts, etc.
But...is it? All those places I see advertise/post on multiple platforms. I wish more people would forgo having a business page on FB. People know how to use the web, they will find you, is my view. I know it's it's tough economy out there now so not likely to happen - why remove yourself from a potential pool of customers? I hate it though.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:58 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
But...is it? All those places I see advertise/post on multiple platforms. I wish more people would forgo having a business page on FB. People know how to use the web, they will find you, is my view. I know it's it's tough economy out there now so not likely to happen - why remove yourself from a potential pool of customers? I hate it though.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:58 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Not to be all "I don't even own a tv", because I genuinely do understand why people need this platform, but I am really thankful that my social anxiety extended to social media and prevented me from ever being able to really engage with facebook.
posted by Think_Long at 7:01 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Think_Long at 7:01 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am really thankful that my social anxiety extended to social media and prevented me from ever being able to really engage with facebook
The one reason I keep FB is social anxiety. I manage my anxiety by keeping my social circle very small. Having a virtually extended circle of friends/family via Facebook is a nice way not to feel like a hermit, but still keep demands on me very low. I like knowing what friends from high school are up to, but I'd rather chew my own leg off than attend a reunion. I was pleased to see my cousin finished her nursing degree, but I do not have the strength to endure regular phone calls to keep up with this kind of thing. Let me know you and say hi occasionally, but please don't make me do stuff, call people, or go places. I am an anxious person and would rather stay home with my family and dog.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [27 favorites]
The one reason I keep FB is social anxiety. I manage my anxiety by keeping my social circle very small. Having a virtually extended circle of friends/family via Facebook is a nice way not to feel like a hermit, but still keep demands on me very low. I like knowing what friends from high school are up to, but I'd rather chew my own leg off than attend a reunion. I was pleased to see my cousin finished her nursing degree, but I do not have the strength to endure regular phone calls to keep up with this kind of thing. Let me know you and say hi occasionally, but please don't make me do stuff, call people, or go places. I am an anxious person and would rather stay home with my family and dog.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [27 favorites]
What baffles me is that more viable alternatives haven't really survived the marketplace. Social media is clearly a thing that people want, so why can't you get a more humane way to see what Aunt Bertha and your local favorite brewery are up to?
Because any time something appears that could be a threat to Facebook, Facebook responds by buying that threat out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [19 favorites]
Because any time something appears that could be a threat to Facebook, Facebook responds by buying that threat out.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [19 favorites]
It's funny- I've recently started getting a lot more "suggested for you" posts on my Facebook feed. For a while, they were really weird alt-right and libertarian memes and things, and I naturally blocked a bunch of them. Then, last week, I started getting a whole bunch of random super granola hippie posts and things.
Yeah- nice range finding exercise, guys.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:18 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Yeah- nice range finding exercise, guys.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:18 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
The viability of Instagram as a friendly photo alternative to Facebook is heavily, heavily dependent on your personal circle's adoption rate of that platform. Mostly all I get on Instagram is my my friend Chris's used record purchases and my sister-in-law pitching MLM yoga pants.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:20 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:20 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
On one hand I wish I wasn't on Instagram because it's money in Facebook's pocket, but on the other it's the only social media account I still have and it honestly works pretty well for me. I basically only follow people I know IRL (and vice-versa) and don't really do any searching or aimless browsing through it, so I post and see my friends' posts and that's about it. My circle of (middle-aged) friends on there is also not given to HASHTAG BLESSED-style aspirational posting (or much of anything political on any end of the ideological spectrum) that leads to the kind of anxiety it's seemingly designed to produce.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:20 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:20 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Have y'all ever drilled down in your Facebook ad settings to "Categories Used to Reach You/Interest Categories"?
That is some bananas stuff. I'm going to remove them all, as ever, but today's batch for me includes: Jason Voorhees, alpacas, Self magazine, Mork & Mindy, pavement (specifying that it's the building material, not the band), squids, the 2020 film version of Spider-Man, upholstery...
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:34 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
That is some bananas stuff. I'm going to remove them all, as ever, but today's batch for me includes: Jason Voorhees, alpacas, Self magazine, Mork & Mindy, pavement (specifying that it's the building material, not the band), squids, the 2020 film version of Spider-Man, upholstery...
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:34 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
I won’t engage with a group or business if Facebook is their only web presence.
Same. What's worse is the ones who now only use Instagram -- they don't even have telephones. "Message us through Instagram!" No thanks, I'll shop elsewhere.
FB is so intrinsic and vital to online presence for businesses, podcasts, etc.
For some, it is intrinsic -- but I'd argue against vital.
I run a (mostly records) store in Toronto. I make a very good living with it. It has never been on FB (I got rid of FB for personal use in 2017) and I killed Instagram sometime around summer 2020.
I also deleted Whatsapp so that I now am completely free of any Facebook-owned companies (that I know of).
At first, when I announced I was deleting Instagram, customers were upset and I estimated it would cost me about $700 a month to get rid of it. For the first few months I really felt it but then I found that those customers who used to engage with the business through Instagram came back because they missed my offerings and now I don't think I lose anything for not being on the service.
Now, I get many new customers who tell me they admire the fact that I don't use those services.
The only way to engage with my business is on my own website and my own phone number.
It absolutely is possible to have a thriving business without using social media. I encourage my fellow shop-owners to do it if they were thinking it impossible but were feeling guilty for supporting those companies.
posted by dobbs at 7:39 AM on October 4, 2021 [38 favorites]
Same. What's worse is the ones who now only use Instagram -- they don't even have telephones. "Message us through Instagram!" No thanks, I'll shop elsewhere.
FB is so intrinsic and vital to online presence for businesses, podcasts, etc.
For some, it is intrinsic -- but I'd argue against vital.
I run a (mostly records) store in Toronto. I make a very good living with it. It has never been on FB (I got rid of FB for personal use in 2017) and I killed Instagram sometime around summer 2020.
I also deleted Whatsapp so that I now am completely free of any Facebook-owned companies (that I know of).
At first, when I announced I was deleting Instagram, customers were upset and I estimated it would cost me about $700 a month to get rid of it. For the first few months I really felt it but then I found that those customers who used to engage with the business through Instagram came back because they missed my offerings and now I don't think I lose anything for not being on the service.
Now, I get many new customers who tell me they admire the fact that I don't use those services.
The only way to engage with my business is on my own website and my own phone number.
It absolutely is possible to have a thriving business without using social media. I encourage my fellow shop-owners to do it if they were thinking it impossible but were feeling guilty for supporting those companies.
posted by dobbs at 7:39 AM on October 4, 2021 [38 favorites]
It absolutely is possible to have a thriving business without using social media.
You run a store that literally sells already used versions of an outdated technology, you can see how the market for something a little more au courant might be elsewhere, yeah? It is possible to have some kinds of thriving business that will reach some kinds of audiences without using social media. It is not necessarily possible for all businesses and all audiences.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
You run a store that literally sells already used versions of an outdated technology, you can see how the market for something a little more au courant might be elsewhere, yeah? It is possible to have some kinds of thriving business that will reach some kinds of audiences without using social media. It is not necessarily possible for all businesses and all audiences.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [22 favorites]
...but I am really thankful that my social anxiety extended to social media and prevented me from ever being able to really engage with facebook.
Also I should clarify that I am a heavy instagram user (just for following), so I am by no means clear of the beast.
posted by Think_Long at 7:49 AM on October 4, 2021
Also I should clarify that I am a heavy instagram user (just for following), so I am by no means clear of the beast.
posted by Think_Long at 7:49 AM on October 4, 2021
Because any time something appears that could be a threat to Facebook, Facebook responds by buying that threat out.
Yep, this is really the answer right here. There have been FB competitors over the years, but Zuck has been very aggressive about buying them up before they become a serious threat.
Instagram was really the biggest, and the one that should get the most scrutiny, because it was the closest to direct competition and was very close to explosive / "hockey-stick" growth when it was bought. I remember getting an email from my parents in early 2012 asking "so what's this Instagram thing I keep hearing about?" and before I could get back to them, I saw it had been bought out by FB.
IMO, this is where the regulatory agencies should have stepped in, and still could. Micromanaging how Facebook moderates discussion threads or whatever is a waste of time and probably a futile effort; strong whiffs of Titanic deck-chair-rearrangement. What we need to do is keep them from killing off any attempt at competition, and let the market do what it does and figure out what people actually want from social media, which is not something I think we can necessarily determine a priori (and shouldn't be just a single answer anyway).
Recently, there seems to have been a spate of startups aimed at doing nothing but competing with Facebook in one aspect or another, and then getting bought by Facebook. Which I guess is nice work if you can find it, but it just seems like another way in which FB has warped the entire social-media ecosystem very deeply.
Personally I'm surprised they haven't gone after Imgur yet.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Yep, this is really the answer right here. There have been FB competitors over the years, but Zuck has been very aggressive about buying them up before they become a serious threat.
Instagram was really the biggest, and the one that should get the most scrutiny, because it was the closest to direct competition and was very close to explosive / "hockey-stick" growth when it was bought. I remember getting an email from my parents in early 2012 asking "so what's this Instagram thing I keep hearing about?" and before I could get back to them, I saw it had been bought out by FB.
IMO, this is where the regulatory agencies should have stepped in, and still could. Micromanaging how Facebook moderates discussion threads or whatever is a waste of time and probably a futile effort; strong whiffs of Titanic deck-chair-rearrangement. What we need to do is keep them from killing off any attempt at competition, and let the market do what it does and figure out what people actually want from social media, which is not something I think we can necessarily determine a priori (and shouldn't be just a single answer anyway).
Recently, there seems to have been a spate of startups aimed at doing nothing but competing with Facebook in one aspect or another, and then getting bought by Facebook. Which I guess is nice work if you can find it, but it just seems like another way in which FB has warped the entire social-media ecosystem very deeply.
Personally I'm surprised they haven't gone after Imgur yet.
posted by Kadin2048 at 8:04 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
But...is it? All those places I see advertise/post on multiple platforms. I wish more people would forgo having a business page on FB. People know how to use the web, they will find you, is my view. I know it's it's tough economy out there now so not likely to happen - why remove yourself from a potential pool of customers? I hate it though
Well, FB is the most familiar and accessible social platform site for tons of businesses as well as podcasts, and I don't think I am an outlier in that most things I enjoy begrudgingly encourage you to discuss whatever episode (podcast) that has recently aired with other fans in their FB Group. I know that some friends who have their own businesses who run on that sort of contact would like to shift to Discord but then they have to field folks who don't know what that is, or why they should shift to it to have discussions.
I know it's unreasonable, but I get so irritated when you look for a local business and their "website" is their FB page.
posted by Kitteh at 8:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Well, FB is the most familiar and accessible social platform site for tons of businesses as well as podcasts, and I don't think I am an outlier in that most things I enjoy begrudgingly encourage you to discuss whatever episode (podcast) that has recently aired with other fans in their FB Group. I know that some friends who have their own businesses who run on that sort of contact would like to shift to Discord but then they have to field folks who don't know what that is, or why they should shift to it to have discussions.
I know it's unreasonable, but I get so irritated when you look for a local business and their "website" is their FB page.
posted by Kitteh at 8:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Here's a transcript / text interview version of the 60 Minutes broadcast: Whistleblower: Facebook is misleading the public on progress against hate speech, violence, misinformation. I love how clear this statement is at the center of it.
The real remedy is systemic change. In the meantime, personal change is good at least for the person.
posted by Nelson at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
When we live in an information environment that is full of angry, hateful, polarizing content it erodes our civic trust, it erodes our faith in each other, it erodes our ability to want to care for each other, the version of Facebook that exists today is tearing our societies apart and causing ethnic violence around the world.In the last Facebook thread I wrote a lot about how I feel captive to Facebook and can't quit it entirely. But I've scaled back my engagement a whole lot, mostly by just not logging in and doomscrolling or engaging with stuff. FB Purity also helps; of the various content blocking options it seems to work best for me. I'm seeing much more just personal updates from friends and fewer ads, suggested posts, and divisive bullshit.
... And one of the consequences of how Facebook is picking out that content today is it is -- optimizing for content that gets engagement, or reaction. But its own research is showing that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarizing, it's easier to inspire people to anger than it is to other emotions
The real remedy is systemic change. In the meantime, personal change is good at least for the person.
posted by Nelson at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Also, I am not free of sin. IG is still my preferred social media outlet but I aggressively prune things to make sure I am having my optimal experience.
I also keep my accounts locked. Life is too short to see how shitty people can be if your profile is public. I kept it public for years, and again, after the Great Election Disaster of 2016, I was like, "Fuck it, I am locking this."
posted by Kitteh at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I also keep my accounts locked. Life is too short to see how shitty people can be if your profile is public. I kept it public for years, and again, after the Great Election Disaster of 2016, I was like, "Fuck it, I am locking this."
posted by Kitteh at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I keep my FB account locked down and only access it via an incognito tab and deleted the app. Same with Instagram.
posted by octothorpe at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'll admit to using Instagram quite heavily but hating Facebook and having deleted the latter account quite a while ago (pre-2016). The two apps seem to have very different philosophies - Facebook is a product of the Web 2.0 "increase engagement at all costs" era, while Instagram was borne from the "secret cool club" era.
Basically Facebook makes it super easy to share stuff, and constantly tries to show you what your friends are saying and liking and sends you constant suggestions. This allows people who spend too much time on Facebook to take over your feed and eventually drown everyone else. People who spend the most time on social media are unlikely to be the most well-adjusted people.
Once your feed is useless, you're going to spend less time on Facebook. Thus the loud people get sucked into a world where they only get positive feedback from other loud people. Everyone else has checked out.
Instagram has an emphasis on posts, and Instagram posts are more work than anything else on Facebook. There isn't an easy way to share links or have text posts. Instagram doesn't show comment sections by default or show you what your followers are doing. Only recently they added recommendations in the feed - but quite opaquely. You're even encouraged to make separate accounts that hide your identity (not from Facebook but from other users).
posted by meowzilla at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2021
Basically Facebook makes it super easy to share stuff, and constantly tries to show you what your friends are saying and liking and sends you constant suggestions. This allows people who spend too much time on Facebook to take over your feed and eventually drown everyone else. People who spend the most time on social media are unlikely to be the most well-adjusted people.
Once your feed is useless, you're going to spend less time on Facebook. Thus the loud people get sucked into a world where they only get positive feedback from other loud people. Everyone else has checked out.
Instagram has an emphasis on posts, and Instagram posts are more work than anything else on Facebook. There isn't an easy way to share links or have text posts. Instagram doesn't show comment sections by default or show you what your followers are doing. Only recently they added recommendations in the feed - but quite opaquely. You're even encouraged to make separate accounts that hide your identity (not from Facebook but from other users).
posted by meowzilla at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2021
I'd find it hard to quit first of all because I admin the neighborhood's FB group and also it's the only way to keep in touch with my photography friends.
This.
I’ve noticed that Facebook is a least-common-denominator (in a neutral way) for sharing things on the internet. I race cyclocross. A lot of information about the races (announcements of events, changes, etc.), some light planning (“who’s bringing the team tent” and “who’s bringing the beer”), etc. It’s the hub for post race pics and discussion. I love scrolling on Monday morning to see all the podium pics.
Could this be achieved through other mediums, like email and blogs? Sure. But those are a lot more trouble, and you’d have to seek each one out.
I can say the same about my daughter’s marching band (how I got to see video of their competition this weekend), or friends and family spread around the country.
This fills a niche, one I submit the Internet could always fill. But, as with anything, the capitalistic need for growth year over year means that they have to create a revenue stream and drive growth. Unfortunately, they found a great way to “increase engagement” with divisive politics.
this is why we can’t have nice things. Or even just OK ones.
posted by MrGuilt at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
This.
I’ve noticed that Facebook is a least-common-denominator (in a neutral way) for sharing things on the internet. I race cyclocross. A lot of information about the races (announcements of events, changes, etc.), some light planning (“who’s bringing the team tent” and “who’s bringing the beer”), etc. It’s the hub for post race pics and discussion. I love scrolling on Monday morning to see all the podium pics.
Could this be achieved through other mediums, like email and blogs? Sure. But those are a lot more trouble, and you’d have to seek each one out.
I can say the same about my daughter’s marching band (how I got to see video of their competition this weekend), or friends and family spread around the country.
This fills a niche, one I submit the Internet could always fill. But, as with anything, the capitalistic need for growth year over year means that they have to create a revenue stream and drive growth. Unfortunately, they found a great way to “increase engagement” with divisive politics.
this is why we can’t have nice things. Or even just OK ones.
posted by MrGuilt at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
The problem is that the other 70% of the time I spend nuking the bullshit that desperately tries to creep in and overtake those simple pleasures is irritating.
It may be that from FB's point of view, all that time you spend hiding stuff is just another form of engagement. And engagement is their ultimate goal, by hook or by crook.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:56 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
It may be that from FB's point of view, all that time you spend hiding stuff is just another form of engagement. And engagement is their ultimate goal, by hook or by crook.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:56 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
It's going to be grim watching the cognitive dissonance of the Big Tech Silences Right Wing Voices! crowd as they are exposed to this information, which lays it pretty bare that those voices are in fact given wide latitude to say all kinds of dangerous, destructive, and demonstrably untrue things.
Those people are experts at ignoring information that contradicts their beliefs. So this won't trouble them at all.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [13 favorites]
Those people are experts at ignoring information that contradicts their beliefs. So this won't trouble them at all.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [13 favorites]
I am an old guy so I just never got around to caring about FB. I actively avoid them, FB, Insta, WhatsApp, etc. But, I recognize they are a private company. They have their policies and standards and I have mine. Turns out they don't intersect. But, that is probably for different reasons most here don't like FB.
It appears to me that this "whistleblower" is pro-censorship. She is advocating for a central authority that should censor things. FB should censor more. I happen to believe in free speech and less censorship is needed. I get that there are scary people out there putting out BS that may even be dangerous. This has always been true. It is just now on social media.
It is a very slippery slope when the government starts demanding censorship or, quite frankly, one side or one party or another. Saying the collective "good" is more important than individual rights is the battle cry of authoritative regimes.
Now if you are saying a private business like FB should not be facilitating or inciting mayhem, ok, but at what cost? To me, not at the cost of free speech. As a private business, FB can censor whatever it wants. It is their choice, not the governments or some political party or one point of view. Just be careful because one day they might censor what you want to say.
posted by AugustWest at 9:00 AM on October 4, 2021
It appears to me that this "whistleblower" is pro-censorship. She is advocating for a central authority that should censor things. FB should censor more. I happen to believe in free speech and less censorship is needed. I get that there are scary people out there putting out BS that may even be dangerous. This has always been true. It is just now on social media.
It is a very slippery slope when the government starts demanding censorship or, quite frankly, one side or one party or another. Saying the collective "good" is more important than individual rights is the battle cry of authoritative regimes.
Now if you are saying a private business like FB should not be facilitating or inciting mayhem, ok, but at what cost? To me, not at the cost of free speech. As a private business, FB can censor whatever it wants. It is their choice, not the governments or some political party or one point of view. Just be careful because one day they might censor what you want to say.
posted by AugustWest at 9:00 AM on October 4, 2021
Facebook and Instagram both seem to be down right now. Ordinarily I would just shrug and go about my day when this happens, but the timing seems very intriguing in this instance....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2021 [29 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2021 [29 favorites]
They are a private company. There is no expectation of free speech on their platform.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
People have more places to say what they want than at any time in human history.
Free speech will survive even if people can't post Nazi stuff or revenge porn on Facebook.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
Free speech will survive even if people can't post Nazi stuff or revenge porn on Facebook.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
AugustWest, as a non-FB user, you may not be familiar with how FB, YouTube, and similar social media sites work. They aren't just neutral pipelines carrying information between users. They actively promote certain content that they believe will lead to greater user engagement -- i.e., stuff that will keep people on the site longer.
And it's been shown that very often, they deliberately promote false and dangerous content, because it grabs people's attention. This has included content encouraging eating disorders, racism, terrorist violence, lies about vaccines, fake COVID cures, and other incredibly harmful stuff.
So this is not about "free speech". As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes memorably put it a century ago, the right to free speech does not include the right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:10 AM on October 4, 2021 [43 favorites]
And it's been shown that very often, they deliberately promote false and dangerous content, because it grabs people's attention. This has included content encouraging eating disorders, racism, terrorist violence, lies about vaccines, fake COVID cures, and other incredibly harmful stuff.
So this is not about "free speech". As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes memorably put it a century ago, the right to free speech does not include the right to falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:10 AM on October 4, 2021 [43 favorites]
Ironically, while all this conversation is happening, FaceBook itself seems to have gone offline.....
posted by Paladin1138 at 9:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by Paladin1138 at 9:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
I'm happy and a little smug that I never joined or followed FB, Twitter, or its cousins. But I have to confess that Mrs C is on FB (she possesses the wisdom and self-control that I do not) so I still get the latest news from family and friends second-hand.
There is no doubt in my mind that Facebook has been valuable and appreciated by many people for maintaining connections with actual friends, family, interest groups. Even my 87 yr old mom uses it to follow the great-grandkids. Most of its perils come from people using FB for FB's sake - having FB "friends" that you'll never meet, doomscrolling, etc.
While I don't think that Facebook is blameless, and people can often be awful, I have a bigger problem with the political and lobbying groups who have figured out how to game and exploit the FB system, to push controversial and aggravating stuff on users. And to mine the user base info.
Could they not implement some reasonable AI or manual identification and tagging of content - the most obvious one being politics? One setting and you no longer get any content tagged "political"? Or perhaps something more granular like "block anything from Uncle Phil that's tagged political".
posted by Artful Codger at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2021
There is no doubt in my mind that Facebook has been valuable and appreciated by many people for maintaining connections with actual friends, family, interest groups. Even my 87 yr old mom uses it to follow the great-grandkids. Most of its perils come from people using FB for FB's sake - having FB "friends" that you'll never meet, doomscrolling, etc.
While I don't think that Facebook is blameless, and people can often be awful, I have a bigger problem with the political and lobbying groups who have figured out how to game and exploit the FB system, to push controversial and aggravating stuff on users. And to mine the user base info.
Could they not implement some reasonable AI or manual identification and tagging of content - the most obvious one being politics? One setting and you no longer get any content tagged "political"? Or perhaps something more granular like "block anything from Uncle Phil that's tagged political".
posted by Artful Codger at 9:18 AM on October 4, 2021
Now if you are saying a private business like FB should not be facilitating or inciting mayhem, ok, but at what cost? To me, not at the cost of free speech. As a private business, FB can censor whatever it wants. It is their choice, not the governments or some political party or one point of view. Just be careful because one day they might censor what you want to say.
Speaking as another fan of free speech - this isn't what's at issue.
Artifice_Eternity used Oliver Wendell Holmes analogy of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. What the whistleblower on Facebook is saying is even worse - that Facebook is not just saying that we should be able to do so, but that the only reason they say that is because they happen to own a super-duper product that would prevent you from being trampled by a panicky mob. And the more people shouting "fire" in crowded theaters, the more Trampl-Gard's they sell, so....hey, let's make it easier for people to shout "fire" in crowded theaters!
Is that "Free Speech" or is that manipulating the public?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
Speaking as another fan of free speech - this isn't what's at issue.
Artifice_Eternity used Oliver Wendell Holmes analogy of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. What the whistleblower on Facebook is saying is even worse - that Facebook is not just saying that we should be able to do so, but that the only reason they say that is because they happen to own a super-duper product that would prevent you from being trampled by a panicky mob. And the more people shouting "fire" in crowded theaters, the more Trampl-Gard's they sell, so....hey, let's make it easier for people to shout "fire" in crowded theaters!
Is that "Free Speech" or is that manipulating the public?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
FaceBook itself seems to have gone offline.....
it certainly is for me. Which forced me to call and speak to someone I haven't spoke to in ages. One of those people who does their worst/best to avoid all voice interactions ... for whatever reason.
We just had a good talk.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
it certainly is for me. Which forced me to call and speak to someone I haven't spoke to in ages. One of those people who does their worst/best to avoid all voice interactions ... for whatever reason.
We just had a good talk.
posted by philip-random at 9:23 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
You run a store that literally sells already used versions of an outdated technology, you can see how the market for something a little more au courant might be elsewhere, yeah?
Wrong, and no.
It is possible to have some kinds of thriving business that will reach some kinds of audiences without using social media. It is not necessarily possible for all businesses and all audiences
I've worked retail for more than almost 40 years. My experience agrees with nothing you stated here.
What you're saying is the equivalent of people who claim they can't leave Facebook because how would they keep in touch with such-and-such when what they really mean is that keeping in touch with such-and-such would be less convenient. Those are not the same thing.
I used the same rationalization for staying on FB and Instagram as long as I did. But as someone who left the platforms, I can tell you the fear has not borne out.
People can live without Facebook. The world was fine (better!) before it existed. Yes, it can be less convenient, but if convenience is your guiding star, you're screwed!
If a business offers a truly useful service or product, a lack of social media isn't going to stop them from being successful. There is still word of mouth and it is just as powerful as Instagram for small businesses.
When I left Whatsapp I lost touch with many people -- most from developing places who use Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger exclusively because they're free. However, as the months pass, more and more of those people are finding other ways to get in touch (Signal, Telegram, email, post!). The faster people leave FB and Instagram, the faster that conversion will take place on the whole. This is precisely why FB is trying to get its fingers into so many platforms -- so that it will get to a point where leaving them seems impossible.
posted by dobbs at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Wrong, and no.
It is possible to have some kinds of thriving business that will reach some kinds of audiences without using social media. It is not necessarily possible for all businesses and all audiences
I've worked retail for more than almost 40 years. My experience agrees with nothing you stated here.
What you're saying is the equivalent of people who claim they can't leave Facebook because how would they keep in touch with such-and-such when what they really mean is that keeping in touch with such-and-such would be less convenient. Those are not the same thing.
I used the same rationalization for staying on FB and Instagram as long as I did. But as someone who left the platforms, I can tell you the fear has not borne out.
People can live without Facebook. The world was fine (better!) before it existed. Yes, it can be less convenient, but if convenience is your guiding star, you're screwed!
If a business offers a truly useful service or product, a lack of social media isn't going to stop them from being successful. There is still word of mouth and it is just as powerful as Instagram for small businesses.
When I left Whatsapp I lost touch with many people -- most from developing places who use Whatsapp and Facebook Messenger exclusively because they're free. However, as the months pass, more and more of those people are finding other ways to get in touch (Signal, Telegram, email, post!). The faster people leave FB and Instagram, the faster that conversion will take place on the whole. This is precisely why FB is trying to get its fingers into so many platforms -- so that it will get to a point where leaving them seems impossible.
posted by dobbs at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Now if you are saying a private business like FB should not be facilitating or inciting mayhem, ok, but at what cost? To me, not at the cost of free speech.
There is a staggeringly common misconception that "free speech" means private companies are somehow obligated to provide a free platform for anyone to say anything they want, and to force other people to be a captive audience to it.
Facebook is no more obligated to let people share harmful misinformation or hate speech than the local karaoke lounge is obligated to let me sing this song sixteen times in a row while wearing only a see-through rain poncho printed with Andrea Dworkin quotes.
posted by armeowda at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [29 favorites]
There is a staggeringly common misconception that "free speech" means private companies are somehow obligated to provide a free platform for anyone to say anything they want, and to force other people to be a captive audience to it.
Facebook is no more obligated to let people share harmful misinformation or hate speech than the local karaoke lounge is obligated to let me sing this song sixteen times in a row while wearing only a see-through rain poncho printed with Andrea Dworkin quotes.
posted by armeowda at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [29 favorites]
Far too early to know what's going on but Facebook is down, along with Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Oculus VR. It appears their DNS records are all broken. That's a common failure for tech sites and one of the few things that can bring down an entire set of multi-homed products with a single failure. OTOH it's also a well known type of failure and I'd think Facebook would be on top of it.
Or it might be BGP. it would appear that all of whatsapp 's and facebook 's authoritative DNS servers have been withdrawn from the BGP DFZ.... That points to possible deliberate sabotage; BGP is a notorious weakness in the Internet infrastructure. Then again could just be a simple mistake.
That tweet is dated 8:55am California time. It's been down for 33 minutes now. That's an eternity for a product like theirs.
posted by Nelson at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
Or it might be BGP. it would appear that all of whatsapp 's and facebook 's authoritative DNS servers have been withdrawn from the BGP DFZ.... That points to possible deliberate sabotage; BGP is a notorious weakness in the Internet infrastructure. Then again could just be a simple mistake.
That tweet is dated 8:55am California time. It's been down for 33 minutes now. That's an eternity for a product like theirs.
posted by Nelson at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
Wow, I had an acquaintance with Frances in school, when we worked on some group projects. Massive respect for doing what she did. As for Facebook, color me unsurprised.
posted by q*ben at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by q*ben at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
In yet another another instance of a proud MeFi tradition, I have rewritten Martin Niemöller for this occasion:
First there were posts by fascists, and we did not delete them—because doing that felt fascist
Then there were posts by Nazis, and we did not delete them— because that felt like what a Nazi would do, plus those things drive engagement, so...
Then there were posts literally calling for the violent overthrow of the government, and we did not delete them—because "marketplace of ideas" or some shit, plus, y'know: they monetized well
Then the entire fucking US of A turned into a fascist hellscape—and the new reich said I couldn't post anymore
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
First there were posts by fascists, and we did not delete them—because doing that felt fascist
Then there were posts by Nazis, and we did not delete them— because that felt like what a Nazi would do, plus those things drive engagement, so...
Then there were posts literally calling for the violent overthrow of the government, and we did not delete them—because "marketplace of ideas" or some shit, plus, y'know: they monetized well
Then the entire fucking US of A turned into a fascist hellscape—and the new reich said I couldn't post anymore
posted by DirtyOldTown at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
I deleted the FB app from my phone which cut my usage by about 75%. I was there because it was convenient to press one button while spacing out in line at the grocery store or whatever. I even deleted the bookmark in my browser, so now I have to type in FA... for the thing to auto-fill. It's amazing how much more "out of mind" FB is when there's no single click to get there.
I have unfriended anyone/everyone with garbage content (wasn't that many, thankfully). I mostly use it as a messaging app for my weekly D&D group. And most content I get is from family and some friends (baby/kid pics, vacation pics, birthday wishes, holiday greetings, interesting or funny links, neighborhood/community updates, etc). The bulk of sponsored stuff I get is cheap clothing and stuff like technical underwear, belts, printed T shirts and dumb little gadgets (??? but I'm a cis-het man, maybe this is what works for my algo). Most of my old FB people have just stopped posting stuff regularly. What I'm saying is my feed has become "mostly harmless." Yes, I'm still Part of the Problem. But it's a different experience for me than it was eight years ago. I was pretty hooked and posted a LOT of content, mostly interesting/funny links (often things I found on the Blue).
And YES. In my experience—especially when I was freelancing—FB was the most used and critical way for me to get job/project leads and keep in touch with business stuff. I even ended up with my highest ever paying job from a FB message from an old co-worker. It lead to a five year stint where I made more money than I had ever before in my life. No résumé, no formal interview. I was brought in through a guy via FB and ended up freelancing for a few years and then going full time. All via FB. And that's just one instance where FB got me high paying gigs. Granted, this was ten years ago. (I'm no longer in that career and that aspect of FB is mostly irrelevant to me now, just putting this out there. Also, don't get me started on the vapid garbage that is LinkedIn... Depending on the industry, FB can or could be critical)
I'd like to cut it off completely. But it's convenient for D&D and we had to go through a whole tech-learning process to take our games online for Covid and switching to another platform just for messaging seems like a hurdle we aren't into jumping.
Maybe I'm just lucky in the small amounts of trash I had in my feed. I'm still there. But perhaps try the tips I put in my first paragraph? I'm at a place with FB where I'm generally comfortable, even though the whole thing stinks.
posted by SoberHighland at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I have unfriended anyone/everyone with garbage content (wasn't that many, thankfully). I mostly use it as a messaging app for my weekly D&D group. And most content I get is from family and some friends (baby/kid pics, vacation pics, birthday wishes, holiday greetings, interesting or funny links, neighborhood/community updates, etc). The bulk of sponsored stuff I get is cheap clothing and stuff like technical underwear, belts, printed T shirts and dumb little gadgets (??? but I'm a cis-het man, maybe this is what works for my algo). Most of my old FB people have just stopped posting stuff regularly. What I'm saying is my feed has become "mostly harmless." Yes, I'm still Part of the Problem. But it's a different experience for me than it was eight years ago. I was pretty hooked and posted a LOT of content, mostly interesting/funny links (often things I found on the Blue).
And YES. In my experience—especially when I was freelancing—FB was the most used and critical way for me to get job/project leads and keep in touch with business stuff. I even ended up with my highest ever paying job from a FB message from an old co-worker. It lead to a five year stint where I made more money than I had ever before in my life. No résumé, no formal interview. I was brought in through a guy via FB and ended up freelancing for a few years and then going full time. All via FB. And that's just one instance where FB got me high paying gigs. Granted, this was ten years ago. (I'm no longer in that career and that aspect of FB is mostly irrelevant to me now, just putting this out there. Also, don't get me started on the vapid garbage that is LinkedIn... Depending on the industry, FB can or could be critical)
I'd like to cut it off completely. But it's convenient for D&D and we had to go through a whole tech-learning process to take our games online for Covid and switching to another platform just for messaging seems like a hurdle we aren't into jumping.
Maybe I'm just lucky in the small amounts of trash I had in my feed. I'm still there. But perhaps try the tips I put in my first paragraph? I'm at a place with FB where I'm generally comfortable, even though the whole thing stinks.
posted by SoberHighland at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I wonder how much money FB loses per minute when all of their services are down.
posted by gwint at 9:31 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by gwint at 9:31 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
According to Techcrunch, the issue right now with Facebook is a DNS issue - and it strikes me that, isn't this how Anonymous tackles things? I wonder.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:32 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:32 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
You guys started talking all mean about FB, and now look what happened!! (attach five crying/laughing emoticons in a row)
posted by gimonca at 9:35 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 9:35 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
It appears to me that this "whistleblower" is pro-censorship. She is advocating for a central authority that should censor things. FB should censor more. I happen to believe in free speech and less censorship is needed. I get that there are scary people out there putting out BS that may even be dangerous. This has always been true. It is just now on social media.
It is a very slippery slope when the government starts demanding censorship or, quite frankly, one side or one party or another. Saying the collective "good" is more important than individual rights is the battle cry of authoritative regimes.
It's interesting that while you complain about the opposition appealing to "the greater good", you do the exact same thing in arguing that people should tolerate abuse in the name of "free speech".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
It is a very slippery slope when the government starts demanding censorship or, quite frankly, one side or one party or another. Saying the collective "good" is more important than individual rights is the battle cry of authoritative regimes.
It's interesting that while you complain about the opposition appealing to "the greater good", you do the exact same thing in arguing that people should tolerate abuse in the name of "free speech".
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
so basically a pillar of the economy is down and we should prepare for pandemonium ? You know since the modern economy is so dependent on facebook to operate. I need some guidance on how much to panic right now.
posted by some loser at 9:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by some loser at 9:43 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Don't be thinking that FB and other major social media presences don't keep an eye on this site and have damage control responders at the ready with page-worn guide books on how to confuse and fragment opposition. "Censoring Facebook is fascism!" is one of the dog-eared pages.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Your panic level should be proportional to the average number of "new notifications" you have every time you log in (to FB).
posted by achrise at 9:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by achrise at 9:47 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I need some guidance on how much to panic right now.
With everything *waves hand* going on, my thought is that (a) the apocalypse is occurring and (b) it is a slow-motion thing in general. My decision on what to panic about is related to how much it feels like it will cause the apocalypse to speed up; this feels rather small on that scale. But it also seems that everyone's apocalypse is personal, so YMMV.
posted by nubs at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
With everything *waves hand* going on, my thought is that (a) the apocalypse is occurring and (b) it is a slow-motion thing in general. My decision on what to panic about is related to how much it feels like it will cause the apocalypse to speed up; this feels rather small on that scale. But it also seems that everyone's apocalypse is personal, so YMMV.
posted by nubs at 9:52 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
There is a staggeringly common misconception that "free speech" means private companies are somehow obligated to provide a free platform for anyone to say anything they want, and to force other people to be a captive audience to it.
It's not a misconception, it's part of the philosophy of free speech "absolutism". Look at Matthew Prince's infamous rant from when he finally gave The Daily Stormer the boot from CloudFlare, where he literally argued that free speech obliged him to work with Nazis - they genuinely believe that free speech means giving fascists a seat at the table. And when you point out that letting Nazis push their poison has victims who are being harmed, you get "greater good" arguments about how that harm is the price of free speech.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:53 AM on October 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
It's not a misconception, it's part of the philosophy of free speech "absolutism". Look at Matthew Prince's infamous rant from when he finally gave The Daily Stormer the boot from CloudFlare, where he literally argued that free speech obliged him to work with Nazis - they genuinely believe that free speech means giving fascists a seat at the table. And when you point out that letting Nazis push their poison has victims who are being harmed, you get "greater good" arguments about how that harm is the price of free speech.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:53 AM on October 4, 2021 [16 favorites]
It is a very slippery slope when the government starts demanding censorship
This argument has been well examined over the past few years, it's worth reading more about it to have a more nuanced view. Anyway, in this case this isn't someone advocating censorship.
Facebook is deliberately promoting politically divisive content. (Often in America, propaganda created by enemies of the United States to exploit Facebook to harm our civil society.) Facebook is choosing to show harmful content because it makes them more money. In this case the remedy isn't in stopping bad speech, it's in stopping a profit driven company going out of their way to promote it.
posted by Nelson at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [25 favorites]
This argument has been well examined over the past few years, it's worth reading more about it to have a more nuanced view. Anyway, in this case this isn't someone advocating censorship.
Facebook is deliberately promoting politically divisive content. (Often in America, propaganda created by enemies of the United States to exploit Facebook to harm our civil society.) Facebook is choosing to show harmful content because it makes them more money. In this case the remedy isn't in stopping bad speech, it's in stopping a profit driven company going out of their way to promote it.
posted by Nelson at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [25 favorites]
It's worth thinking about, also, that this would not be happening if Trump had won (or seized power). FB very obviously threw their lot in with the redcaps and now that the regime has changed, it's time for payback. You do not back the party that lost and think the party that won will just tip their hat and say "jolly good game, what? Next week same time?"
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:04 AM on October 4, 2021
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:04 AM on October 4, 2021
Saying the collective "good" is more important than individual rights is the battle cry of authoritative regimes.
Not so much, actually. Authoritarian (I assume you meant?) regimes tend to lean on the good of the country/fatherland. There is a recognition in both messaging and practice that this excludes or is directly opposed to the good of some portions of the collective.
posted by eviemath at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Not so much, actually. Authoritarian (I assume you meant?) regimes tend to lean on the good of the country/fatherland. There is a recognition in both messaging and practice that this excludes or is directly opposed to the good of some portions of the collective.
posted by eviemath at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I treat my FB account as 1. a way only to keep track of family and friends back home, and 2. as game to see how little I can be monetarized. I actively go out of my way as a mindless pastime game to block each advertiser by hand, block the use of every advertising list I appear on, remove each new "interest category" it assigns to me (several thousand at this point!) - all with the benefit that if you do it enough (especially blocking ads) it occasionally seems to stop the ads for a few weeks at a time on the mobile app. I'm sure they still make money on me - but hopefully less.
That and I like to tell people the hot new social media platform is Binky (as seen on Metafilter™). Re-bink this if you enjoyed!
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
That and I like to tell people the hot new social media platform is Binky (as seen on Metafilter™). Re-bink this if you enjoyed!
posted by inflatablekiwi at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I haven't logged into my Facebook account since 2019, but I keep forgetting to just unplug the damn thing. I was all ready to do that today after reading an article on the 60 Minutes episode, and then Facebook went down.
But, regarding getting your older relatives off Facebook, I can honestly tell you that since my mother joined Facebook a few years ago, it has been a net negative in our relationship. She knows I don't use it, yet she still tries to send me pro-Trump posts and anti-vaxx conspiracy videos she found in whatever dubious groups she follows. She is someone of absolute conviction and has little online literacy; the kind of garbage Facebook lines up in front of her only sends her further down the Q-hole.
I don't know what it would take to get her to quit. But I only interact with her by phone now.
posted by TheKaijuCommuter at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
But, regarding getting your older relatives off Facebook, I can honestly tell you that since my mother joined Facebook a few years ago, it has been a net negative in our relationship. She knows I don't use it, yet she still tries to send me pro-Trump posts and anti-vaxx conspiracy videos she found in whatever dubious groups she follows. She is someone of absolute conviction and has little online literacy; the kind of garbage Facebook lines up in front of her only sends her further down the Q-hole.
I don't know what it would take to get her to quit. But I only interact with her by phone now.
posted by TheKaijuCommuter at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
There was a scene from Chernobyl where a guy is talking a boy through the trauma of just having killed a creature. He says something to the effect of, "You kill someone, or in your case something, and you think, 'I'll never be the same again, this is it'. Then you wake up the next morning, still you, and realize that was you all along."
The government has been policing lefty speech by repressing protests since before anti-Vietnam war stuff. They did it to Occupy, they did it to BLM, and so on. God only knows what alphabet soup does now to these movements on the left given what we know about MLKs time.
This isn't a "slippery slope", this is fitting the left shoe onto the right foot and seeing Sensible Centrists Voices FUCKING HOWL.
This is something this country does, and its been waking up the next morning, unchanged. The responses to it being applied on the right fringes is very telling. Unmasking even, for a lot of them.
And this is JUST with regards to a badly behaving private company, it ain't asking them to tear gas and beat the guys marching under "Jews will not replace us" banners.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [26 favorites]
The government has been policing lefty speech by repressing protests since before anti-Vietnam war stuff. They did it to Occupy, they did it to BLM, and so on. God only knows what alphabet soup does now to these movements on the left given what we know about MLKs time.
This isn't a "slippery slope", this is fitting the left shoe onto the right foot and seeing Sensible Centrists Voices FUCKING HOWL.
This is something this country does, and its been waking up the next morning, unchanged. The responses to it being applied on the right fringes is very telling. Unmasking even, for a lot of them.
And this is JUST with regards to a badly behaving private company, it ain't asking them to tear gas and beat the guys marching under "Jews will not replace us" banners.
posted by Slackermagee at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [26 favorites]
I wonder how much money FB loses per minute when all of their services are down.
About $230K/minute. Close to $4000/second.
posted by eventually consistent at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
About $230K/minute. Close to $4000/second.
posted by eventually consistent at 10:24 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
armeowda, you will always be welcome at my karaoke bar.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Someone nuked the DNS records for Facebook.com.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
FB very obviously threw their lot in with the redcaps and now that the regime has changed, it's time for payback.
It is also pretty clear that, because it took 1/6 for both Facebook and Twitter to kick Trump off their platforms, that they never expected it to go that far.
This is because they have never read history. The people at the top of both organizations are profoundly ignorant of pretty much anything other than code.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:37 AM on October 4, 2021 [13 favorites]
It is also pretty clear that, because it took 1/6 for both Facebook and Twitter to kick Trump off their platforms, that they never expected it to go that far.
This is because they have never read history. The people at the top of both organizations are profoundly ignorant of pretty much anything other than code.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:37 AM on October 4, 2021 [13 favorites]
Hey, a quick note here for anyone who feels like they need Facebook for their business (independent, etc.): I'm an independent/self-pub author, and I tried using FB for ads a few times. Not only was that a waste of money, but somebody got into my page and used the card I had on file to advertise their own completely unrelated product on Facebook... and there's no way to report it. It was a card with a really low limit (because I didn't trust FB), and they only got $50, but the glaring holes in their system are real.
Let me repeat: somebody charged money from the credit card I had on Facebook for their own Facebook advertising, and I could find no way to report this to Facebook. I also couldn't delete the card from Facebook without a delay for "charges pending" or some shit. All I could do was cancel the credit card with my bank.
Oh, and I have tried several times to delete my author page. Mysteriously, it never takes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2021 [33 favorites]
Let me repeat: somebody charged money from the credit card I had on Facebook for their own Facebook advertising, and I could find no way to report this to Facebook. I also couldn't delete the card from Facebook without a delay for "charges pending" or some shit. All I could do was cancel the credit card with my bank.
Oh, and I have tried several times to delete my author page. Mysteriously, it never takes.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2021 [33 favorites]
As a private business, FB can censor whatever it wants. It is their choice, not the governments or some political party or one point of view.
Content is always being censored on Facebook, only by management on behalf of advertisers. You see what the Facebook algorithm has been written to show you. That algorithm is currently designed to gamify behavior and manipulate viewers into repeated views — so-called "engagement" — to drive ad revenue.
Who buys ads? In the linked cases of Myanmar and Trump, for instance, those advertisers are political or governmental entities, which flexed Facebook to censor content to users to their ends. Their remote control of Facebook content and viewership has resulted in violence and mass death.
Those may be two extreme examples, perhaps, but there are numerous others. Some are documented and discussed in the various articles linked.
One of the points Haugen makes — corroborated by the document cache she uncovered — is that Facebook management knowingly implements its systems to monetize content that is destructive to people and to democratic societies. Further, management lies to the public — and to investors, hence the involvement of the SEC, of some governmental entity — about setting up the platform to do the opposite.
The SEC is not involved to replace Facebook's internal censors, but to ensure that publicly-traded companies do not deceive investors about the investment product being offered.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
Content is always being censored on Facebook, only by management on behalf of advertisers. You see what the Facebook algorithm has been written to show you. That algorithm is currently designed to gamify behavior and manipulate viewers into repeated views — so-called "engagement" — to drive ad revenue.
Who buys ads? In the linked cases of Myanmar and Trump, for instance, those advertisers are political or governmental entities, which flexed Facebook to censor content to users to their ends. Their remote control of Facebook content and viewership has resulted in violence and mass death.
Those may be two extreme examples, perhaps, but there are numerous others. Some are documented and discussed in the various articles linked.
One of the points Haugen makes — corroborated by the document cache she uncovered — is that Facebook management knowingly implements its systems to monetize content that is destructive to people and to democratic societies. Further, management lies to the public — and to investors, hence the involvement of the SEC, of some governmental entity — about setting up the platform to do the opposite.
The SEC is not involved to replace Facebook's internal censors, but to ensure that publicly-traded companies do not deceive investors about the investment product being offered.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:49 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
It's kind of terrifying to read any thread about Facebook here on the blue because people will go to great lengths to justify their use of Facebook to keep up with old friends or share photos of their grandkids even though the company's platform was used in the literal GENOCIDE of human beings in Myanmar.
More than 9000 Rohingya died and over 700k were displaced with the help of Facebook and Zuckerberg. But yeah, keeping up with high school friends is too important to give it up.
posted by photoslob at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [38 favorites]
More than 9000 Rohingya died and over 700k were displaced with the help of Facebook and Zuckerberg. But yeah, keeping up with high school friends is too important to give it up.
posted by photoslob at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2021 [38 favorites]
It's not a misconception, it's part of the philosophy of free speech "absolutism".
If we're splitting semantic hairs, then sure: it's obviously the philosophy of the professional hatemongers, and it's a lucrative perverse incentive for social media as their enablers.
But the regular Schmoes they're deputizing as mouthpieces are seldom sophisticated enough to articulate that philosophy. How many of them clamor about "free speech" when it suits them, and then unironically demand the silencing of speakers they oppose?
These are seldom scholars; they're just an especially useful combination of resentful, credulous, and desperate to feel special. You recruit new fascists by reassuring people that indeed, they are the persecuted ones, and their contempt for the Other is justified -- not by asking the fascists in the room to raise their hands.
posted by armeowda at 10:58 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
If we're splitting semantic hairs, then sure: it's obviously the philosophy of the professional hatemongers, and it's a lucrative perverse incentive for social media as their enablers.
But the regular Schmoes they're deputizing as mouthpieces are seldom sophisticated enough to articulate that philosophy. How many of them clamor about "free speech" when it suits them, and then unironically demand the silencing of speakers they oppose?
These are seldom scholars; they're just an especially useful combination of resentful, credulous, and desperate to feel special. You recruit new fascists by reassuring people that indeed, they are the persecuted ones, and their contempt for the Other is justified -- not by asking the fascists in the room to raise their hands.
posted by armeowda at 10:58 AM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
I really appreciated latkes comment in the previous Facebook discussion. Particularly trenchant given Facebook has been down for 2 hours or $28M now.
The comments in this thread about our own personal choices around facebook use are the trap we've been led into through years of being told our personal consumption habits are relevant to influencing public policy. It's the long shadow of 50 Simple Things to Save the Earth or something... We cannot change policy or shut down dangerous corporate practices through our personal consumption choices. By all means, we should reduce or stop our facebook use if we have other options for social connection. Our mental health and cognitive well being will likely improve. But only big, powerful action can stop facebook. Our best bet is strong, meaningful, enforceable goverment regulation. Another option is sabotage.posted by Nelson at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2021 [34 favorites]
Could this be achieved through other mediums, like email and blogs? Sure. But those are a lot more trouble, and you’d have to seek each one out.
RSS worked very well for this.
posted by clew at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2021 [18 favorites]
RSS worked very well for this.
posted by clew at 10:59 AM on October 4, 2021 [18 favorites]
DirtyOldTown: Someone nuked the DNS records for Facebook.com.
posted by clawsoon at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
Domain Availablelolwut
facebook.com is for sale!
This domain is listed for sale at one of our partner sites .
posted by clawsoon at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2021 [15 favorites]
It's kind of terrifying to read any thread about Facebook here on the blue because people will go to great lengths to justify their use of Facebook to keep up with old friends or share photos of their grandkids even though the company's platform was used in the literal GENOCIDE of human beings in Myanmar.
Telephone systems have also been used to facilitate genocide. Should we all stop using them?
(I'm not denying the seriousness of what FB, as a company, is implicated in. I'm just saying that it's a vast apparatus that has many uses for many people, and the illegitimacy of some uses does not negate the legitimacy of others.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
Telephone systems have also been used to facilitate genocide. Should we all stop using them?
(I'm not denying the seriousness of what FB, as a company, is implicated in. I'm just saying that it's a vast apparatus that has many uses for many people, and the illegitimacy of some uses does not negate the legitimacy of others.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:05 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
So there's no chance whatsoever the current global Facebook outage is unrelated to this story, right? Just checking.
posted by thoughtful_jester at 11:07 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by thoughtful_jester at 11:07 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
They nuked the REGISTRAR record, not just the DNS zone. That's... amazing.
posted by Horkus at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Horkus at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Facebook outage deals a huge blow to independent vaccine research
posted by acb at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [40 favorites]
posted by acb at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2021 [40 favorites]
Telephone systems have also been used to facilitate genocide. Should we all stop using them?
If me not using a phone meant 9000 human beings would live I would stop using a phone. So yes.
posted by photoslob at 11:12 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
If me not using a phone meant 9000 human beings would live I would stop using a phone. So yes.
posted by photoslob at 11:12 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Well, at the moment Facebook is very down, for reasons that are no doubt totally and absolutely unrelated to anything in the news, so the point is presently moot.
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on October 4, 2021
posted by y2karl at 11:12 AM on October 4, 2021
Social media is clearly a thing that people want, so why can't you get a more humane way to see what Aunt Bertha and your local favorite brewery are up to?
Because the tech press is mostly pretty shitty, Google's attention span is worse than my dog's, and overcoming the network effect is a hard problem. Maybe (ok, probably) they would have made it worse over time, but for the subset of people who used it, Google Plus was actually pretty good. It mostly worked about how I wish Facebook worked. A chronological timeline of shit my friends or groups I followed posted and not a bunch of other bullshit surfaced just because.
posted by wierdo at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
Because the tech press is mostly pretty shitty, Google's attention span is worse than my dog's, and overcoming the network effect is a hard problem. Maybe (ok, probably) they would have made it worse over time, but for the subset of people who used it, Google Plus was actually pretty good. It mostly worked about how I wish Facebook worked. A chronological timeline of shit my friends or groups I followed posted and not a bunch of other bullshit surfaced just because.
posted by wierdo at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
About $230K/minute. Close to $4000/second.
According to GOBankingRates (whatever that is; it's just the first result Google barfed up), Facebook has a net worth of $138.227 billion.
Assuming my back-of-the-envelope math is right, Facebook would need to be down for about 417 days straight to render it bankrupt.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
According to GOBankingRates (whatever that is; it's just the first result Google barfed up), Facebook has a net worth of $138.227 billion.
Assuming my back-of-the-envelope math is right, Facebook would need to be down for about 417 days straight to render it bankrupt.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Telephone systems have also been used to facilitate genocide. Should we all stop using them?
Facebook is different; it's personal, viral, and global. Telephone isn't even a mass medium, although robocalls are. I wrote more about that in our discussion a few days ago.
posted by Nelson at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Facebook is different; it's personal, viral, and global. Telephone isn't even a mass medium, although robocalls are. I wrote more about that in our discussion a few days ago.
posted by Nelson at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
If you're looking for communication technology that has aided genocide, radio is your best bet. Holocaust and Rwanda and probably more that I don't know about.
posted by clawsoon at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
Could this be achieved through other mediums, like email and blogs? Sure. But those are a lot more trouble, and you’d have to seek each one out.
RSS worked very well for this.
The most intriguing proposition I encountered to fix social media would be to deplatform it: turn social into a markup language or a protocol, something like HTML or RSS, edit/readable by a variety of apps or browsers. They all serve roughly the same type of content anyway right, why can't they be cross-compatible?
Invent tags for text, pic, video, polls, Toks, Snaps... then you could lovingly craft each social posts using anything from notepad to fancy editing apps, upload it out there, and grandma could pick it up on OpenFacebookReader or whatever. Brands would still find a way to serve ads, but users would have some choice about how to consume that information without having to sacrifice the connections this whole business is supposed to foster.
posted by Freyja at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
RSS worked very well for this.
The most intriguing proposition I encountered to fix social media would be to deplatform it: turn social into a markup language or a protocol, something like HTML or RSS, edit/readable by a variety of apps or browsers. They all serve roughly the same type of content anyway right, why can't they be cross-compatible?
Invent tags for text, pic, video, polls, Toks, Snaps... then you could lovingly craft each social posts using anything from notepad to fancy editing apps, upload it out there, and grandma could pick it up on OpenFacebookReader or whatever. Brands would still find a way to serve ads, but users would have some choice about how to consume that information without having to sacrifice the connections this whole business is supposed to foster.
posted by Freyja at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
For the record, re: leaving Facebook:
I felt like I was stuck with it for a long time, too. It's where I could find friends from many parts and eras of my life, where I could talk to them all at once, etc. It's where people could find me.
In 2018, while so many of us were disgusted with FB, a friend set up a Discord server with a set of local friends. It's not a catch-all, obviously, but it filled that space of "regular social contact online to keep me sane and feel connected to friends," and it helped me break free from Facebook. I deleted in 2019, I think?
Gotta tell you: I haven't missed it. Yes, I am disconnected from those friends from other eras, but that's also how life functioned before Facebook and people got along fine. They just didn't have a paranoid outrage machine flinging crap at them all day.
I know it can be hard to drop FB entirely, and for some people it's functionally impossible because it's a job requirement or whatever. Also, I agree that FB won't change or die without action from gov't or other real levers of power. But deleting Facebook is good for your mental and emotional health, and it's worth doing if it's at all possible for you.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
I felt like I was stuck with it for a long time, too. It's where I could find friends from many parts and eras of my life, where I could talk to them all at once, etc. It's where people could find me.
In 2018, while so many of us were disgusted with FB, a friend set up a Discord server with a set of local friends. It's not a catch-all, obviously, but it filled that space of "regular social contact online to keep me sane and feel connected to friends," and it helped me break free from Facebook. I deleted in 2019, I think?
Gotta tell you: I haven't missed it. Yes, I am disconnected from those friends from other eras, but that's also how life functioned before Facebook and people got along fine. They just didn't have a paranoid outrage machine flinging crap at them all day.
I know it can be hard to drop FB entirely, and for some people it's functionally impossible because it's a job requirement or whatever. Also, I agree that FB won't change or die without action from gov't or other real levers of power. But deleting Facebook is good for your mental and emotional health, and it's worth doing if it's at all possible for you.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
If you're not familiar with what DNS is, it works like this: to internet service providers, every website is basically a collection of IP addresses, strings of numbers. DNS are the records that connect these strings of numbers to domain names. Someone wiped out Facebook's DNS records. So now, when you type in Facebook.com, instead of sending you to the right IP's, the network devices at Comcast or AT&T or whoever say "I don't know what that is and I cannot help you."
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
This thread with loads of [deleted] comments at this point seems to put the facebook outage on a botched change and inadequate recovery precautions (i.e. the peeps who can back this out can't logon remotely).
posted by Trent Crimm, The Independent at 11:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Trent Crimm, The Independent at 11:22 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Did you know that if you don’t have account, Facebook won’t show you anything other than a button to sign up or log on? Probably half the Facebook content I see is via metafilter (and generally mefites are signal boosting the worst political stuff, too).
You people can’t quit it because you’re up to your neck in it and love sharing the content you hate so you can argue about it.
posted by ryanrs at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
You people can’t quit it because you’re up to your neck in it and love sharing the content you hate so you can argue about it.
posted by ryanrs at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
"The most intriguing proposition I encountered to fix social media would be to deplatform it: turn social into a markup language or a protocol, something like HTML or RSS, edit/readable by a variety of apps or browsers.
I use Instagram exclusively via RSS, using RSS.app to create feeds - I've started playing around w/it as a way of getting off of FB's platform, but the # of pages I'm following, and the frequency w/which they're posting, make for a jammed reader w/out a lot of time invested in filtering. It's definitely doable if there are just a few FB pages you want to follow, though.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I use Instagram exclusively via RSS, using RSS.app to create feeds - I've started playing around w/it as a way of getting off of FB's platform, but the # of pages I'm following, and the frequency w/which they're posting, make for a jammed reader w/out a lot of time invested in filtering. It's definitely doable if there are just a few FB pages you want to follow, though.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Didn't realize the FB Workplace service looks to be down as well (Workplace is Facebook's corporate collaboration platform used by a lot of companies). That actually will be messing up a lot of companies today I suspect....I hope some folks are getting a long Monday lunch out of it....
posted by inflatablekiwi at 11:37 AM on October 4, 2021
posted by inflatablekiwi at 11:37 AM on October 4, 2021
I've never used Facebook, but I remember having to go almost completely offline on vacation for 14+ days and I didn't miss any of the social media stuff. It felt so great, and coming back home I literally avoided using Reddit, metafilter, chat apps, etc. because all these things suddenly felt so claustrophobic in comparison to what my holiday was like. Every time I see criticism of social media I think back to that experience which was like an alternate existence and a very pleasant and peaceful one.
posted by polymodus at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 11:39 AM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
Dropping facebook was the single most beneficial thing I ever did for my social skills and one of the most beneficial for my mental health - and I dropped it in 2014.
If we're taking bets on Facebook vs. Outage, I'm on the side of Outage. 417 more days!
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 11:41 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
If we're taking bets on Facebook vs. Outage, I'm on the side of Outage. 417 more days!
posted by thebotanyofsouls at 11:41 AM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Where I work uses Workplace as one of their in-house communications platforms (mostly for announcements of the sorts that in the past would have been company-wide emails). It sucks, because it's still designed as a Zuckerbergian engagement pump originally intended to marshall a captive audience's eyeballs to video ads: the emails have the first few words of the announcement, and to see the rest, you have to open the whole thing, in a bloated, resource-hungry web app, so a lot of the time I don't bother.
I wonder if it's too much to hope for that this heralds a transition back to a more reasonable system; an internal RSS feed would be ideal, though probably too much so for the fallen world we live in.
posted by acb at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I wonder if it's too much to hope for that this heralds a transition back to a more reasonable system; an internal RSS feed would be ideal, though probably too much so for the fallen world we live in.
posted by acb at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
for a long time the only content i've found interesting on facebook has been links to cracked.com listicles. now when I open facebook, the algorithm only shows me 'suggested content' links to cracked.com listicles.
how the fuck am i going to access important cracked.com content with facebook down?
posted by logicpunk at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
how the fuck am i going to access important cracked.com content with facebook down?
posted by logicpunk at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
how the fuck am i going to access important cracked.com content with facebook down?
[chiptune cavalry horn sounds]
https://feeds.feedburner.com/CrackedRSS
posted by ryanshepard at 11:48 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
[chiptune cavalry horn sounds]
https://feeds.feedburner.com/CrackedRSS
posted by ryanshepard at 11:48 AM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
The most intriguing proposition I encountered to fix social media would be to deplatform it: turn social into a markup language or a protocol, something like HTML or RSS, edit/readable by a variety of apps or browsers. They all serve roughly the same type of content anyway right, why can't they be cross-compatible? Invent tags for text, pic, video, polls, Toks, Snaps... then you could lovingly craft each social posts using anything from notepad to fancy editing apps, upload it out there, and grandma could pick it up on OpenFacebookReader or whatever.
I've been thinking for a while that it would be very easy to run social media over email. All it would require would be for someone to hack an open-source email client like, say, Thunderbird, so that it displayed appropriately tagged and formatted emails like social media posts in a feed.
Everyone who wanted to participate would have a dedicated email account just for this. They would only interact with that email account thru the app, which would handle all the formatting and tagging for them invisibly.
The posting interface could be similar to Twitter, FB, etc., with a text entry field and buttons for uploading media. Your posts (i.e., emails) would be sent to all your friends also using the system, and would show up in their feeds. And theirs would be sent to you, and displayed in a simple chronological sequence in your feed.
Responses to a post could be threaded like Twitter (where each reply is its own post) or FB (where replies appear as comments under the initial post).
This kind of system wouldn't necessarily be up-to-the-second synchronous, but frankly, that might be a good thing.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:50 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I've been thinking for a while that it would be very easy to run social media over email. All it would require would be for someone to hack an open-source email client like, say, Thunderbird, so that it displayed appropriately tagged and formatted emails like social media posts in a feed.
Everyone who wanted to participate would have a dedicated email account just for this. They would only interact with that email account thru the app, which would handle all the formatting and tagging for them invisibly.
The posting interface could be similar to Twitter, FB, etc., with a text entry field and buttons for uploading media. Your posts (i.e., emails) would be sent to all your friends also using the system, and would show up in their feeds. And theirs would be sent to you, and displayed in a simple chronological sequence in your feed.
Responses to a post could be threaded like Twitter (where each reply is its own post) or FB (where replies appear as comments under the initial post).
This kind of system wouldn't necessarily be up-to-the-second synchronous, but frankly, that might be a good thing.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 11:50 AM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Far too early to know what's going on but Facebook is down, along with Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Oculus VR. It appears their DNS records are all broken.
I am so glad we found such a big, secure basket to hold all these eggs.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:54 AM on October 4, 2021 [33 favorites]
You people …
As one of those sentence starters that typically doesn’t end well, that’s a strong choice.
posted by eviemath at 12:01 PM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
As one of those sentence starters that typically doesn’t end well, that’s a strong choice.
posted by eviemath at 12:01 PM on October 4, 2021 [30 favorites]
Freyja: "The most intriguing proposition I encountered to fix social media would be to deplatform it: turn social into a markup language or a protocol, something like HTML or RSS, edit/readable by a variety of apps or browsers."
I think this is the ideal outcome, but it ain't simple. I did a lot of noodling and note-taking over how this would work, and the real sticking point is publishing information only to a friends list on the public web. It's doable but the back end gets pretty convoluted, and gets more convoluted when you remember that people edit their friends list. It would need to be paid software (which would exclude a bunch of people who couldn't pay or just wouldn't), an extraordinary open-source project (which still doesn't solve the problem of paying for hosting), or some billionaire's pet project (which is unsustainable and introduces other concerns).
posted by adamrice at 12:02 PM on October 4, 2021
I think this is the ideal outcome, but it ain't simple. I did a lot of noodling and note-taking over how this would work, and the real sticking point is publishing information only to a friends list on the public web. It's doable but the back end gets pretty convoluted, and gets more convoluted when you remember that people edit their friends list. It would need to be paid software (which would exclude a bunch of people who couldn't pay or just wouldn't), an extraordinary open-source project (which still doesn't solve the problem of paying for hosting), or some billionaire's pet project (which is unsustainable and introduces other concerns).
posted by adamrice at 12:02 PM on October 4, 2021
Where I work uses Workplace as one of their in-house communications platforms (mostly for announcements of the sorts that in the past would have been company-wide emails). It sucks, because it's still designed as a Zuckerbergian engagement pump originally intended to marshall a captive audience's eyeballs to video ads: the emails have the first few words of the announcement, and to see the rest, you have to open the whole thing, in a bloated, resource-hungry web app, so a lot of the time I don't bother.
I hated my last job for a lot of reasons; one of the lesser-but-still-galling ones was their pivot to Workplace, which in practice just turned into a forum for the CEO to try to establish himself at the top of a cult of personality (and for an army of internal bootlickers to try to outdo each other to compete to be his Smithers).
One of the fun things of today's outage is imagining him breaking out in hives as the outage deprives him of his sycophants
posted by COBRA! at 12:04 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I hated my last job for a lot of reasons; one of the lesser-but-still-galling ones was their pivot to Workplace, which in practice just turned into a forum for the CEO to try to establish himself at the top of a cult of personality (and for an army of internal bootlickers to try to outdo each other to compete to be his Smithers).
One of the fun things of today's outage is imagining him breaking out in hives as the outage deprives him of his sycophants
posted by COBRA! at 12:04 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
*snerk* So, a lot of times when one social media platform goes down, people go check out another to see if there is any discussion of the outage over there. In fact, about 50% of the posts on Twitter about Facebook right now are various memes about everyone rushing over to Twitter to see if Facebook being out is a trending topic.
But Twitter themselves also got in on the game, with this message posted on the official Twitter account at 1:30 pm EST:
But Twitter themselves also got in on the game, with this message posted on the official Twitter account at 1:30 pm EST:
Hello literally everyoneposted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:14 PM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
Did you know that if you don’t have account, Facebook won’t show you anything other than a button to sign up or log on?
I don't have an account, and this isn't true. I'm just looked at the photos of my high school reunion, and I regularly go to Facebook pages of clubs I'm in to see what's up. It limits what I can see, but I can usually look at the most recent posts.
posted by FencingGal at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I don't have an account, and this isn't true. I'm just looked at the photos of my high school reunion, and I regularly go to Facebook pages of clubs I'm in to see what's up. It limits what I can see, but I can usually look at the most recent posts.
posted by FencingGal at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Everyone who wanted to participate would have a dedicated email account just for this. They would only interact with that email account thru the app, which would handle all the formatting and tagging for them invisibly.
So basically a rich text USENET?
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
So basically a rich text USENET?
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
Bob are you coming over for dinner tonight
posted by fluttering hellfire at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by fluttering hellfire at 12:20 PM on October 4, 2021 [14 favorites]
So basically a rich text USENET?
Kinda! Except the hosting would be handled by your email provider.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:21 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Kinda! Except the hosting would be handled by your email provider.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:21 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I was noodling around my Pinafore interface to Mastodon (a more-user-controlled social medium, works fine, nothing like as omnipresent though) and discovered a set of cool-it-down interface controls. Which they say are from the Center for Humane Technology. I have not read much of the latter site but I wanted more "what could we do better?" and less "grr argh FB bad" right now and maybe this is it.
posted by clew at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by clew at 12:25 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
You probably have to kill FB-style engagement monetization before less aggressive business models can be tried. FB’s dark patterns throw off too much money for less evil models to succeed.
It is very possible that Facebook will need to be broken by the legislature or courts for this to happen.
posted by ryanrs at 12:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
It is very possible that Facebook will need to be broken by the legislature or courts for this to happen.
posted by ryanrs at 12:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
This seems like as good a moment as any to share this brief video.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 12:32 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
> So basically a rich text USENET?
> Kinda! Except the hosting would be handled by your email provider.
Right, a rich text Usenet. Usenet is a distributed service and each Usenet host retains copies of the feeds that it distributes.
posted by at by at 12:33 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
> Kinda! Except the hosting would be handled by your email provider.
Right, a rich text Usenet. Usenet is a distributed service and each Usenet host retains copies of the feeds that it distributes.
posted by at by at 12:33 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
People making jokes about the Facebook services going down make me sick. Anyone who was using an Oculus headset at the time is currently trapped in VR, and if they die there then they die in real life.
posted by ShooBoo at 12:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [49 favorites]
posted by ShooBoo at 12:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [49 favorites]
I'm all for a return to Usenet, but only if we start teaching Netiquette again. Alas, a new Usenet would never work for the same reason as the old Usenet, which still exists: It becomes a rampant exchange for illegal materials.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:38 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
More than 9000 Rohingya died and over 700k were displaced with the help of Facebook and Zuckerberg. But yeah, keeping up with high school friends is too important to give it up.
I don't think that shaming people for their personal content-consumption choices is really an effective path to systemic change. I'd be more inclined to delete my Facebook account if I thought it would actually make any sort of significant difference to Facebook Inc.'s behavior, which it almost certainly won't. (In fact, they'll probably just continue to maintain a 'shadow profile' of me anyway, for the purpose of selling third-party ads, and my account-deletion will be just one more demographic datapoint in that profile.) I'm not about to cut myself off from a range of people who haven't found an alternative to Facebook yet, just for the sake of being ideologically pure in some abstract way.
Facebook isn't afraid of you deleting your account, which is why they provide a "Delete Account" button. If that was an actual, existential threat to them as a company or to their business model, they wouldn't let you do it.
You can tell what they do find threatening, based on the way they respond: regulatory action at the state and national levels. When they've made changes, it's almost always been in response to actual or perceived threats of tech industry regulation or antitrust activity.
N.B.: I'm not saying don't delete your FB account, if you want to and especially if you think it'll be beneficial for your mental health. But just because someone hasn't deleted their account doesn't mean they aren't aware of FB's negative impact on the world in general.
I've been thinking for a while that it would be very easy to run social media over email.
Back in the days when Twitter was new and the failwhale showed up regularly, you'd see a lot of people on Slashdot saying variants of "how the fuck can they not make that thing work? I could do better in X days with Y bottles of Jolt Cola and Z liters of whiskey", for various values of X, Y, Z (where Y and Z were usually greater than X). Some people even had interview questions like "if I held a gun to your head and told you to build a Twitter clone in 24 hours, how would you do it?"
Anyway, one of the things people would kick around as an idea, rather than using then-newfangled sharded/distributed relational databases behind an API layer, was to build the service on an existing tried-and-true stack that had already demonstrated scalability. Doing it with Usenet/NNTP or Email/SMTP were popular thought experiments. I was always something of a fan of the NNTP-based proposals, because of the pub/sub model: you could subscribe to someone's feed (analogous to joining a newsgroup) to get their posts, and they could subscribe to yours. Each domain would be responsible for running their own server instance (like email, and like news in the olden days). Binary attachments/posts and crypto (both encryption for privacy when messaging a specific user, and authentication on posts) are essentially solved problems already.
These ideas never really amounted to anything, although Mastodon probably comes closest today. But because it was developed by web programmers in the second decade of the 2000s, it uses some overengineered microservices architecture built using node.js and Javascript, with a database abstraction layer and REST APIs on either end. (And yeah, I'm being uncharitable here; the lead engineer of Pump.io is no spring chicken so there are probably reasons for these decisions, but it still smells a bit like tech flavor-of-the-week from circa 2010.)
And prior to Mastodon/Pump.io, we had Jabber/XMPP, which would also have made a fine backend technology for a Twitter clone... but because it was developed in the late 90s and early 2000s, it's chock full of XML and disliked by every programmer I've ever known to work on or with it.
Ah, well. We'll just keep reinventing that damn wheel until we get it right.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [20 favorites]
I don't think that shaming people for their personal content-consumption choices is really an effective path to systemic change. I'd be more inclined to delete my Facebook account if I thought it would actually make any sort of significant difference to Facebook Inc.'s behavior, which it almost certainly won't. (In fact, they'll probably just continue to maintain a 'shadow profile' of me anyway, for the purpose of selling third-party ads, and my account-deletion will be just one more demographic datapoint in that profile.) I'm not about to cut myself off from a range of people who haven't found an alternative to Facebook yet, just for the sake of being ideologically pure in some abstract way.
Facebook isn't afraid of you deleting your account, which is why they provide a "Delete Account" button. If that was an actual, existential threat to them as a company or to their business model, they wouldn't let you do it.
You can tell what they do find threatening, based on the way they respond: regulatory action at the state and national levels. When they've made changes, it's almost always been in response to actual or perceived threats of tech industry regulation or antitrust activity.
N.B.: I'm not saying don't delete your FB account, if you want to and especially if you think it'll be beneficial for your mental health. But just because someone hasn't deleted their account doesn't mean they aren't aware of FB's negative impact on the world in general.
I've been thinking for a while that it would be very easy to run social media over email.
Back in the days when Twitter was new and the failwhale showed up regularly, you'd see a lot of people on Slashdot saying variants of "how the fuck can they not make that thing work? I could do better in X days with Y bottles of Jolt Cola and Z liters of whiskey", for various values of X, Y, Z (where Y and Z were usually greater than X). Some people even had interview questions like "if I held a gun to your head and told you to build a Twitter clone in 24 hours, how would you do it?"
Anyway, one of the things people would kick around as an idea, rather than using then-newfangled sharded/distributed relational databases behind an API layer, was to build the service on an existing tried-and-true stack that had already demonstrated scalability. Doing it with Usenet/NNTP or Email/SMTP were popular thought experiments. I was always something of a fan of the NNTP-based proposals, because of the pub/sub model: you could subscribe to someone's feed (analogous to joining a newsgroup) to get their posts, and they could subscribe to yours. Each domain would be responsible for running their own server instance (like email, and like news in the olden days). Binary attachments/posts and crypto (both encryption for privacy when messaging a specific user, and authentication on posts) are essentially solved problems already.
These ideas never really amounted to anything, although Mastodon probably comes closest today. But because it was developed by web programmers in the second decade of the 2000s, it uses some overengineered microservices architecture built using node.js and Javascript, with a database abstraction layer and REST APIs on either end. (And yeah, I'm being uncharitable here; the lead engineer of Pump.io is no spring chicken so there are probably reasons for these decisions, but it still smells a bit like tech flavor-of-the-week from circa 2010.)
And prior to Mastodon/Pump.io, we had Jabber/XMPP, which would also have made a fine backend technology for a Twitter clone... but because it was developed in the late 90s and early 2000s, it's chock full of XML and disliked by every programmer I've ever known to work on or with it.
Ah, well. We'll just keep reinventing that damn wheel until we get it right.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [20 favorites]
One comment about the outage that made me laugh out loud: "quickly, get your elderly family vaccinated"
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:43 PM on October 4, 2021 [31 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:43 PM on October 4, 2021 [31 favorites]
Twitter (the web client, at least) seems to be flaky now, too. Lots of messages saying "unable to load tweet", or "Something went wrong. Try reloading." Other users are posting about it.
Could be caused by the flood of Facebook users coming to Twitter, although I would expect Twitter's infrastructure to autoscale pretty effortlessly.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Could be caused by the flood of Facebook users coming to Twitter, although I would expect Twitter's infrastructure to autoscale pretty effortlessly.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Do people really remember Usenet as some civilized forum full of verified information calmly shared?
posted by clawsoon at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021 [33 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021 [33 favorites]
Nelson Haha.gif (MarketWatch article about today's FB stock plunge.)
posted by merriment at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021
posted by merriment at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2021
Could be caused by the flood of Facebook users coming to Twitter, although I would expect Twitter's infrastructure to autoscale pretty effortlessly.
It seems better now but facebook's DNS snafu was creating an accidental denial of service attack for the DNS system as a whole - roughly half the DNS lookups I was trying to do 3 hours ago were failing, now it mostly seems to work.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
It seems better now but facebook's DNS snafu was creating an accidental denial of service attack for the DNS system as a whole - roughly half the DNS lookups I was trying to do 3 hours ago were failing, now it mostly seems to work.
posted by RustyBrooks at 12:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I would expect Twitter's infrastructure to autoscale pretty effortlessly.
How far they’ve come, heh.
posted by ryanrs at 1:00 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
How far they’ve come, heh.
posted by ryanrs at 1:00 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Do people really remember Usenet as some civilized forum full of verified information calmly shared?
No, but the moderated groups were pretty good (and some still are); the unmoderated groups were as bad as any other unmoderated forum.
Usenet got a bad rap because it was the first instance in which we saw what a shithole any unmoderated place with a comment box turns into. At the time, I don't think people appreciated this for the iron law of the Internet that it basically is, and blamed it on something particular to Usenet.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:05 PM on October 4, 2021 [24 favorites]
No, but the moderated groups were pretty good (and some still are); the unmoderated groups were as bad as any other unmoderated forum.
Usenet got a bad rap because it was the first instance in which we saw what a shithole any unmoderated place with a comment box turns into. At the time, I don't think people appreciated this for the iron law of the Internet that it basically is, and blamed it on something particular to Usenet.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:05 PM on October 4, 2021 [24 favorites]
About $230K/minute. Close to $4000/second.
By those numbers, that’s about sixty million so far (with another million or so since I began writing this comment). What with Facebook’s stock price falling today after the 60 Minutes interview, can we just take a moment to give a thought to how Zuckerberg must be feeling today? It’s like an entrepreneur cannot even monetize a way to rate women’s relative hotness any more.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:15 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
By those numbers, that’s about sixty million so far (with another million or so since I began writing this comment). What with Facebook’s stock price falling today after the 60 Minutes interview, can we just take a moment to give a thought to how Zuckerberg must be feeling today? It’s like an entrepreneur cannot even monetize a way to rate women’s relative hotness any more.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 1:15 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Where is this $230K number coming from?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
So, the question of whether individual consumer actions matter is complicated (similar to how the question of whether individual votes matter is complicated, except much more so), because human societies (including economies) are complex, emergent systems - in the mathematical sense of emergent system (I gather there's a new age/woo sense too?) - and the causal relationships between actions and events are indirect and subject to things like threshold effects or chaotic dynamics (large sensitivity to small changes in initial conditions). And if I had an hour I'd craft a very nice comment that would give useful links on that topic, but I only have two minutes, so my apologies for the offhand nature of this comment. (I have put those links in past comments, but digging through my comment history to find them is likely not an easy task.)
posted by eviemath at 1:19 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 1:19 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I was just thinking this morning that I need to delete my fb account bc I can't stop posting things about autism & adhd that my family reacts to as if I were posting nudes so I very much need for fb to burn down today for good so I don't need to think about this anymore.
posted by bleep at 1:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by bleep at 1:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
One of my wife's cousins works at a fairly high level for Facebook (like, "appear in front of governmental panels to do damage control" high), so the past few days have I'm sure been fun ones for him.
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2021
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2021
About $230K/minute. Close to $4000/second.
Same as in town then.
posted by y2karl at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2021 [31 favorites]
Same as in town then.
posted by y2karl at 1:24 PM on October 4, 2021 [31 favorites]
"I came here to move fast and break things, and I'm all out of move fast"
posted by Pronoiac at 1:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [57 favorites]
posted by Pronoiac at 1:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [57 favorites]
Sheera Frenkel, NYT: Was just on phone with someone who works for FB who described employees unable to enter buildings this morning to begin to evaluate extent of outage because their badges weren’t working to access doors.
i.e. they need physical access to their routers to fix the problem, but they can’t get access because they’re locked out of their datacenters.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 2:18 PM on October 4, 2021 [19 favorites]
i.e. they need physical access to their routers to fix the problem, but they can’t get access because they’re locked out of their datacenters.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 2:18 PM on October 4, 2021 [19 favorites]
Big Broke Zuck is the new Big Boat Stuck
posted by oulipian at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by oulipian at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Looks like they have naming working again, but the site itself is still down. Might be a message from the universe
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by drewbage1847 at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I am always so amazed to read the descriptions of The Facebook Experience here because they are nothing remotely like my own. There's no outrage machine, there's no flood of covid disinformation, the ads are admittedly increasing in number but that is almost certainly my own fault for doing so much indiscriminate shopping online. I don't know what the trick was (never friending anyone I hadn't at least had a few lunches with, perhaps?) but all I know is that FB was a pretty solid text and image record of the last decade+ of my life and I'll miss it if it's gone.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2021 [17 favorites]
There's no outrage machine, there's no flood of covid disinformation, the ads are admittedly increasing in number but that is almost certainly my own fault for doing so much indiscriminate shopping online. I don't know what the trick was
I have some of my most interesting Facebook discussions with young-earth creationists I grew up and went to church with as a kid, so I get all of that stuff.
posted by clawsoon at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2021
I have some of my most interesting Facebook discussions with young-earth creationists I grew up and went to church with as a kid, so I get all of that stuff.
posted by clawsoon at 2:32 PM on October 4, 2021
Looks like they have naming working again, but the site itself is still down. Might be a message from the universe
posted by drewbage1847 at 5:22 PM on October 4
I cannot shake the feeling that this FB outage is not a mere coincidence, especially considering the news that just broke.
posted by joeyjoejoejr at 2:41 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
There is now an FPP about the Facebook outage. Perhaps discussion about the outage should go there, and this thread should be for the whistleblower stuff?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:43 PM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 2:43 PM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
> posted by "They sucked his brains out!"
Nearly 150 comments in and ain't nobody got an "eponysterical" to spare?
MeFi, you disappoint me.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:49 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Nearly 150 comments in and ain't nobody got an "eponysterical" to spare?
MeFi, you disappoint me.
posted by Nerd of the North at 3:49 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Telephone systems have also been used to facilitate genocide. Should we all stop using them?
Telephone systems don't decide which conversations you hear or not. If Facebook was literally only showing you a chronological feed of content you had explicitly asked for, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to free speech arguments against regulation.
posted by wierdo at 4:03 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Telephone systems don't decide which conversations you hear or not. If Facebook was literally only showing you a chronological feed of content you had explicitly asked for, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to free speech arguments against regulation.
posted by wierdo at 4:03 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against regulation???
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:06 PM on October 4, 2021
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:06 PM on October 4, 2021
I don’t think anyone here is arguing against regulation???
The way to solve monopolies like Facebook is to break them up. You can't regulate speech in any effective way if huge monoliths control such a wide swath of the world's attention.
Shattering monopolies is pretty much always good. Giving the government tools to regulate how companies display content on their own platforms can turn evil very, very quickly.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 4:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
The way to solve monopolies like Facebook is to break them up. You can't regulate speech in any effective way if huge monoliths control such a wide swath of the world's attention.
Shattering monopolies is pretty much always good. Giving the government tools to regulate how companies display content on their own platforms can turn evil very, very quickly.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 4:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
That seems…fine? All anyone here is saying is that they want some way of maintaining the networks and histories they built on the thing? And that maybe there are people who use it without being monsters or
zombies?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:33 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
zombies?
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 4:33 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
> Do people really remember Usenet as some civilized forum full of verified information calmly shared?
Sure. I was on USEnet before I was on the Web, and I learned a lot from alt.usage.english, alt.folklore.urban, and other groups back in the mid-1990s. I'm still friends with many people I met then (and we mostly stay in touch via Facebook).
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:39 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Sure. I was on USEnet before I was on the Web, and I learned a lot from alt.usage.english, alt.folklore.urban, and other groups back in the mid-1990s. I'm still friends with many people I met then (and we mostly stay in touch via Facebook).
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:39 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
A slightly different take on the value of facebook, which I also loathe.
I have sold roughly 30-40 pieces of art over the last 3 years on Facebook and scored one fairly lucrative magazine illustration gig as well. I also got accepted to a group show at a well regarded local art gallery very recently and the show was advertised on Facebook.
Instagram, with its immense army of bot followers, not a single nibble, and the same with having my own website. Etsy can be quite sketchy, but Facebook takes zero commission. So for me, it works that way, though a lot of the time I feel frustrated as hell with the site, essentially because the stupidest voices seem to be the loudest.
I have learnt to step away, not engage, and to ignore the awful people that crop up on sites I like; it's the only way. Regulate it, split it up, and fix it.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 4:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have sold roughly 30-40 pieces of art over the last 3 years on Facebook and scored one fairly lucrative magazine illustration gig as well. I also got accepted to a group show at a well regarded local art gallery very recently and the show was advertised on Facebook.
Instagram, with its immense army of bot followers, not a single nibble, and the same with having my own website. Etsy can be quite sketchy, but Facebook takes zero commission. So for me, it works that way, though a lot of the time I feel frustrated as hell with the site, essentially because the stupidest voices seem to be the loudest.
I have learnt to step away, not engage, and to ignore the awful people that crop up on sites I like; it's the only way. Regulate it, split it up, and fix it.
posted by Phlegmco(tm) at 4:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
The problem is, most of your relatives and acquaintances on Facebook don't care about the harm Facebook causes, and will just keep doing what's most convenient. And right now the most convenient way of staying in contact with people like you, who *do* care about the harm, is through Facebook.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:10 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:10 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
That's an argument for having them contact me outside of Facebook.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:16 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:16 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
The problem is, most of your relatives and acquaintances on Facebook don't care about the harm Facebook causes, and will just keep doing what's most convenient. And right now the most convenient way of staying in contact with people like you, who *do* care about the harm, is through Facebook.
Which is why "walk away" isn't an answer. Part of the issue here is network effects, and you can't solve that by moving away.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:17 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Which is why "walk away" isn't an answer. Part of the issue here is network effects, and you can't solve that by moving away.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:17 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
The problem is, most of your relatives and acquaintances on Facebook don't care about the harm Facebook causes, and will just keep doing what's most convenient.
That's an argument for having them contact me outside of Facebook.
The whole point is there's no way of contacting a lot of people that is more convenient than Facebook. If email or phones were better, people would use them--if email or phones were better, social media might not even have ever been a thing.
This is not unlike the arguments here about Lyft or AirBnB. Yes, these companies are terrible. They do monstrous things both on purpose and out of sheer lack of understanding/unwillingness to learn. But people don't use them because people are just stupid idiots who do things for no reason, and people don't use them because they hate working people/love genocide.
People use them because they meet a need better than all the other things that are available. And people use them because the harms they do are difficult for many to fully grasp.
I get that a lot of people are like "why don't we just internet like we did LITERALLY THIRTY YEARS AGO" but that is just...not happening. The last 40 years ought arguably never to have been allowed to occur, but they did, and we have to live in the world as it is, not as it was.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 5:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
That's an argument for having them contact me outside of Facebook.
The whole point is there's no way of contacting a lot of people that is more convenient than Facebook. If email or phones were better, people would use them--if email or phones were better, social media might not even have ever been a thing.
This is not unlike the arguments here about Lyft or AirBnB. Yes, these companies are terrible. They do monstrous things both on purpose and out of sheer lack of understanding/unwillingness to learn. But people don't use them because people are just stupid idiots who do things for no reason, and people don't use them because they hate working people/love genocide.
People use them because they meet a need better than all the other things that are available. And people use them because the harms they do are difficult for many to fully grasp.
I get that a lot of people are like "why don't we just internet like we did LITERALLY THIRTY YEARS AGO" but that is just...not happening. The last 40 years ought arguably never to have been allowed to occur, but they did, and we have to live in the world as it is, not as it was.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 5:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
(to me, the wildest thing about facebook culture is that people actually want to stay in touch with the people they knew in high school)
posted by ryanrs at 5:32 PM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 5:32 PM on October 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
Way to make that more cryptic than I should have. I was attempting to make the argument that if the well-meaning people don't walk away from Facebook, there's no reason for anyone else to.
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by tigrrrlily at 5:40 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
(to me, the wildest thing about facebook culture is that people actually want to stay in touch with the people they knew in high school)
I like it for monitoring the mood. I don't have to wait for an intrepid reporter from the New York Times to make a field trip in order to find out what the folks back home are thinking.
posted by clawsoon at 5:44 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I like it for monitoring the mood. I don't have to wait for an intrepid reporter from the New York Times to make a field trip in order to find out what the folks back home are thinking.
posted by clawsoon at 5:44 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
The whole point is there's no way of contacting a lot of people that is more convenient than Facebook.
Yes, I know. If they care, they can find me outside FB. If they don't want to make literally 30 seconds more effort....I guess I won't hear from them. It's pretty insulting, actually, the people who can't be bothered if you aren't on FB. Just like any other platform - the created "need" to be on it is the point. It wants to create that mental trap.
It's been wonderful being free of it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
Yes, I know. If they care, they can find me outside FB. If they don't want to make literally 30 seconds more effort....I guess I won't hear from them. It's pretty insulting, actually, the people who can't be bothered if you aren't on FB. Just like any other platform - the created "need" to be on it is the point. It wants to create that mental trap.
It's been wonderful being free of it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [10 favorites]
(But I guess sharing this perspective without malice is still viewed by some as sanctimonious...I only want to encourage more people to leave. At least try a hiatus, you never know. You might not miss it.)
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:54 PM on October 4, 2021
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:54 PM on October 4, 2021
Yes, I know. If they care, they can find me outside FB. If they don't want to make literally 30 seconds more effort....I guess I won't hear from them. It's pretty insulting, actually, the people who can't be bothered if you aren't on FB.
It kind of reminds me of church. You regularly see a bunch of people who you wouldn't normally make the effort to seek out. Some dude feeds you propaganda that he thinks will keep you coming back.
posted by clawsoon at 5:54 PM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
It kind of reminds me of church. You regularly see a bunch of people who you wouldn't normally make the effort to seek out. Some dude feeds you propaganda that he thinks will keep you coming back.
posted by clawsoon at 5:54 PM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Tumblr is the answer if you like pretty pictures and random updates but wish to have no algorithm. I am surprised more metafilter people are not on tumblr because it is such a delightfully weird place and you curate your sources. They attempt to monetise it but the user base refuses and it is essentially a petri dish left to ferment.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 5:57 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
(Facebook is the Catholic Church in the church analogy, and Twitch is all the independent charismatic Pentecostal preachers hustling for every dollar.)
posted by clawsoon at 6:00 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 6:00 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Kadin2048 > Personally I'm surprised they [FB] haven't gone after Imgur yet.
Imgur has been bought by [MediaLab] the owner of Kik, Genius, and WorldStarHipHop, The Verge, James Vincent, Sep 28, 2021.
posted by cenoxo at 6:14 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Imgur has been bought by [MediaLab] the owner of Kik, Genius, and WorldStarHipHop, The Verge, James Vincent, Sep 28, 2021.
posted by cenoxo at 6:14 PM on October 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Kik et al is what you get when some idiot in the writer's room pitches "what if a bro even more toxic than Zuck decided to run some social media sites?"
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Could they not implement some reasonable AI or manual identification and tagging of content - the most obvious one being politics?
This would reduce interactions between users, and they don't care if it is a negative or positive interaction. It keeps people hooked and clicking.
posted by soelo at 6:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
This would reduce interactions between users, and they don't care if it is a negative or positive interaction. It keeps people hooked and clicking.
posted by soelo at 6:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
Imgur has been bought by [MediaLab] the owner of Kik, Genius, and WorldStarHipHop
Sic transit gloria mundi.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Sic transit gloria mundi.
posted by Kadin2048 at 6:30 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Heck, I have friends from high school right here on MeFi.
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:37 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by The corpse in the library at 6:37 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I've been surprised at the number of "so and so is on Signal" notifications I've been getting lately. Many times from people I wouldn't expect.
Yes, I know. If they care, they can find me outside FB. If they don't want to make literally 30 seconds more effort....I guess I won't hear from them.
I haven't logged in to my Facebook account in at least five years now. I haven't deleted my account, so if anyone there has anything particularly important to say to me, they're free to click on my profile and make use of the contact information found therein.
The nice thing about still having an account and getting email notifications is that I know people haven't gone and died yet. It's not like I have anything particularly interesting to say to anyone anyway, so that's enough for me.
posted by wierdo at 7:11 PM on October 4, 2021
Yes, I know. If they care, they can find me outside FB. If they don't want to make literally 30 seconds more effort....I guess I won't hear from them.
I haven't logged in to my Facebook account in at least five years now. I haven't deleted my account, so if anyone there has anything particularly important to say to me, they're free to click on my profile and make use of the contact information found therein.
The nice thing about still having an account and getting email notifications is that I know people haven't gone and died yet. It's not like I have anything particularly interesting to say to anyone anyway, so that's enough for me.
posted by wierdo at 7:11 PM on October 4, 2021
(But I guess sharing this perspective without malice is still viewed by some as sanctimonious...I only want to encourage more people to leave. At least try a hiatus, you never know. You might not miss it.)
Here's the thing (and this is coming from someone who never got into Facebook in the first place) - there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, cannot leave the Facebook ecosystem without harming their own quality of life. Part of why dealing with network effects is so pernicious is because they make leaving hard - in many ways the ability to leave such a system is a privilege (or comes from a position of such) because you have to have the ability to either replace or do without what the network provides you, and not everyone can do that.
That's why pushing leaving as The Answer comes across as sanctimonious - it's an argument that all people need to do is leave without acknowledging exactly how much of an ask that really is, with an implied argument that anyone who can't leave deserves the abuse coming from Facebook's systems. Beyond that, unless you figure out a way to get people to leave en masse, we're still left dealing with Facebook as an entity, so from a practical standpoint, pushing leaving isn't effective praxis. Not everyone can leave, and abandoning them is a poor position, so we need to grapple with the reasons Facebook is so toxic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:21 PM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Here's the thing (and this is coming from someone who never got into Facebook in the first place) - there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, cannot leave the Facebook ecosystem without harming their own quality of life. Part of why dealing with network effects is so pernicious is because they make leaving hard - in many ways the ability to leave such a system is a privilege (or comes from a position of such) because you have to have the ability to either replace or do without what the network provides you, and not everyone can do that.
That's why pushing leaving as The Answer comes across as sanctimonious - it's an argument that all people need to do is leave without acknowledging exactly how much of an ask that really is, with an implied argument that anyone who can't leave deserves the abuse coming from Facebook's systems. Beyond that, unless you figure out a way to get people to leave en masse, we're still left dealing with Facebook as an entity, so from a practical standpoint, pushing leaving isn't effective praxis. Not everyone can leave, and abandoning them is a poor position, so we need to grapple with the reasons Facebook is so toxic.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:21 PM on October 4, 2021 [11 favorites]
Facebook. Set up an account that first year. I put up a profile picture of George Smiley, put down Ethel Merman, Genghis Khan and star fruit as likes. the stock ticker like effect of peoples friend request was alarming. So I set a trap and just left it alone and it faded away. cleaned like a mannequin from the Walking Dead. People at work are all I can't use Facebook. I said Google it. Google what, Facebook.
that'll work.
posted by clavdivs at 7:25 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
that'll work.
posted by clavdivs at 7:25 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is the same convo every time. "Try leaving" "but some people can't"
I am sure that MOST people talking here could. Could find alternate strategies. Could still connect. Without one social media tool that frankly, is really really awful for lots of reasons including that social media in general makes people unhappy.
I will not stop suggesting, kindly, and without judgment, that people consider that you might not actually need Facebook. For real. It's not that wild of a thing to say even. It's certainly doesn't deserve a characterization of my thoughts as "The Answer." Never came close to saying that.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
I am sure that MOST people talking here could. Could find alternate strategies. Could still connect. Without one social media tool that frankly, is really really awful for lots of reasons including that social media in general makes people unhappy.
I will not stop suggesting, kindly, and without judgment, that people consider that you might not actually need Facebook. For real. It's not that wild of a thing to say even. It's certainly doesn't deserve a characterization of my thoughts as "The Answer." Never came close to saying that.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:28 PM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
I think that divesting oneself from Facebook is the right thing to do, but also, every local-ish queer group or organization (I say local-ish; they're in the nearest medium-sized cities, 60 miles and 90 miles away) is on Facebook and only on Facebook and I'll probably be on Facebook for as long as that's the case.
posted by Jeanne at 7:41 PM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Jeanne at 7:41 PM on October 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
You can just delete it. Nothing bad happens when you stop using Facebook because it doesn't do anything you can't already do without it. You won't die. You will still have friends. You will still be able to do whatever your business is without it. You will still find ways to connect with the people you really care about.
You will not miss all the effort you put in to try to work around all of the intentionally designed flaws to turn it into something it is not. You will not miss being upset because the algorithms determined trolling you with hateful shit from "people that you know" was the best way to boost numbers.
Facebook is a company that needs you to keep on existing though. They need you for active user counts and engagement metrics. They need your eyeballs for ad revenue. They need your participation in order to keep selling the idea that they are relevant. And above all they need you to believe all the things that you tell yourself you need it for. Because when you believe that you need it then you won't leave, and you will probably go on to tell everyone else why you can't leave and they will believe that they need it too.
You can actually help do something meaningful about all this terrible stuff though. All it takes is finding the buttons that deactivate your account and clicking them. You can download whatever it is you think is important and put it somewhere else if you want.
posted by grizzly at 7:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
You will not miss all the effort you put in to try to work around all of the intentionally designed flaws to turn it into something it is not. You will not miss being upset because the algorithms determined trolling you with hateful shit from "people that you know" was the best way to boost numbers.
Facebook is a company that needs you to keep on existing though. They need you for active user counts and engagement metrics. They need your eyeballs for ad revenue. They need your participation in order to keep selling the idea that they are relevant. And above all they need you to believe all the things that you tell yourself you need it for. Because when you believe that you need it then you won't leave, and you will probably go on to tell everyone else why you can't leave and they will believe that they need it too.
You can actually help do something meaningful about all this terrible stuff though. All it takes is finding the buttons that deactivate your account and clicking them. You can download whatever it is you think is important and put it somewhere else if you want.
posted by grizzly at 7:48 PM on October 4, 2021 [9 favorites]
Nothing bad happens when you stop using Facebook because it doesn't do anything you can't already do without it.
I could give a list here. One example: mum with kid with special needs, gets following in her 15 min of spare time in a day: posts from her kid’s school FB parent group saying it’s picture day on Monday, and a discussion of how one teacher never really follows the IEPs for kids in her class so our mum knows to just request the other teacher and avoid the headache, posts from the local special needs parents group talking about a new grant, posts from the 1200 other parents in the country whose kids have the same rare issue as her own, posts from the local free group where she scores some things she couldn’t afford due to therapy, posts from her family she can’t afford to visit, posts from her friends who help keep her sense of self apart from parenting alive, posts from her divorce support group, and messages from her babysitter, who’s watching her child when she goes for her mammogram.
Sure, given time she’ll set up a Discord and get the grant info from a social worker. Ha ha ha.
There should be a better way but so much in this thread is facile. I stay on FB because that’s where I can check in on multiple groups at once. When we went into lockdown the first time, in 2 days our neighbourhood had sourced refrigerators and a place to house and plus them in, transportation for them for an ad hoc food bank distributing donations from shut down restaurants, and drivers for distribution (I was one)…all of which connected on FB. Later we organized getting seniors signed up in the vaccine hunger games and I transported 7 to their appointments. People who are like “you don’t need to see your high school friend’s pictures” are missing a lot. Taking a guess at gender and caregiving roles here might be interesting.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [26 favorites]
I could give a list here. One example: mum with kid with special needs, gets following in her 15 min of spare time in a day: posts from her kid’s school FB parent group saying it’s picture day on Monday, and a discussion of how one teacher never really follows the IEPs for kids in her class so our mum knows to just request the other teacher and avoid the headache, posts from the local special needs parents group talking about a new grant, posts from the 1200 other parents in the country whose kids have the same rare issue as her own, posts from the local free group where she scores some things she couldn’t afford due to therapy, posts from her family she can’t afford to visit, posts from her friends who help keep her sense of self apart from parenting alive, posts from her divorce support group, and messages from her babysitter, who’s watching her child when she goes for her mammogram.
Sure, given time she’ll set up a Discord and get the grant info from a social worker. Ha ha ha.
There should be a better way but so much in this thread is facile. I stay on FB because that’s where I can check in on multiple groups at once. When we went into lockdown the first time, in 2 days our neighbourhood had sourced refrigerators and a place to house and plus them in, transportation for them for an ad hoc food bank distributing donations from shut down restaurants, and drivers for distribution (I was one)…all of which connected on FB. Later we organized getting seniors signed up in the vaccine hunger games and I transported 7 to their appointments. People who are like “you don’t need to see your high school friend’s pictures” are missing a lot. Taking a guess at gender and caregiving roles here might be interesting.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:36 PM on October 4, 2021 [26 favorites]
If the left were to abandon Facebook now, it would simply become an even more effective tool in the hands of the right and far right than it is now, as well as much more dangerous.
I don’t see any alternative to trying to reform it.
posted by jamjam at 10:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don’t see any alternative to trying to reform it.
posted by jamjam at 10:22 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
reposted from the other FB thread: when WhatsApp goes down it isn't just a matter of "nothing bad happens."
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:41 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:41 PM on October 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
So in other words: It's too big to fail.
posted by FJT at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 10:57 PM on October 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
All y'all kept spelling Facebook Outrage incorrectly today and I'm a little too afraid to ask etc.....
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 11:37 PM on October 4, 2021
posted by DeepSeaHaggis at 11:37 PM on October 4, 2021
I think we should acknowledge that different people use social media in general, and Facebook in particular, in different ways and to different degrees. For some people, the existing alternative-to-Facebook services get the job done, which is great. For some people, the alternatives aren't there yet. Either because of missing features or network effects.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think it's pretty unlikely that Facebook Inc. will actually be broken up in any significant way; maybe there could be a forced divestiture of WhatsApp/Messenger/IGM, or Oculus, or their stake in Jio, but it's really hard to imagine anything that fundamentally changes the business model or splits advertising away from content. I just don't think US regulators have the stomach for it. I do think some curtailment of Facebook's future actions is pretty likely, which makes competitors more likely to succeed and less likely to be bought. IMO, we're in this for the long haul.
So at least in the near term, Facebook is going to continue to exist. Alternatives to Facebook will, I hope, continue to improve. If you haven't looked at the alternatives lately, it's probably worth periodically checking. And even if you're not ready to switch completely, setting up accounts on other services, and periodically keeping an eye on who else uses them, could go a long way towards helping get around the network-effect problem.
As an aside, this thread reminded me to go and check on my Mastodon account, which I hadn't opened up in a while, and look at new arrivals in my Signal contacts list.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:13 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think it's pretty unlikely that Facebook Inc. will actually be broken up in any significant way; maybe there could be a forced divestiture of WhatsApp/Messenger/IGM, or Oculus, or their stake in Jio, but it's really hard to imagine anything that fundamentally changes the business model or splits advertising away from content. I just don't think US regulators have the stomach for it. I do think some curtailment of Facebook's future actions is pretty likely, which makes competitors more likely to succeed and less likely to be bought. IMO, we're in this for the long haul.
So at least in the near term, Facebook is going to continue to exist. Alternatives to Facebook will, I hope, continue to improve. If you haven't looked at the alternatives lately, it's probably worth periodically checking. And even if you're not ready to switch completely, setting up accounts on other services, and periodically keeping an eye on who else uses them, could go a long way towards helping get around the network-effect problem.
As an aside, this thread reminded me to go and check on my Mastodon account, which I hadn't opened up in a while, and look at new arrivals in my Signal contacts list.
posted by Kadin2048 at 12:13 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
I would love to see Facebook go away and be replaced with something more democratic and decentralised. Problem is, while it is possible to walk away from Facebook now, it is in a lot of ways a sort of Sartrean radical freedom. Not being on Facebook or Instagram these days is the Ted "Bon Iver" Kaczynski option of righteously refusing to engage with the sinful/corrupt society and opting out to live as a hermit. Perhaps a handful of your friends would occasionally trek out to visit you in your shack in the woods, though most of them would just forget that you existed.
posted by acb at 2:44 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by acb at 2:44 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Making this into an individual decision feels like the same argument that global warming can be solved through individual action. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take individual action but it ignores the actual major contributor to the problem: the corporations that profit from the status quo and how imbalanced the scales are towards them. Not to mention the whole point of the algorithm is to feed addiction; the system itself is fighting and using biological and sociological stimuli and triggers to keep people from leaving. Logic doesn't automatically override endorphins.
At a quick google FB has a 2.8 billion active users in a month. That's unlikely to be uniques but it's still measured in the hundreds of millions of people at a minimum. The scale of the issue is immense and global. Plenty of good reasons for people to leave have been highlighted here, yet people remain on Facebook.
Whether it's an issue of freedom of speech and better/more responsible moderation or breaking up the commercial apparatus, something needs to change beyond individual people trying to convince other individual people to leave a platform.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:09 AM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
At a quick google FB has a 2.8 billion active users in a month. That's unlikely to be uniques but it's still measured in the hundreds of millions of people at a minimum. The scale of the issue is immense and global. Plenty of good reasons for people to leave have been highlighted here, yet people remain on Facebook.
Whether it's an issue of freedom of speech and better/more responsible moderation or breaking up the commercial apparatus, something needs to change beyond individual people trying to convince other individual people to leave a platform.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:09 AM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
the system itself is fighting and using biological and sociological stimuli and triggers to keep people from leaving.
And people are helping it by telling others there's no point in leaving. The whole attitude about adopting a "global viewpoint" to bring out the enormity of the problem just reinforces the notion that change is impossible, or, sorry, nearly so since we can wait around for political action where our individual voice is surely heard, being one of only 150 million voters, if you live in the US, smaller scale sure at local levels, but, as should be obvious, the states and localities too are gridlocked and influenced by Facebook and its various bad actors, so that waiting might take a while.
The idea isn't that everyone will leave Facebook all at once, it doesn't need to be that, and it doesn't need to start out as a global action as the users in the US carry added weight and responsibility given Facebook is incorporated here. The amount of daily users isn't the issue either, as a considerable portion of those users are engaging with Facebook less to see "friends" and more to see personal content creators. There are clearly people who rely very heavily on Facebook, which is part of the problem for how deeply it has become intertwined with far too much of day to day life, but to end some of that hold it only requires breaking up individual nodes of content so people have to look elsewhere to be entertained or maybe put in a little more effort to get what they want. If you provide regular content for a group of friends, then your loss would be felt more strongly than if you just browse other people's timelines. Making Facebook less useful means breaking up the ease of consumption by offering more of it elsewhere, even if that means some people bring it back to the site.
Worry about being forgotten by "friends' speak to the problem of how Facebook and other social media sites have convinced us that friends are not those we live by, but those that we hold on to, allowing for further division and, along with Amazon and all the other sites making it "easy" to not deal with the actual locations we live in, instead living online, for wealth and attention to concentrate among the few rather than broadly. To be sure, there has long been friends that one only corresponds with and sees occasionally, but the immediate concern and day to day life has been on the place you live and those around you and losing that has a serious cost.
It is also obvious that there is need for communities on the margins to have places where they can communicate and maintain relationships that stretch beyond their immediate circumstance and, more broadly, that social media like Facebook can provide some good. That can be recognized and supported even as those for whom that isn't true act to minimize the threat Facebook provides and demonstrate a committed sense of purpose in refusal to accept the terms Facebook currently offers. Talk of this or climate change being beyond the individual is actively harmful for inculcating a sense of helplessness and/or reinforcing the ease of the status quo until someone else comes along to change things, even as that becomes ever harder the longer people individually refuse to change and signal their demand for a better way.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
And people are helping it by telling others there's no point in leaving. The whole attitude about adopting a "global viewpoint" to bring out the enormity of the problem just reinforces the notion that change is impossible, or, sorry, nearly so since we can wait around for political action where our individual voice is surely heard, being one of only 150 million voters, if you live in the US, smaller scale sure at local levels, but, as should be obvious, the states and localities too are gridlocked and influenced by Facebook and its various bad actors, so that waiting might take a while.
The idea isn't that everyone will leave Facebook all at once, it doesn't need to be that, and it doesn't need to start out as a global action as the users in the US carry added weight and responsibility given Facebook is incorporated here. The amount of daily users isn't the issue either, as a considerable portion of those users are engaging with Facebook less to see "friends" and more to see personal content creators. There are clearly people who rely very heavily on Facebook, which is part of the problem for how deeply it has become intertwined with far too much of day to day life, but to end some of that hold it only requires breaking up individual nodes of content so people have to look elsewhere to be entertained or maybe put in a little more effort to get what they want. If you provide regular content for a group of friends, then your loss would be felt more strongly than if you just browse other people's timelines. Making Facebook less useful means breaking up the ease of consumption by offering more of it elsewhere, even if that means some people bring it back to the site.
Worry about being forgotten by "friends' speak to the problem of how Facebook and other social media sites have convinced us that friends are not those we live by, but those that we hold on to, allowing for further division and, along with Amazon and all the other sites making it "easy" to not deal with the actual locations we live in, instead living online, for wealth and attention to concentrate among the few rather than broadly. To be sure, there has long been friends that one only corresponds with and sees occasionally, but the immediate concern and day to day life has been on the place you live and those around you and losing that has a serious cost.
It is also obvious that there is need for communities on the margins to have places where they can communicate and maintain relationships that stretch beyond their immediate circumstance and, more broadly, that social media like Facebook can provide some good. That can be recognized and supported even as those for whom that isn't true act to minimize the threat Facebook provides and demonstrate a committed sense of purpose in refusal to accept the terms Facebook currently offers. Talk of this or climate change being beyond the individual is actively harmful for inculcating a sense of helplessness and/or reinforcing the ease of the status quo until someone else comes along to change things, even as that becomes ever harder the longer people individually refuse to change and signal their demand for a better way.
posted by gusottertrout at 4:12 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Not being on Facebook or Instagram these days is the Ted "Bon Iver" Kaczynski option of righteously refusing to engage with the sinful/corrupt society and opting out to live as a hermit. Perhaps a handful of your friends would occasionally trek out to visit you in your shack in the woods, though most of them would just forget that you existed.
This is, quite frankly, absurd. I've never been on Facebook or Instagram, and I have quite a few friends. We keep in touch by email, text, and Zoom. Before COVID, I took classes, went to meetings, and ate in restaurants. The people who've forgotten I've existed are acquaintances from high school (I'm in touch with real friends) and some distant relatives. I don't think the gain from being in touch with them would outweigh the downsides of Facebook.
People do inconvenient and even hard things all the time. They go vegan, quit alcohol, train for marathons, learn to play instruments, and write novels. That some people consider Facebook a necessity to the point of comparing those who aren't on it to an anti-social murderer makes me think it's like an addiction. In order to justify it, you have to find something wrong with the people who aren't addicted. I am sympathetic to people who would like to quit Facebook but find the prospect daunting. But comparing those of us who have said no to Facebook to someone like Kaczyinski is ridiculous and insulting.
posted by FencingGal at 4:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
This is, quite frankly, absurd. I've never been on Facebook or Instagram, and I have quite a few friends. We keep in touch by email, text, and Zoom. Before COVID, I took classes, went to meetings, and ate in restaurants. The people who've forgotten I've existed are acquaintances from high school (I'm in touch with real friends) and some distant relatives. I don't think the gain from being in touch with them would outweigh the downsides of Facebook.
People do inconvenient and even hard things all the time. They go vegan, quit alcohol, train for marathons, learn to play instruments, and write novels. That some people consider Facebook a necessity to the point of comparing those who aren't on it to an anti-social murderer makes me think it's like an addiction. In order to justify it, you have to find something wrong with the people who aren't addicted. I am sympathetic to people who would like to quit Facebook but find the prospect daunting. But comparing those of us who have said no to Facebook to someone like Kaczyinski is ridiculous and insulting.
posted by FencingGal at 4:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
The Largest Autocracy on Earth – Facebook is acting like a hostile foreign power; it’s time we treated it that way., The Atlantic, Adrienne LaFrance; September 27, 2021 [alternate Archive.org link]:
posted by cenoxo at 5:21 AM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
In 1947, Albert Einstein, writing in this magazine, proposed the creation of a single world government to protect humanity from the threat of the atomic bomb. His utopian idea did not take hold, quite obviously, but today, another visionary is building the simulacrum of a cosmocracy.More in the article.
Mark Zuckerberg, unlike Einstein, did not dream up Facebook out of a sense of moral duty, or a zeal for world peace. This summer, the population of Zuckerberg’s supranational regime reached 2.9 billion monthly active users, more humans than live in the world’s two most populous nations—China and India—combined.
To Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder and CEO, they are citizens of Facebookland. Long ago he conspicuously started calling them “people” instead of “users,” but they are still cogs in an immense social matrix, fleshy morsels of data to satisfy the advertisers that poured $54 billion into Facebook in the first half of 2021 alone—a sum that surpasses the gross domestic products of most nations on Earth.
GDP makes for a telling comparison, not just because it gestures at Facebook’s extraordinary power, but because it helps us see Facebook for what it really is. Facebook is not merely a website, or a platform, or a publisher, or a social network, or an online directory, or a corporation, or a utility. It is all of these things. But Facebook is also, effectively, a hostile foreign power….
posted by cenoxo at 5:21 AM on October 5, 2021 [7 favorites]
In the other thread, I've been semiregularly posting examples of the systemic chokeholds non-american markets have to make WA and FB a monopoly (well, more WA than the rest, which I'm discovering in fascinated horror most Americans esp those without close diaspora links, live in happy ignorance about. It does seem like everyone but North Americans use WA)
posted by cendawanita at 6:04 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by cendawanita at 6:04 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
2021 Smartphone Growth to Reach Its Highest Level Since 2015, According to IDC, Business Wire; May 26, 2021: …shipments of smartphones are forecast to reach 1.38 billion units in 2021, an increase of 7.7% over 2020. This trend is expected to continue into 2022, when year-over-year growth will be 3.8% with shipments totaling 1.43 billion….
Once it got out the barn door, you can’t stop the signal.
posted by cenoxo at 6:12 AM on October 5, 2021
Once it got out the barn door, you can’t stop the signal.
posted by cenoxo at 6:12 AM on October 5, 2021
Talk of this or climate change being beyond the individual is actively harmful for inculcating a sense of helplessness and/or reinforcing the ease of the status quo until someone else comes along to change things, even as that becomes ever harder the longer people individually refuse to change and signal their demand for a better way.
Sorry, but it's the other way around. The point of noting that these are societal problems is to emphasize that they will require societal solutions to solve. Trying to individualize societal problems is harmful because it often moves the locus of responsibility from the entity to the individual (i.e. it's not Facebook's fault that it engages in unethical practices, it's your fault for being on Facebook), and serves to move individuals into engaging in ineffective means of praxis (see also: recycling.)
Yes, I get that focusing on societal solutions goes against American cultural mores (which is why it feels like this is pushing for helplessness - the myth of the rugged individual is a powerful foundational myth here), but individual action won't work to solve the problem - societal problems need societal solutions, and pretending that they can be solved through individual action only serves to dilute the effort to address them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:18 AM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
Sorry, but it's the other way around. The point of noting that these are societal problems is to emphasize that they will require societal solutions to solve. Trying to individualize societal problems is harmful because it often moves the locus of responsibility from the entity to the individual (i.e. it's not Facebook's fault that it engages in unethical practices, it's your fault for being on Facebook), and serves to move individuals into engaging in ineffective means of praxis (see also: recycling.)
Yes, I get that focusing on societal solutions goes against American cultural mores (which is why it feels like this is pushing for helplessness - the myth of the rugged individual is a powerful foundational myth here), but individual action won't work to solve the problem - societal problems need societal solutions, and pretending that they can be solved through individual action only serves to dilute the effort to address them.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:18 AM on October 5, 2021 [14 favorites]
The whole attitude about adopting a "global viewpoint" to bring out the enormity of the problem just reinforces the notion that change is impossible, or, sorry, nearly so since we can wait around for political action where our individual voice is surely heard, being one of only 150 million voters, if you live in the US, smaller scale sure at local levels, but, as should be obvious, the states and localities too are gridlocked and influenced by Facebook and its various bad actors, so that waiting might take a while.
Over in the other thread someone quotes a Tweet stating that in Kenya, cell phones come automatically loaded with a WhatsApp, while texting and SMS minutes often cost extra.
When we say it is a global problem there's a REASON we chose the word "global".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Over in the other thread someone quotes a Tweet stating that in Kenya, cell phones come automatically loaded with a WhatsApp, while texting and SMS minutes often cost extra.
When we say it is a global problem there's a REASON we chose the word "global".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
But comparing those of us who have said no to Facebook to someone like Kaczyinski is ridiculous and insulting.
That's okay, the first comparison was that someone was "terrified" that people would "justify" their Facebook use in the face of ALL-CAPS GENOCIDE, so you know, simple mass murder gets you off easy in this discourse. :P
I'm not pro-Facebook and I think it should be regulated at the very least; I'd actually prefer something even more radical. I also think FOX "news" and every streaming media and every station should be required to carry 5 minutes per hour of educational content developed by a consortium of university professors around critical thinking and scientific methods. (The "Schoolhouse Rock on speed" method of change.)
What I am not in favour of is the tired Calvanistic view that if only individuals would, you know, work harder - raise their own lentils, drag their kids to school on a sled, clothe them in ethically produced fibers, and only permit scientifically backed phrases out of their mouths, all the systemic injustices of the world would right themselves because consumer! power! am I right?
And I really don't think there's one way to live or one way to use social media (or not use it), but it doesn't escape my notice that a lot of people who are like "well just quit then" are equating Facebook to connecting with their friends for fun or pursue leisure activities, where most of the Facebook users I personally know (beyond what I hear about hate groups) are the people who are caregiving for others and their communities, doing hours and hours of unpaid labour to actually create healthy schools and neighbourhoods and get people help, often in the margins of their lives. (This is obviously self-selected because it's how I use mine.)
When you yell at them to stop using Facebook, it's kind of like the latte argument for house ownership, except with time. Certainly, if they didn't have to get their kids' homework supervised, work a job, care for their ailing parents, etc. etc., they could invest the *time* in other options. And finding all the groups that are currently housed under Facebook would take me *hours* a week.
But *time* is what they don't have. And the glory days of non-social-media depended on hours and hours of unpaid labour...phone trees for example. Email lists have to be maintained. To get in on a group text you have to invest in cajoling the alpha moms to let you in.
In any case, no one under 30 that I know uses Facebook. Some of that is probably the lack of caregiving need, but I also think it's A Thing. I actually suspect FB will diminish in the next 20 years. The question is, will we spend our time yelling at each other or will we get down to determining actual human needs and wants and create something public together. Clearly communities do need ways to come together.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:42 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
That's okay, the first comparison was that someone was "terrified" that people would "justify" their Facebook use in the face of ALL-CAPS GENOCIDE, so you know, simple mass murder gets you off easy in this discourse. :P
I'm not pro-Facebook and I think it should be regulated at the very least; I'd actually prefer something even more radical. I also think FOX "news" and every streaming media and every station should be required to carry 5 minutes per hour of educational content developed by a consortium of university professors around critical thinking and scientific methods. (The "Schoolhouse Rock on speed" method of change.)
What I am not in favour of is the tired Calvanistic view that if only individuals would, you know, work harder - raise their own lentils, drag their kids to school on a sled, clothe them in ethically produced fibers, and only permit scientifically backed phrases out of their mouths, all the systemic injustices of the world would right themselves because consumer! power! am I right?
And I really don't think there's one way to live or one way to use social media (or not use it), but it doesn't escape my notice that a lot of people who are like "well just quit then" are equating Facebook to connecting with their friends for fun or pursue leisure activities, where most of the Facebook users I personally know (beyond what I hear about hate groups) are the people who are caregiving for others and their communities, doing hours and hours of unpaid labour to actually create healthy schools and neighbourhoods and get people help, often in the margins of their lives. (This is obviously self-selected because it's how I use mine.)
When you yell at them to stop using Facebook, it's kind of like the latte argument for house ownership, except with time. Certainly, if they didn't have to get their kids' homework supervised, work a job, care for their ailing parents, etc. etc., they could invest the *time* in other options. And finding all the groups that are currently housed under Facebook would take me *hours* a week.
But *time* is what they don't have. And the glory days of non-social-media depended on hours and hours of unpaid labour...phone trees for example. Email lists have to be maintained. To get in on a group text you have to invest in cajoling the alpha moms to let you in.
In any case, no one under 30 that I know uses Facebook. Some of that is probably the lack of caregiving need, but I also think it's A Thing. I actually suspect FB will diminish in the next 20 years. The question is, will we spend our time yelling at each other or will we get down to determining actual human needs and wants and create something public together. Clearly communities do need ways to come together.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:42 AM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
Also, I think it needs to be pointed out how this:
It feels that this is a result of the confluence of three trends colliding. First, we have a cultural refusal to treat soft/emotional labor - the type of labor used in the building of communities - as labor, thus rendering the labor used to build and maintain these communities invisible and thus easily dismissable. Second is the tech community's use of forking as a means of conflict resolution, which tends to cast leaving as the preferred solution, while dismissing the costs of doing so (and honestly has helped contribute to the issues of harassment endemic there.) Finally, there's the point that many of the people making this argument don't actively use social media, and thus have an incomplete view of how it's used on the ground (which makes the refusal to listen to those who do and thus have that view boggling.)
It was said earlier that we keep having this discussion, and that's true - but the reason we do is because one side keeps arguing that leaving is easy while refusing to listen when the other side explains why it's not. It's not surprising that demands for people to surrender hours and hours of work without compensation or replacement is getting a response that is...less than enthusiastic, and if you want that to change, perhaps the first step is to listen to what people are saying.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:58 AM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
There are clearly people who rely very heavily on Facebook, which is part of the problem for how deeply it has become intertwined with far too much of day to day life, but to end some of that hold it only requires breaking up individual nodes of content so people have to look elsewhere to be entertained or maybe put in a little more effort to get what they want. If you provide regular content for a group of friends, then your loss would be felt more strongly than if you just browse other people's timelines. Making Facebook less useful means breaking up the ease of consumption by offering more of it elsewhere, even if that means some people bring it back to the site.- is a massive ask and utterly ignorant of both the genuine labor put in by people to build these communities (and which is now being asked to be abandoned with no replacement) and why people use social media (as seen with the comment "provide regular content for a group of friends", which ignores how several posters have explained how their communities use Facebook for vital communication and organization.)
It feels that this is a result of the confluence of three trends colliding. First, we have a cultural refusal to treat soft/emotional labor - the type of labor used in the building of communities - as labor, thus rendering the labor used to build and maintain these communities invisible and thus easily dismissable. Second is the tech community's use of forking as a means of conflict resolution, which tends to cast leaving as the preferred solution, while dismissing the costs of doing so (and honestly has helped contribute to the issues of harassment endemic there.) Finally, there's the point that many of the people making this argument don't actively use social media, and thus have an incomplete view of how it's used on the ground (which makes the refusal to listen to those who do and thus have that view boggling.)
It was said earlier that we keep having this discussion, and that's true - but the reason we do is because one side keeps arguing that leaving is easy while refusing to listen when the other side explains why it's not. It's not surprising that demands for people to surrender hours and hours of work without compensation or replacement is getting a response that is...less than enthusiastic, and if you want that to change, perhaps the first step is to listen to what people are saying.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:58 AM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
And actually...I will take a minute to make the comment I was going to make yesterday before I got, yes, angry at the blame-y comments at people about using Facebook. (Anger=engagement!)
My whole career in media was online, and I spent the better part of a decade with really smart, good people trying to figure out how to make money on articles/videos/etc. that were well-researched, geared towards older individuals, particularly women (so not a sexy market to a lot of advertisers), and to raise positive discourse in my country's media landscape.
And...we didn't find a way. The really great women's magazine that had a big -- over target -- subscriber base that never ran any diet content, etc....folded for lack of advertising. The websites that I ran only made enough money when we included a stream of clickbait or controversy with them. I do believe new funding models are developing and I am all for them (I'm currently looking at Anne Helen Petersen's paid newsletter + Discord model.)
But the "anger sells" thing is real. It's real here! Everyone, including me, got a little hit from shrieking about FB yesterday. That's one reason I left media and went into Martial Arts, which at some places explicitly teaches emotional regulation...not so much an individual solution as a choice about my time. It's very pervasive and I do think care - companies that actually care, politicians that actually care, caring communities - is the way forward but how to get from here to there I don't know of course.
Still, if for me there is any individual action (besides political) to take...be aware that your outrage and anger can and is being monetized, and just quitting Facebook is sort of like giving up one cigarette brand for another if you're still smoking.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:01 AM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
My whole career in media was online, and I spent the better part of a decade with really smart, good people trying to figure out how to make money on articles/videos/etc. that were well-researched, geared towards older individuals, particularly women (so not a sexy market to a lot of advertisers), and to raise positive discourse in my country's media landscape.
And...we didn't find a way. The really great women's magazine that had a big -- over target -- subscriber base that never ran any diet content, etc....folded for lack of advertising. The websites that I ran only made enough money when we included a stream of clickbait or controversy with them. I do believe new funding models are developing and I am all for them (I'm currently looking at Anne Helen Petersen's paid newsletter + Discord model.)
But the "anger sells" thing is real. It's real here! Everyone, including me, got a little hit from shrieking about FB yesterday. That's one reason I left media and went into Martial Arts, which at some places explicitly teaches emotional regulation...not so much an individual solution as a choice about my time. It's very pervasive and I do think care - companies that actually care, politicians that actually care, caring communities - is the way forward but how to get from here to there I don't know of course.
Still, if for me there is any individual action (besides political) to take...be aware that your outrage and anger can and is being monetized, and just quitting Facebook is sort of like giving up one cigarette brand for another if you're still smoking.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:01 AM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
My whole career in media was online, and I spent the better part of a decade with really smart, good people trying to figure out how to make money on articles/videos/etc. that were well-researched, geared towards older individuals, particularly women (so not a sexy market to a lot of advertisers), and to raise positive discourse in my country's media landscape.
And...we didn't find a way. The really great women's magazine that had a big -- over target -- subscriber base that never ran any diet content, etc....folded for lack of advertising. The websites that I ran only made enough money when we included a stream of clickbait or controversy with them. I do believe new funding models are developing and I am all for them (I'm currently looking at Anne Helen Petersen's paid newsletter + Discord model.)
It's worth remembering that part of the reason why it didn't work is because Facebook outright lied about their metrics.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:07 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
And...we didn't find a way. The really great women's magazine that had a big -- over target -- subscriber base that never ran any diet content, etc....folded for lack of advertising. The websites that I ran only made enough money when we included a stream of clickbait or controversy with them. I do believe new funding models are developing and I am all for them (I'm currently looking at Anne Helen Petersen's paid newsletter + Discord model.)
It's worth remembering that part of the reason why it didn't work is because Facebook outright lied about their metrics.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:07 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's worth remembering that part of the reason why it didn't work is because Facebook outright lied about their metrics.
Oh yeah, for sure. Facebook killed what was left of my last magazine (I had already been let go) when they flipped the algorithm away from publishers. Even the usual tricks -- like asking if you like raisins in your butter tarts, or whether candy corn is any good, INSTANT ENGAGEMENT -- failed at that point.
But pre-Facebook was really kind of equally dire. I think some social media trends have improved the situation, and helped good longform rise as somewhat viable. But a lot of traffic even before Facebook burst onto the scene was the same. My first pro gig was for a seniors' website, a really early media property. The most trafficked area were the political forums - especially during the 2000 Canadian election which was really in many ways a harbinger of Conservative tactics to come. When we shut those forums down a group of people went off and eventually formed a core for Rebel Media's online presence...sigh.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Oh yeah, for sure. Facebook killed what was left of my last magazine (I had already been let go) when they flipped the algorithm away from publishers. Even the usual tricks -- like asking if you like raisins in your butter tarts, or whether candy corn is any good, INSTANT ENGAGEMENT -- failed at that point.
But pre-Facebook was really kind of equally dire. I think some social media trends have improved the situation, and helped good longform rise as somewhat viable. But a lot of traffic even before Facebook burst onto the scene was the same. My first pro gig was for a seniors' website, a really early media property. The most trafficked area were the political forums - especially during the 2000 Canadian election which was really in many ways a harbinger of Conservative tactics to come. When we shut those forums down a group of people went off and eventually formed a core for Rebel Media's online presence...sigh.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
FWIW Im in Canada and WhatsApp is used pretty heavily, and not just in immigrant diasporas. My social circle here was pretty heavile affected by the outage, far more than fb or ig.
posted by lemur at 7:18 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by lemur at 7:18 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm old enough to remember life before social media. Things were not perfect, but thinking back, it was really nice. Sure, there are some bright spots in social media, but the overall effect is one of social corrosion.
What's happening is the baseline effect, where new entrants think that this is the way it always has been, and always has to be. It doesn't. I would love for young people to re-discover real relationships (without anonymity or upvotes/likes) the way they've re-discovered vinyl.
posted by dum spiro spero at 7:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
What's happening is the baseline effect, where new entrants think that this is the way it always has been, and always has to be. It doesn't. I would love for young people to re-discover real relationships (without anonymity or upvotes/likes) the way they've re-discovered vinyl.
posted by dum spiro spero at 7:32 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yes, when my parents were younger, they would have to save money to call home but at least IDD call cards were invented. Better than their seniors who had only letters. Such was the life of students on scholarship.
Then when it's my time, there's at least Skype, but there's got to be an appointment made in advance since my parents don't really use the PC of course. Imagine my surprise that there's such a thing called Viber where you can just use your wifi connection to call home. And this WhatsApp thing was getting quite popular too.
It's not vinyl.
posted by cendawanita at 7:37 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Then when it's my time, there's at least Skype, but there's got to be an appointment made in advance since my parents don't really use the PC of course. Imagine my surprise that there's such a thing called Viber where you can just use your wifi connection to call home. And this WhatsApp thing was getting quite popular too.
It's not vinyl.
posted by cendawanita at 7:37 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
societal problems need societal solutions, and pretending that they can be solved through individual action only serves to dilute the effort to address them.
If anyone were actually pretending that it may indeed be a problem, but thankfully it's not an either or question. Few people at all care about Facebook as a thing in itself, it's just a platform where "you" provide the content and engagement. I shouldn't have to note this on Metafilter, but when they are monetizing you, you have some actual power over them if you care to wield it.
The dogged insistence on trying to convince people that they have no power at all is frankly perverse. People talk about things being "social problems", thus too big for any one person to fix, but offer anti-social solutions of you don't matter, which is not at all true. The only thing you can control is yourself, so it is incumbent upon you to act as best you can to solve known problems, that's the essence of moral living. Racism, sexism, broad societal abuses of any sort are beyond your individual ability to "fix" but your actions still matter in setting an expectation and in investing oneself in the problem. You don't choose to ride the bus instead of drive because you think that will fix climate change by itself, you do it to say this is what I believe and I'm acting on it as best I can and that personal investment and sacrifice of ease both deepens your commitment to change by creating a greater sense of demand for alternatives and acts as a signal to others that this matters.
Achieving collective action is a group of individuals all choosing to act for a common good and that strengthens the incentive for change. Ironically, conservatives don't seem to have the same problem with people trying to talk them out of acting, so despite their utterly idiotic choices they actually accomplish things far beyond the direct influence of their numbers and drive the country as a whole to the right because a few handfuls of extremists make their demands heard and provide opportunity or cover for action.
But let's say I'm wrong, if so, the worst that happens is that the people who invest themselves in dumping Facebook or trying to consume less or whatever, will end up doing just that without any further gain. They lose out on browsing their friends timelines or miss announcements for whatever event or they end up spending more time in transit in less pleasant circumstance or perhaps don't eat their favorite foods or take that flight to see the relatives.
It harms no one else but them unless you somehow think people who dump Facebook or act on maybe foolish environmental concerns are somehow less likely to also pressure for larger social change than people who don't alter their behavior at all, in which case I think that's an incredibly bizarre assumption, but if you're wrong, trying to convince people that nothing they do individually matters can have an actual negative effect on the society as a whole for discouraging those who may be able to effect change far beyond their individual actions alone by providing leadership or inspiration or just an example that others follow which can snowball into increasingly outsized result. That's why we look to certain people as heroes for their resistance to the status quo, for acting as individuals and drawing in others to follow. Most of us, of course, will not do this and will frequently fail in our efforts to try to do the right thing, but the attempt still matters and some individuals will succeed and generate collective action and social change. Or we can just keep telling each other not to try I guess, that might work too.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:47 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
If anyone were actually pretending that it may indeed be a problem, but thankfully it's not an either or question. Few people at all care about Facebook as a thing in itself, it's just a platform where "you" provide the content and engagement. I shouldn't have to note this on Metafilter, but when they are monetizing you, you have some actual power over them if you care to wield it.
The dogged insistence on trying to convince people that they have no power at all is frankly perverse. People talk about things being "social problems", thus too big for any one person to fix, but offer anti-social solutions of you don't matter, which is not at all true. The only thing you can control is yourself, so it is incumbent upon you to act as best you can to solve known problems, that's the essence of moral living. Racism, sexism, broad societal abuses of any sort are beyond your individual ability to "fix" but your actions still matter in setting an expectation and in investing oneself in the problem. You don't choose to ride the bus instead of drive because you think that will fix climate change by itself, you do it to say this is what I believe and I'm acting on it as best I can and that personal investment and sacrifice of ease both deepens your commitment to change by creating a greater sense of demand for alternatives and acts as a signal to others that this matters.
Achieving collective action is a group of individuals all choosing to act for a common good and that strengthens the incentive for change. Ironically, conservatives don't seem to have the same problem with people trying to talk them out of acting, so despite their utterly idiotic choices they actually accomplish things far beyond the direct influence of their numbers and drive the country as a whole to the right because a few handfuls of extremists make their demands heard and provide opportunity or cover for action.
But let's say I'm wrong, if so, the worst that happens is that the people who invest themselves in dumping Facebook or trying to consume less or whatever, will end up doing just that without any further gain. They lose out on browsing their friends timelines or miss announcements for whatever event or they end up spending more time in transit in less pleasant circumstance or perhaps don't eat their favorite foods or take that flight to see the relatives.
It harms no one else but them unless you somehow think people who dump Facebook or act on maybe foolish environmental concerns are somehow less likely to also pressure for larger social change than people who don't alter their behavior at all, in which case I think that's an incredibly bizarre assumption, but if you're wrong, trying to convince people that nothing they do individually matters can have an actual negative effect on the society as a whole for discouraging those who may be able to effect change far beyond their individual actions alone by providing leadership or inspiration or just an example that others follow which can snowball into increasingly outsized result. That's why we look to certain people as heroes for their resistance to the status quo, for acting as individuals and drawing in others to follow. Most of us, of course, will not do this and will frequently fail in our efforts to try to do the right thing, but the attempt still matters and some individuals will succeed and generate collective action and social change. Or we can just keep telling each other not to try I guess, that might work too.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:47 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm old enough to remember life before social media. Things were not perfect, but thinking back, it was really nice. Sure, there are some bright spots in social media, but the overall effect is one of social corrosion.
I think we should perhaps get the perspective of one of those people for whom it wasn't perfect before we assess whether it really was "really nice".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [13 favorites]
I think we should perhaps get the perspective of one of those people for whom it wasn't perfect before we assess whether it really was "really nice".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:08 AM on October 5, 2021 [13 favorites]
I had to be reminded yesterday that Facebook also owns WhatsApp, and that for a large portion of the world that's the only option. There are a lot of people in the world who can't just point their browser at Tumblr or Gmail or whatever, the Facebook ecosystem is the only thing on their phone. They can't even call or text, because that's too expensive, but Facebook subsidizes itself! And they need it for their jobs.
I agree that the cognitive dissonance surrounding Facebook is reminiscent of the stuff you hear an addict saying, but that's true of lots of things in late stage capitalism. And, if anything it is more similar to our collective addiction to fossil fuels than an individual person's addiction to drugs.
It would be really hard to personally opt out of consuming fossil fuels, to the extent that it would require the dedication of someone willing to live in a shack in the woods like, yes, Ted Kaczynski.
Facebook should be broken up. Zuckerberg is the William Randolph Hearst of this century only even bigger and more powerful.
posted by Horkus at 8:28 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I agree that the cognitive dissonance surrounding Facebook is reminiscent of the stuff you hear an addict saying, but that's true of lots of things in late stage capitalism. And, if anything it is more similar to our collective addiction to fossil fuels than an individual person's addiction to drugs.
It would be really hard to personally opt out of consuming fossil fuels, to the extent that it would require the dedication of someone willing to live in a shack in the woods like, yes, Ted Kaczynski.
Facebook should be broken up. Zuckerberg is the William Randolph Hearst of this century only even bigger and more powerful.
posted by Horkus at 8:28 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Those wishing to follow Haugen's testimony in Congress today may be interested in this lengthy but worthwhile Twitter thread.
It's really not much that Facebook watchers won't already know (though "having trouble hiring" was news to me), but gosh, Haugen is absolutely killing it. Thank goodness for her.
posted by humbug at 8:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
It's really not much that Facebook watchers won't already know (though "having trouble hiring" was news to me), but gosh, Haugen is absolutely killing it. Thank goodness for her.
posted by humbug at 8:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Smart to focus on the actual damage to children's lives, as it may lead to something actionable, based on existing laws protecting them from online predators.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:37 AM on October 5, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:37 AM on October 5, 2021
The dogged insistence on trying to convince people that they have no power at all is frankly perverse.
Nobody is doing this at all, and your thinking that is the case is purely on your own head. What people are pointing out is that some problems cannot be addressed by individual action, no matter how morally you choose to live, purely by the scope of the problem. That doesn't mean you should not try to live morally, but that you should not expect that alone to be effective praxis for these problems. And it's the selling of individual action as praxis for societal issues that people are pushing back on.
But let's say I'm wrong, if so, the worst that happens is that the people who invest themselves in dumping Facebook or trying to consume less or whatever, will end up doing just that without any further gain. They lose out on browsing their friends timelines or miss announcements for whatever event or they end up spending more time in transit in less pleasant circumstance or perhaps don't eat their favorite foods or take that flight to see the relatives.
People throughout this thread have explained how they have built communities that are vital to their lives there. You have no excuse for maintaining this false model of social media use, and doing so is arguing in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:38 AM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
Nobody is doing this at all, and your thinking that is the case is purely on your own head. What people are pointing out is that some problems cannot be addressed by individual action, no matter how morally you choose to live, purely by the scope of the problem. That doesn't mean you should not try to live morally, but that you should not expect that alone to be effective praxis for these problems. And it's the selling of individual action as praxis for societal issues that people are pushing back on.
But let's say I'm wrong, if so, the worst that happens is that the people who invest themselves in dumping Facebook or trying to consume less or whatever, will end up doing just that without any further gain. They lose out on browsing their friends timelines or miss announcements for whatever event or they end up spending more time in transit in less pleasant circumstance or perhaps don't eat their favorite foods or take that flight to see the relatives.
People throughout this thread have explained how they have built communities that are vital to their lives there. You have no excuse for maintaining this false model of social media use, and doing so is arguing in bad faith.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:38 AM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
While Facebook does own WhatsApp, I think it's a mistake to generally conflate social media platforms with messaging platforms. The content one sees on a messaging app is not mediated by algorithms designed to exploit gaps in our cognitive abilities.
posted by wierdo at 8:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by wierdo at 8:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
Live Updates: Whistle-Blower Tells Senators That Facebook Puts ‘Astronomical Profits Before People’
Senators have referenced the series of articles published by The Wall Street Journal starting last month, largely based on documents brought to light by Ms. Haugen, which kicked off this entire conversation. The series highlighted how Facebook made decisions that fostered hate speech and misinformation, knew that its products were harmful to teens and studied how drug cartels and human traffickers used the platform to conduct business.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:15 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Senators have referenced the series of articles published by The Wall Street Journal starting last month, largely based on documents brought to light by Ms. Haugen, which kicked off this entire conversation. The series highlighted how Facebook made decisions that fostered hate speech and misinformation, knew that its products were harmful to teens and studied how drug cartels and human traffickers used the platform to conduct business.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:15 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
People throughout this thread have explained how they have built communities that are vital to their lives there. You have no excuse for maintaining this false model of social media use, and doing so is arguing in bad faith.
And that was acknowledged in my previous post, so the claims of bad faith are rather that themselves. I won't pursue what would obviously be a pointless back and forth on this any further, let it just suffice to say I completely disagree with your read of how the conversations on individual action and change have gone and continue to go.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:18 AM on October 5, 2021
And that was acknowledged in my previous post, so the claims of bad faith are rather that themselves. I won't pursue what would obviously be a pointless back and forth on this any further, let it just suffice to say I completely disagree with your read of how the conversations on individual action and change have gone and continue to go.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:18 AM on October 5, 2021
And that was acknowledged in my previous post,
No, it wasn't. As warriorqueen pointed out earlier:
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
No, it wasn't. As warriorqueen pointed out earlier:
And I really don't think there's one way to live or one way to use social media (or not use it), but it doesn't escape my notice that a lot of people who are like "well just quit then" are equating Facebook to connecting with their friends for fun or pursue leisure activities, where most of the Facebook users I personally know (beyond what I hear about hate groups) are the people who are caregiving for others and their communities, doing hours and hours of unpaid labour to actually create healthy schools and neighbourhoods and get people help, often in the margins of their lives. (This is obviously self-selected because it's how I use mine.)If you had actually acknowledged this aspect, you would have stopped framing Facebook usage around leisure.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
I guess I just keep coming back to, any number of human technologies have been deployed in the service of monstrousness. Do I abandon my dedication to a robust rail system because the robust european rail system aided in the slaughter of millions during the Holocaust? Of course not! The solution to murder and fascism isn't to try and make it physically impossible to commit a murder or spread propaganda, it is to make the conditions such that neither murder nor propaganda is rewarding to pursue.
So yes, regulate the FUCK out of Facebook. Hold them responsible financially and legally for the damage they cause, such that they are motivated to stop permitting that damage. Vote for and organize to advance political ends throughout society that make the fascists look like the sad, mewling losers they are. Make them irrelevant. (Also, incidentally, regulate the everloving fuck out of capitalist enterprises entirely, which will do incredible things for improving the quality of lives such that reactionary fascism stops seeming like a better option.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:46 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
So yes, regulate the FUCK out of Facebook. Hold them responsible financially and legally for the damage they cause, such that they are motivated to stop permitting that damage. Vote for and organize to advance political ends throughout society that make the fascists look like the sad, mewling losers they are. Make them irrelevant. (Also, incidentally, regulate the everloving fuck out of capitalist enterprises entirely, which will do incredible things for improving the quality of lives such that reactionary fascism stops seeming like a better option.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:46 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
If you had actually acknowledged this aspect, you would have stopped framing Facebook usage around leisure.
That was the point of acknowledging that not everyone needs to leave Facebook, some can, some can't, that's up to each person to decide for themselves and act according to their beliefs if they feel they have options.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:54 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
That was the point of acknowledging that not everyone needs to leave Facebook, some can, some can't, that's up to each person to decide for themselves and act according to their beliefs if they feel they have options.
posted by gusottertrout at 9:54 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
The current testimony and questions are drawing analogies to big tobacco and addiction, connecting those to internal Facebook research about how its platforms, algorithms, and metrics can hook children and teens, and measure that interaction.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:59 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:59 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think we should perhaps get the perspective of one of those people for whom it wasn't perfect before we assess whether it really was "really nice".
I was well into adulthood before the internet came along, I don't think anyone is saying life without it was perfect. In some ways it was better, and in some ways it was worse. I don't think "we" as a group are going to be able to assess how it really was or come to any kind of definitive conclusion about life without social media. But it was absolutely possible. People not only participated in leisure activities - they held jobs and organized communities and engaged in social movements that created huge changes in society (see the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s). Are those things easier with social media? Probably. The real question is whether the advantages outweigh the costs, and I don't think there's a clear answer to that. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's easy for people who have come to depend on Facebook to walk away - just that life was fine before it existed and we would figure out how to get along without it if it all disappeared tomorrow.
I am also confused by the idea that individual decisions are essentially meaningless. Facebook is what it is because of millions of individual decisions to create accounts and build lives there. There is no reason on earth that it couldn't work the other way. Telling people again and again that their choices don't matter is disempowering - and incorrect. Dairy farms are going out of business because individuals are choosing to use alternative milks. The cattle industry is doing everything in its power, including using legislation when possible, to ensure that people keep eating beef in amounts that are ruinous to the environment. If people's choices didn't matter, there would be no advertising directed at individuals. Saying that an individual's actions don't matter is a good way to justify inaction, but it's simply not true.
posted by FencingGal at 10:02 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I was well into adulthood before the internet came along, I don't think anyone is saying life without it was perfect. In some ways it was better, and in some ways it was worse. I don't think "we" as a group are going to be able to assess how it really was or come to any kind of definitive conclusion about life without social media. But it was absolutely possible. People not only participated in leisure activities - they held jobs and organized communities and engaged in social movements that created huge changes in society (see the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s). Are those things easier with social media? Probably. The real question is whether the advantages outweigh the costs, and I don't think there's a clear answer to that. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's easy for people who have come to depend on Facebook to walk away - just that life was fine before it existed and we would figure out how to get along without it if it all disappeared tomorrow.
I am also confused by the idea that individual decisions are essentially meaningless. Facebook is what it is because of millions of individual decisions to create accounts and build lives there. There is no reason on earth that it couldn't work the other way. Telling people again and again that their choices don't matter is disempowering - and incorrect. Dairy farms are going out of business because individuals are choosing to use alternative milks. The cattle industry is doing everything in its power, including using legislation when possible, to ensure that people keep eating beef in amounts that are ruinous to the environment. If people's choices didn't matter, there would be no advertising directed at individuals. Saying that an individual's actions don't matter is a good way to justify inaction, but it's simply not true.
posted by FencingGal at 10:02 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Live Updates: Whistle-Blower Tells Senators That Facebook Puts ‘Astronomical Profits Before People’
How positively un-American of them
posted by acb at 10:05 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
How positively un-American of them
posted by acb at 10:05 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
You can just delete it. Nothing bad happens when you stop using Facebook because it doesn't do anything you can't already do without it. You won't die.
Did you read the comment immediately preceding yours?
I've encouraged local groups to avoid reliance on facebook, and have educated about and actively helped build or pull together specific alternatives. From what I've read, it seems likely that the amount of people who have died as a result of other people having access to facebook (eg. the Rohingya genocide) significantly outweighs the number of people who have died as a result of not having access to facebook. But there's no way in hell I'm going to tell an isolated queer youth or some single parent on the [my rural area] Helps Others facebook group what their lifeline is or isn't.
In particular, as a blanket statement, saying that no one has ever died as a result of having their access to facebook cut off (eg. parents of a queer youth in a rural area who take away their phone and internet access, when that young person's only support group was on facebook) is demonstrably false.
posted by eviemath at 10:14 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
Did you read the comment immediately preceding yours?
I've encouraged local groups to avoid reliance on facebook, and have educated about and actively helped build or pull together specific alternatives. From what I've read, it seems likely that the amount of people who have died as a result of other people having access to facebook (eg. the Rohingya genocide) significantly outweighs the number of people who have died as a result of not having access to facebook. But there's no way in hell I'm going to tell an isolated queer youth or some single parent on the [my rural area] Helps Others facebook group what their lifeline is or isn't.
In particular, as a blanket statement, saying that no one has ever died as a result of having their access to facebook cut off (eg. parents of a queer youth in a rural area who take away their phone and internet access, when that young person's only support group was on facebook) is demonstrably false.
posted by eviemath at 10:14 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
I don't think "we" as a group are going to be able to assess how it really was or come to any kind of definitive conclusion about life without social media. But it was absolutely possible. People not only participated in leisure activities - they held jobs and organized communities and engaged in social movements that created huge changes in society (see the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s). Are those things easier with social media? Probably.
In the other thread, someone made a post that one thing that Facebook saves people is time to do the coordinating and organizing. You're right that people participated in leisure activities and organized communities and engaged in social movements before social media - but only the people who actually had the time to go knocking door-to-door or type up the phone tree for the PTA for the 3rd grade classroom or to call City Hall and find out why the trash hasn't been picked up in a week. And that's after they'd spent the ADDITIONAL time to track down who they SHOULD call.
The poster I was responding to was painting a much rosier picture of "gee, life was still neat without social media, I remember we hung out with our friends in person" and was conveniently overlooking the perspective of "yeah, well, I also remember life without social media as a single mom trying to raise my kids a a single-income family, and I remember what a pain in the ass it was to try to squeeze that kind of damn scheduling-school-stuff in before Facebook came along." I wasn't calling for Metafilter to find a Unified Facebook Field Theory or anything, I was pointing out what looked like a blithe dismissal of other perspectives.
To be clear, I'm not saying that it's easy for people who have come to depend on Facebook to walk away - just that life was fine before it existed and we would figure out how to get along without it if it all disappeared tomorrow.
One could say the same of just about any form of technology. I trust you're not also advocating we abandon things like microwaves or vacuums?
I am also confused by the idea that individual decisions are essentially meaningless. Facebook is what it is because of millions of individual decisions to create accounts and build lives there. There is no reason on earth that it couldn't work the other way. Telling people again and again that their choices don't matter is disempowering - and incorrect.[...] Saying that an individual's actions don't matter is a good way to justify inaction, but it's simply not true.
On the other hand, thrusting the matter back into the hands of the individual overlooks the corporate malfeasance that it seems Facebook is conducting. Comparing Facebook to a dairy farm being squeezed out by soy milk fans isn't an accurate analogy - Facebook is more like, if a cattle rancher millionaire bought out all the other dairy farms, and THEN bought out all the soy milk and oat milk farmers and turned all their facilities into dairy barns, and THEN lobbied Congress to approve its milk-fueled car they'd just come up with - and then used the income from the milk-fueled car to pay off Congress to cover up research that the milk-fueled car was causing asthmatic reactions in those with lactose intolerance. That level of power is not as easily impacted by individual choice as you seem to believe.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:20 AM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
In the other thread, someone made a post that one thing that Facebook saves people is time to do the coordinating and organizing. You're right that people participated in leisure activities and organized communities and engaged in social movements before social media - but only the people who actually had the time to go knocking door-to-door or type up the phone tree for the PTA for the 3rd grade classroom or to call City Hall and find out why the trash hasn't been picked up in a week. And that's after they'd spent the ADDITIONAL time to track down who they SHOULD call.
The poster I was responding to was painting a much rosier picture of "gee, life was still neat without social media, I remember we hung out with our friends in person" and was conveniently overlooking the perspective of "yeah, well, I also remember life without social media as a single mom trying to raise my kids a a single-income family, and I remember what a pain in the ass it was to try to squeeze that kind of damn scheduling-school-stuff in before Facebook came along." I wasn't calling for Metafilter to find a Unified Facebook Field Theory or anything, I was pointing out what looked like a blithe dismissal of other perspectives.
To be clear, I'm not saying that it's easy for people who have come to depend on Facebook to walk away - just that life was fine before it existed and we would figure out how to get along without it if it all disappeared tomorrow.
One could say the same of just about any form of technology. I trust you're not also advocating we abandon things like microwaves or vacuums?
I am also confused by the idea that individual decisions are essentially meaningless. Facebook is what it is because of millions of individual decisions to create accounts and build lives there. There is no reason on earth that it couldn't work the other way. Telling people again and again that their choices don't matter is disempowering - and incorrect.[...] Saying that an individual's actions don't matter is a good way to justify inaction, but it's simply not true.
On the other hand, thrusting the matter back into the hands of the individual overlooks the corporate malfeasance that it seems Facebook is conducting. Comparing Facebook to a dairy farm being squeezed out by soy milk fans isn't an accurate analogy - Facebook is more like, if a cattle rancher millionaire bought out all the other dairy farms, and THEN bought out all the soy milk and oat milk farmers and turned all their facilities into dairy barns, and THEN lobbied Congress to approve its milk-fueled car they'd just come up with - and then used the income from the milk-fueled car to pay off Congress to cover up research that the milk-fueled car was causing asthmatic reactions in those with lactose intolerance. That level of power is not as easily impacted by individual choice as you seem to believe.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:20 AM on October 5, 2021 [8 favorites]
Do I abandon my dedication to a robust rail system because the robust european rail system aided in the slaughter of millions during the Holocaust?
Yeah, they didn't stop using the rail system. They sabotaged it. So, I guess we should all be hoping for more of what happened yesterday to happen again.
posted by FJT at 10:25 AM on October 5, 2021
Yeah, they didn't stop using the rail system. They sabotaged it. So, I guess we should all be hoping for more of what happened yesterday to happen again.
posted by FJT at 10:25 AM on October 5, 2021
I know plenty of people who do community support, caregiving, and mutual aid without using Facebook. Many of the people giving and receiving assistance are not on Facebook -- maybe they don't trust it, maybe they've been harassed off the platform or arbitrarily banned, maybe they don't have a data plan. I don't think this is that unusual? Facebook is just one platform among many where this work happens.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:03 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Gerald Bostock at 11:03 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I know plenty of people who do community support, caregiving, and mutual aid without using Facebook. Many of the people giving and receiving assistance are not on Facebook -- maybe they don't trust it, maybe they've been harassed off the platform or arbitrarily banned, maybe they don't have a data plan. I don't think this is that unusual?
*pinches bridge of nose and sighs heavily*
How much time does it cost them, though?
And if your answer is "a lot", then can you at least try to understand that there are those people who want to do all of those things but do not have as much time in which to do it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:06 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
*pinches bridge of nose and sighs heavily*
How much time does it cost them, though?
And if your answer is "a lot", then can you at least try to understand that there are those people who want to do all of those things but do not have as much time in which to do it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:06 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yeah, they didn't stop using the rail system. They sabotaged it. So, I guess we should all be hoping for more of what happened yesterday to happen again.
You know damn well that isn't what I mean. What I mean, is that nobody responds to an FPP about high-speed rail or Amtrak or subways with "It's terrifying to me because people on the blue will justify their use of trains even though trains were used to commit actual genocide."
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:07 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
You know damn well that isn't what I mean. What I mean, is that nobody responds to an FPP about high-speed rail or Amtrak or subways with "It's terrifying to me because people on the blue will justify their use of trains even though trains were used to commit actual genocide."
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:07 AM on October 5, 2021 [6 favorites]
(But after reading through both of these FB threads I have a sneaking suspicion it's because fundamentally, aesthetically, a lot of folks on MeFi just don't particularly approve of FB's benign uses either.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:13 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 11:13 AM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I know plenty of people who do community support, caregiving, and mutual aid without using Facebook. Many of the people giving and receiving assistance are not on Facebook -- maybe they don't trust it, maybe they've been harassed off the platform or arbitrarily banned, maybe they don't have a data plan. I don't think this is that unusual? Facebook is just one platform among many where this work happens.
I know many such people as well. Most of that sort of work that I am currently or have previously been engaged in has not happened on facebook. But how is that relevant to the people for whom facebook is the platform where their specific work happens? Or the people, as noted in the other thread and linked to in previous comments in this thread, who only have access to facebook because that's the way affordable cell phone plans are set up in their country? (I didn't know that was a thing before reading it in the other thread either! That's why listening to each other's experiences rather than assuming we know what works best for everyone is important!)
Maybe we should institute something akin to the cat tax in posts or asks about cats, where people who are encouraging others to switch off of facebook must show some demonstration of the work they, themselves, are doing to make it easy for less technically savvy folks to be able to do so, given time and other constraints? Or else limit themselves to "I got off facebook" or "I got off facebook and the world would be a better place if facebook weren't a monopoly". Eg., "I got off facebook, and here are some ideas for how you might be able to help your community get off facebook too" is cool, as is "I got off facebook and here's how I now accomplish the functions that I used to use facebook for"; but not "I got off facebook and you should too" or "I got off facebook and you can too" (which carries the implicit "because my situation is universal/I can't imagine a different enough situation where my personal experience wouldn't apply").
posted by eviemath at 11:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I know many such people as well. Most of that sort of work that I am currently or have previously been engaged in has not happened on facebook. But how is that relevant to the people for whom facebook is the platform where their specific work happens? Or the people, as noted in the other thread and linked to in previous comments in this thread, who only have access to facebook because that's the way affordable cell phone plans are set up in their country? (I didn't know that was a thing before reading it in the other thread either! That's why listening to each other's experiences rather than assuming we know what works best for everyone is important!)
Maybe we should institute something akin to the cat tax in posts or asks about cats, where people who are encouraging others to switch off of facebook must show some demonstration of the work they, themselves, are doing to make it easy for less technically savvy folks to be able to do so, given time and other constraints? Or else limit themselves to "I got off facebook" or "I got off facebook and the world would be a better place if facebook weren't a monopoly". Eg., "I got off facebook, and here are some ideas for how you might be able to help your community get off facebook too" is cool, as is "I got off facebook and here's how I now accomplish the functions that I used to use facebook for"; but not "I got off facebook and you should too" or "I got off facebook and you can too" (which carries the implicit "because my situation is universal/I can't imagine a different enough situation where my personal experience wouldn't apply").
posted by eviemath at 11:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
One could say the same of just about any form of technology. I trust you're not also advocating we abandon things like microwaves or vacuums?
I'm not even advocating we get rid of Facebook - I just said that if it disappeared, we would figure out how to get by without it. That's also true of microwaves and vacuums.
posted by FencingGal at 11:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm not even advocating we get rid of Facebook - I just said that if it disappeared, we would figure out how to get by without it. That's also true of microwaves and vacuums.
posted by FencingGal at 11:29 AM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
You know damn well that isn't what I mean.
No, I didn't. I actually did think you were putting yourself in the position of a Polish, French, or even German civilian during WW2.
And I totally recognize the need for an online directory of people that allows for communication and self-organization, something like Facebook. And because of that need is filled by FB, I also think it's unlikely that Facebook will get substantially regulated or broken up.
And also, call it American consumerism or capitalism or whatever: People won't stop using a product just because it's harmful to someone else. They'll stop only if they can easily switch to something equal or better (doing less harm). And then you combine that with network effects (it's more convenient for as many friends and family to be on FB) with internal economies of scale (using FB to not only connect with other people, but to get news, buy things, etc.), then you have a pretty integral service for a lot of people. It not only becomes impossible to quit, but difficult to even moderate usage.
posted by FJT at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2021
No, I didn't. I actually did think you were putting yourself in the position of a Polish, French, or even German civilian during WW2.
And I totally recognize the need for an online directory of people that allows for communication and self-organization, something like Facebook. And because of that need is filled by FB, I also think it's unlikely that Facebook will get substantially regulated or broken up.
And also, call it American consumerism or capitalism or whatever: People won't stop using a product just because it's harmful to someone else. They'll stop only if they can easily switch to something equal or better (doing less harm). And then you combine that with network effects (it's more convenient for as many friends and family to be on FB) with internal economies of scale (using FB to not only connect with other people, but to get news, buy things, etc.), then you have a pretty integral service for a lot of people. It not only becomes impossible to quit, but difficult to even moderate usage.
posted by FJT at 11:48 AM on October 5, 2021
I'm not even advocating we get rid of Facebook - I just said that if it disappeared, we would figure out how to get by without it. That's also true of microwaves and vacuums.
If you're not advocating getting rid of it, why reassure us that we'd get along with out it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
If you're not advocating getting rid of it, why reassure us that we'd get along with out it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
No I was looking at it globally, since this FB issue is indeed a global one. Allied forces and civilians sabotaged train lines used by the Nazis. They didn't sabotage all train lines worldwide, because the trains were not the problem, the problem was the Nazis.
Conveniently, the Nazis are still the fucking problem.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
Conveniently, the Nazis are still the fucking problem.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:00 PM on October 5, 2021 [9 favorites]
But how is that relevant to the people for whom facebook is the platform where their specific work happens?
It's relevant to people who would rather not use Facebook but feel like they have no choice. If you're invested in the platform, it can seem impossible to do without it. But in many cases, it's not impossible or even more difficult, and using it can actually be exclusionary. In other cases, yeah, Facebook is the best available option. Like a lot of people in this thread, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for using it, just affirming that it feels a lot less necessary from outside the bubble, even for community work.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's relevant to people who would rather not use Facebook but feel like they have no choice. If you're invested in the platform, it can seem impossible to do without it. But in many cases, it's not impossible or even more difficult, and using it can actually be exclusionary. In other cases, yeah, Facebook is the best available option. Like a lot of people in this thread, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for using it, just affirming that it feels a lot less necessary from outside the bubble, even for community work.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:04 PM on October 5, 2021 [4 favorites]
I'm not even advocating we get rid of Facebook - I just said that if it disappeared, we would figure out how to get by without it. That's also true of microwaves and vacuums.
If you're not advocating getting rid of it, why reassure us that we'd get along with out it?
Because those aren't the same thing - like, at all.
I haven't said a word against people who choose to stay on Facebook. That's a choice people can make - I have no problem with it. My objection is to people saying it's impossible to live without it. While that is true for some people, that is probably only a small percentage of people on Facebook. What I object to is people confusing inconvenient with impossible.
And I was a low-income single Mom before Facebook existed, so I know how hard it is. I'm not at all convinced having Facebook at the time would have made it easier. Most likely I would have wasted whatever time I gained on social media. Unlike vacuum cleaners and microwaves, it's literally designed to encourage users to waste time on it - the more the better as far as Facebook is concerned. Nobody who gets a vacuum cleaner loses track of time and ends up vacuuming four hours in a row.
posted by FencingGal at 3:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
If you're not advocating getting rid of it, why reassure us that we'd get along with out it?
Because those aren't the same thing - like, at all.
I haven't said a word against people who choose to stay on Facebook. That's a choice people can make - I have no problem with it. My objection is to people saying it's impossible to live without it. While that is true for some people, that is probably only a small percentage of people on Facebook. What I object to is people confusing inconvenient with impossible.
And I was a low-income single Mom before Facebook existed, so I know how hard it is. I'm not at all convinced having Facebook at the time would have made it easier. Most likely I would have wasted whatever time I gained on social media. Unlike vacuum cleaners and microwaves, it's literally designed to encourage users to waste time on it - the more the better as far as Facebook is concerned. Nobody who gets a vacuum cleaner loses track of time and ends up vacuuming four hours in a row.
posted by FencingGal at 3:43 PM on October 5, 2021 [10 favorites]
I'm pretty sure likes and private groups should be removed from the entire thing.
posted by rhizome at 3:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by rhizome at 3:51 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Surely some beneficial side effects shouldn't be taken to excuse the entire enterprise?
Facebook was built to be addictive and to sell your information to the highest bidder. It was built to create echo chambers and polarize discourse. It partners with repressive regimes to censor and identify dissidents. It has played a key role in the deadly anti-vaccine movement, among others. It is on a soulless search for profit. Plus, there's a whole class of FAANG investors that have a vested interest in defending it without mentioning their dividends out loud. And everyone who is feeding the machine thinks they are doing it voluntarily, that there's no better alternative.
Community and charity organizers are riding the coattail of a much bigger machine, but that is a very small part of the picture. The same time-saving advantages accrue to human traffickers and child abuse. These can not be used to judge the whole.
posted by dum spiro spero at 4:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
Facebook was built to be addictive and to sell your information to the highest bidder. It was built to create echo chambers and polarize discourse. It partners with repressive regimes to censor and identify dissidents. It has played a key role in the deadly anti-vaccine movement, among others. It is on a soulless search for profit. Plus, there's a whole class of FAANG investors that have a vested interest in defending it without mentioning their dividends out loud. And everyone who is feeding the machine thinks they are doing it voluntarily, that there's no better alternative.
Community and charity organizers are riding the coattail of a much bigger machine, but that is a very small part of the picture. The same time-saving advantages accrue to human traffickers and child abuse. These can not be used to judge the whole.
posted by dum spiro spero at 4:09 PM on October 5, 2021 [1 favorite]
C-SPAN, October 5, 2021
Facebook Whistleblower Testifies on Protecting Kids Online
[Full video 3:28:36 with CC and text transcript.]
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified about business practices and decisions the company made that she says is harming children and teenagers.Lawmakers on the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection continued questioning the former Facebook employee on how the social media platform targets children and uses algorithms to promote content that the company knows is harmful.
posted by cenoxo at 4:35 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Facebook Whistleblower Testifies on Protecting Kids Online
[Full video 3:28:36 with CC and text transcript.]
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified about business practices and decisions the company made that she says is harming children and teenagers.Lawmakers on the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection continued questioning the former Facebook employee on how the social media platform targets children and uses algorithms to promote content that the company knows is harmful.
posted by cenoxo at 4:35 PM on October 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
Like a lot of people in this thread, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone for using it, just affirming that it feels a lot less necessary from outside the bubble, even for community work.
That's the problem - it's easy to not see the labor put into building and maintaining those communities, and how that labor would need to be replicated in order for that community to be able to move. The issue isn't that it's "necessary", it's that the current infrastructure is built there, and that the community does rely on it - so asking them to give it up is a massive ask, especially if you aren't prepared to provide the replacement infrastructure.
Surely some beneficial side effects shouldn't be taken to excuse the entire enterprise?
Nobody is doing this, so I don't see why this is a worry. The point of pointing out that there are large communities that rely on infrastructure built on Facebook is to point out that the idea of abandoning Facebook is neither practically feasible (network effects are very hard to fight) and morally questionable given the people who genuinely rely on communities built on Facebook - communities built on significant labor. As such, we need to look to other answers to dealing with Facebook.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
That's the problem - it's easy to not see the labor put into building and maintaining those communities, and how that labor would need to be replicated in order for that community to be able to move. The issue isn't that it's "necessary", it's that the current infrastructure is built there, and that the community does rely on it - so asking them to give it up is a massive ask, especially if you aren't prepared to provide the replacement infrastructure.
Surely some beneficial side effects shouldn't be taken to excuse the entire enterprise?
Nobody is doing this, so I don't see why this is a worry. The point of pointing out that there are large communities that rely on infrastructure built on Facebook is to point out that the idea of abandoning Facebook is neither practically feasible (network effects are very hard to fight) and morally questionable given the people who genuinely rely on communities built on Facebook - communities built on significant labor. As such, we need to look to other answers to dealing with Facebook.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:15 PM on October 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
Wouldn't regulating the fuck out of Facebook also put all that labor into jeopardy? Is it objectionable if Facebook is somehow spanked so hard tat they're forced to become a less convenient platform? So much so that all those communities wither and die?
I've said before, and I'll say again, if you see Facebook as evil, as many here have declared over and over through the years, the choice is clear. You must quit. It's immoral to not quit. Regardless how much labor you've invested. I take evil seriously. For me, evil really clarifies the sunk cost fallacy.
But if you find enough value in Facebook's functionality, as many people do, it isn't really evil. If that describes you, you figure out how to deal with it.
FWIW, I don't describe Facebook as evil. Just really shitty.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
I've said before, and I'll say again, if you see Facebook as evil, as many here have declared over and over through the years, the choice is clear. You must quit. It's immoral to not quit. Regardless how much labor you've invested. I take evil seriously. For me, evil really clarifies the sunk cost fallacy.
But if you find enough value in Facebook's functionality, as many people do, it isn't really evil. If that describes you, you figure out how to deal with it.
FWIW, I don't describe Facebook as evil. Just really shitty.
posted by 2N2222 at 7:45 PM on October 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
For me, evil really clarifies the sunk cost fallacy.
There's a Sarah Miller piece on Popula that really gets to the heart of this, for me:
I swear, it is like people hooked on smokes and get upset at the doctor finding a tumor. Or antivaxxers who catch Covid and angrily call the underlying virus a hoax, even moments up to being sedated and hooked up to a ventilator.
We have someone here who is a former employee, citing tens of thousands of pages of internal corporate documentation showing how the company management at the root of this manipulate viewership. Her testimony is credible, documented, and shows how Facebook does damage to viewers and is a major causal element in violent death around the world. And yet people are still arguing to stay hooked on this drug. It is madness.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
There's a Sarah Miller piece on Popula that really gets to the heart of this, for me:
It sounds obnoxious, but I have to say, I kind of liked this guy. I liked all of them. They were a charming bunch. They had been born this way. That’s how they’d gotten jobs on the front lines of capitalist hypocrisy, while those of us who sucked at lying were hiding in the trenches, smoking cigarettes, writing letters home about how miserable we were. They just said the stuff that we all lived. Who of us behaves as if we were in immediate trouble? We work, and at the end of the day, if we think at all, all we have time to think about is that we are cowards, or, before the thought comes, to escape it. Raise your hand if you have never hoped you will die before you have to thoroughly disrupt your own life for the lives of those who will live after you are dead. I do not mean to yell at anyone. Every day, I ask myself, what are you willing to do? And sometimes I feel righteous and strong, but mostly what I feel is fear, and a drive towards self preservation. I can laugh at the prettily arranged soap, or the privately-viewed sunsets, or the Jet Skis, because those are not my drugs, but Niu Kitchen, and all that goes with it, will be dragged from my fake wedding-ring-adorned cold dead hands.Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram are not free, but they are easy. They are paid for off of backroom deals, data harvesting, and ad revenue generated by viewer clicks. The illusion of getting a free lunch makes it attractive, to the point where people not only call that convenience a life necessity, but get indignant when there is any discussion of the consequences of giving the larger business your eyeballs and your mouse clicks.
I swear, it is like people hooked on smokes and get upset at the doctor finding a tumor. Or antivaxxers who catch Covid and angrily call the underlying virus a hoax, even moments up to being sedated and hooked up to a ventilator.
We have someone here who is a former employee, citing tens of thousands of pages of internal corporate documentation showing how the company management at the root of this manipulate viewership. Her testimony is credible, documented, and shows how Facebook does damage to viewers and is a major causal element in violent death around the world. And yet people are still arguing to stay hooked on this drug. It is madness.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:41 PM on October 5, 2021 [16 favorites]
My proposal:
Eliminate Section 230 immunity for any social medium that does not allow a "clean" (algorithm-free) feed.
In other words, you only see posts by people you have friended, and comments on those posts. You can opt-in to see their shares or re-tweets.
Eliminating the algorithm eliminates the fuckery, and it makes perfect sense. The logic behind Section 230 was that social media aren't publishing their own material, but providing an open forum, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
As soon as they start manipulating your feed and shoving things into it, they're publishing.
posted by msalt at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [32 favorites]
Eliminate Section 230 immunity for any social medium that does not allow a "clean" (algorithm-free) feed.
In other words, you only see posts by people you have friended, and comments on those posts. You can opt-in to see their shares or re-tweets.
Eliminating the algorithm eliminates the fuckery, and it makes perfect sense. The logic behind Section 230 was that social media aren't publishing their own material, but providing an open forum, so they shouldn't be held responsible.
As soon as they start manipulating your feed and shoving things into it, they're publishing.
posted by msalt at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2021 [32 favorites]
Wouldn't regulating the fuck out of Facebook also put all that labor into jeopardy? Is it objectionable if Facebook is somehow spanked so hard tat they're forced to become a less convenient platform? So much so that all those communities wither and die?
I'm not clear how requiring Facebook to delete the algorithm currently designed to push pro-anorexia content at 13-year-old girls would impact the "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
I'm not clear how requiring Facebook to delete the algorithm currently designed to push pro-anorexia content at 13-year-old girls would impact the "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:12 AM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
Here’s How Easy It Is for Cops to Get Your Facebook Data - Police can access everything from “pokes” to private Messenger data — and increasingly do, Medium.com, Ella Fassler; June 16, 2020:
posted by cenoxo at 5:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
…Over the last five years, U.S. government requests for Facebook data [FB Transparency Center page with updated govt request stats] have more than tripled. In 2015, American police requested data from 56,620 separate accounts; 80,443 in 2016; 105,905 in 2017; 134,150 in 2018; and 164,782 in 2019. (Facebook provided law enforcement with data in 88% of cases in 2019, a 9% increase from 2013.) By contrast, Canadian law enforcement requested data from just 4,901 accounts last year, and the practice is uncommon in Europe.More in the Medium article. See also the current Facebook Safety Center > Information for Law Enforcement Authorities guidelines.
…
It is relatively easy for law enforcement [Quartz 2018 article] to make such requests. A lawyer seeking to exonerate a client using Facebook data must physically serve a subpoena to Facebook’s offices. Yet LERT, a unit which includes some former police officers, like its director, Scott Swantner, a retired secret service special agent and cybercrime investigator, offers law enforcement an online portal that makes requesting data online simple.
Through this portal, according to a Sacramento Sheriff’s guide to Facebook’s Law Enforcement Portal published in 2016 [PDF], Facebook can hand over every bit of data, including users’ photo metadata (such as IP address and location information), advertisements clicked, applications added, deleted friends, facial recognition data, posts liked, searches made, deleted content, and even silly data, like “pokes.”…
posted by cenoxo at 5:32 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Police can access everything from “pokes” to private Messenger data
I'm not at all surprised that police can access one's Facebook data, but I'm mildly surprised to learn that pokes are still a thing.
posted by Gelatin at 5:44 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm not at all surprised that police can access one's Facebook data, but I'm mildly surprised to learn that pokes are still a thing.
posted by Gelatin at 5:44 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Finally got the time to go through her 60 Minutes' pieces, but icymi: Facebook's foreign impact
"It's horrifying to me, what Facebook is in other countries. For most languages in the world, there isn't a free and open Internet, but FB has gone and paid people, they subsidised their data plans, they subsidised their phones, to get people in incredibly fragile places in the world, on the platform. We had a joke inside of Civic Integrity: that if you want to know the next batch of at-risk countries was gonna be, all you had to do was look two years in the past at what the Facebook connectivity countries were, and that's where they're gonna be."
now, perhaps i myself haven't been quite clear in my purpose sharing my anecdotes in the two threads, but i haven't been saying facebook's grip on my society is a net good, but all the functionalities it and its products have, both organically AND PURPOSEFULLY MARKET-DRIVEN, did fit a need most of us didn't have. Maybe you guys did. The fact that WA is barely a blip in the N.American market, as our conversation in the threads have shown, doesn't leave Zuckerberg with sleepless nights. Facebook lose N.Am market share? So what? We're being in stranglehold here keeps feeding it our pennies.
You leave Facebook as much as you want. We can barely leave the ecosystem or effect actual political penalties on this goddamned monster. So I hope those who've been the loudest here have also worked equally and substantively hard to make sure the political actors are in place to break this hydra up.
posted by cendawanita at 6:14 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
"It's horrifying to me, what Facebook is in other countries. For most languages in the world, there isn't a free and open Internet, but FB has gone and paid people, they subsidised their data plans, they subsidised their phones, to get people in incredibly fragile places in the world, on the platform. We had a joke inside of Civic Integrity: that if you want to know the next batch of at-risk countries was gonna be, all you had to do was look two years in the past at what the Facebook connectivity countries were, and that's where they're gonna be."
now, perhaps i myself haven't been quite clear in my purpose sharing my anecdotes in the two threads, but i haven't been saying facebook's grip on my society is a net good, but all the functionalities it and its products have, both organically AND PURPOSEFULLY MARKET-DRIVEN, did fit a need most of us didn't have. Maybe you guys did. The fact that WA is barely a blip in the N.American market, as our conversation in the threads have shown, doesn't leave Zuckerberg with sleepless nights. Facebook lose N.Am market share? So what? We're being in stranglehold here keeps feeding it our pennies.
You leave Facebook as much as you want. We can barely leave the ecosystem or effect actual political penalties on this goddamned monster. So I hope those who've been the loudest here have also worked equally and substantively hard to make sure the political actors are in place to break this hydra up.
posted by cendawanita at 6:14 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
cendawanita, I get what you're saying, which is why I believe Facebook needs to be weakened to give opportunity for competitors and at least some chance for change. I don't know how to address WA issues directly, but I do know that Facebook's market share, ad revenue, and maybe more importantly, it's political clout is tied to its user base and its all important metrics for page views and user engagement. Those are the stats Zuckerberg wields and essentially threatens congress with when he speaks before them as a way to say Facebook has power and will use it if you rile up its userbase. The importance of eroding that sway comes from showing that Facebook is losing its grip and it can be regulated without the same fear of reprisal.
We, here in the US, built Facebook one invite at a time and gave it monopoly power by our own content that Facebook uses to serve disinformation to the meat we provided in all the family and friends we encouraged to join. And, as usual, we then inflicted our problems on the rest of the world through our uncaring desire for convenience at any cost. We're responsible and need to deal with it by taking back what we gave Zuckerberg and regulating the hell out of it so Facebook's grip on the world is weakened enough for others to get space to operate. If there's a better way to force the issue, I'd be all for it, but the least I can do is stop feeding the beast and encourage others who can do likewise to do the same until it is brought to heel.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:43 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
We, here in the US, built Facebook one invite at a time and gave it monopoly power by our own content that Facebook uses to serve disinformation to the meat we provided in all the family and friends we encouraged to join. And, as usual, we then inflicted our problems on the rest of the world through our uncaring desire for convenience at any cost. We're responsible and need to deal with it by taking back what we gave Zuckerberg and regulating the hell out of it so Facebook's grip on the world is weakened enough for others to get space to operate. If there's a better way to force the issue, I'd be all for it, but the least I can do is stop feeding the beast and encourage others who can do likewise to do the same until it is brought to heel.
posted by gusottertrout at 7:43 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
in general, i agree with the approach. but i feel like on mefi specifically, and i only say this with the experience of living thru four years of constant political threads, i don't see that endpoint emphasised enough? where's your postcard drives? your calls to senators? it's just 'leave it'. leave it, and be satisfied.
maybe i've missed the calls to civic action that should be coming after leaving it. but it's always comments that are like, oh you can live without it. uh-huh.
posted by cendawanita at 8:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
maybe i've missed the calls to civic action that should be coming after leaving it. but it's always comments that are like, oh you can live without it. uh-huh.
posted by cendawanita at 8:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
We live in Canada and my husband uses WA as a way to keep in touch with his sister over in the UK. It's a platform that works for them as a way for us to see pics of my nephew and niece. I think WA has more traction in Canada from what I understand.
cendawanita, thanks for informing me about WA's importance in countries other than the US. I appreciate your perspective.
posted by Kitteh at 8:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
cendawanita, thanks for informing me about WA's importance in countries other than the US. I appreciate your perspective.
posted by Kitteh at 8:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
maybe i've missed the calls to civic action that should be coming after leaving it. but it's always comments that are like, oh you can live without it.
I believe this is the second suggestion that people who aren't on Facebook are somehow responsible for creating systemic change, while there are no similar calls for people who actually engage with the platform, thereby supporting it, to take responsibility for what it's doing to the culture. People who aren't engaging with Facebook, often at a cost to themselves, are refusing to let Facebook profit from them. Why are they more responsible for public policy around Facebook than people who are actually ensuring that Facebook continues to make money?
posted by FencingGal at 8:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
I believe this is the second suggestion that people who aren't on Facebook are somehow responsible for creating systemic change, while there are no similar calls for people who actually engage with the platform, thereby supporting it, to take responsibility for what it's doing to the culture. People who aren't engaging with Facebook, often at a cost to themselves, are refusing to let Facebook profit from them. Why are they more responsible for public policy around Facebook than people who are actually ensuring that Facebook continues to make money?
posted by FencingGal at 8:35 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
i'm not american.
posted by cendawanita at 8:38 AM on October 6, 2021
posted by cendawanita at 8:38 AM on October 6, 2021
maybe if i was irish, i'd feel a bit more clearsighted on my civic responsibility as well, but that's another story. this whistleblower isn't speaking in dublin, or in brussels.
posted by cendawanita at 8:39 AM on October 6, 2021
posted by cendawanita at 8:39 AM on October 6, 2021
For the record, I'm American and I agree with Cendawanita.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:49 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:49 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Okay, sorry, that was too pithy, let me try again:
I agree with Cendawanita that it is too easy to say "just leave it" and assume that everyone will follow along with you, without your offering alternatives. Like it or not, there are people for whom Facebook fills a real and important need, and no matter how much you appeal to their sense of solidarity, they will not leave Facebook, and you need to accept that, and understand that this further means that the "strength in numbers" reaction you envision will not happen.
In fact, I'm honestly baffled why "leaving Facebook" is the only solution that's occurred to people. If, as some say, that "Facebook's market share, ad revenue, and maybe more importantly, it's political clout is tied to its user base and its all important metrics for page views and user engagement" and that "those are the stats Zuckerberg wields and essentially threatens congress with when he speaks before them as a way to say Facebook has power and will use it if you rile up its userbase", then...why not appeal to that userbase to demand Congress regulate Facebook?
You know? If all you can say is "are you mad about Facebook? Then just leave it!" you're going to get too many people who won't drop out. But if you say "are you mad about Facebook? Here's the regulations to ask Congress to pass", then people not only get to keep the convenient tool Facebook has become for them, they've eliminated the problems in it.
I mean...."if you don't like Facebook, just leave" sometimes sounds like a cousin to the snippy "If you don't like 'Murica, just leave" comments you see on Twitter sometimes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
I agree with Cendawanita that it is too easy to say "just leave it" and assume that everyone will follow along with you, without your offering alternatives. Like it or not, there are people for whom Facebook fills a real and important need, and no matter how much you appeal to their sense of solidarity, they will not leave Facebook, and you need to accept that, and understand that this further means that the "strength in numbers" reaction you envision will not happen.
In fact, I'm honestly baffled why "leaving Facebook" is the only solution that's occurred to people. If, as some say, that "Facebook's market share, ad revenue, and maybe more importantly, it's political clout is tied to its user base and its all important metrics for page views and user engagement" and that "those are the stats Zuckerberg wields and essentially threatens congress with when he speaks before them as a way to say Facebook has power and will use it if you rile up its userbase", then...why not appeal to that userbase to demand Congress regulate Facebook?
You know? If all you can say is "are you mad about Facebook? Then just leave it!" you're going to get too many people who won't drop out. But if you say "are you mad about Facebook? Here's the regulations to ask Congress to pass", then people not only get to keep the convenient tool Facebook has become for them, they've eliminated the problems in it.
I mean...."if you don't like Facebook, just leave" sometimes sounds like a cousin to the snippy "If you don't like 'Murica, just leave" comments you see on Twitter sometimes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:00 AM on October 6, 2021 [4 favorites]
These are very similar to arguments on the Blue about Reddit a few years back when there was Creepshots and The Donald. Both calls to leave and also to pressure Reddit itself or it's advertisers to force change.
And, umm, Reddit is now, is-err, umm, better? I think?
posted by FJT at 9:37 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
And, umm, Reddit is now, is-err, umm, better? I think?
posted by FJT at 9:37 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well a couple things about "leaving":
1) I thought when most people suggest leaving, they are thinking of it as as survival strategy. Like in the past people who use Facebook talk about feeling angry, being depressed, feeling bad. etc. etc., and I think leaving was suggested to help cope with that.
1) I think leaving vs going is also kind of a false dichotomy. Maybe one can't leave Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp, but less time and money can be spent on it.
posted by FJT at 10:02 AM on October 6, 2021
1) I thought when most people suggest leaving, they are thinking of it as as survival strategy. Like in the past people who use Facebook talk about feeling angry, being depressed, feeling bad. etc. etc., and I think leaving was suggested to help cope with that.
1) I think leaving vs going is also kind of a false dichotomy. Maybe one can't leave Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp, but less time and money can be spent on it.
posted by FJT at 10:02 AM on October 6, 2021
And, umm, Reddit is now, is-err, umm, better? I think?
Holy shit NO.
Well, maybe. Reddit is better than Facebook in that Reddit has comparatively little effect on our society. If Reddit were as dominant in our culture as Facebook is now, that wouldn't be an improvement.
posted by ryanrs at 10:07 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Holy shit NO.
Well, maybe. Reddit is better than Facebook in that Reddit has comparatively little effect on our society. If Reddit were as dominant in our culture as Facebook is now, that wouldn't be an improvement.
posted by ryanrs at 10:07 AM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm not clear how requiring Facebook to delete the algorithm currently designed to push pro-anorexia content at 13-year-old girls would impact the "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group.
This is a good point. But IMHO the real danger of social media is the way they are infectious, allowing driven people with QANON, etc. theories an algorithm-boosted way to spread their ideas. Anger drives engagement and creates profits. The growth curve of QANON tripe was astronomical.
The "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group may continue to stew and share anti-vax memes or whatever amongst themselves, but as long as they stay in their little clubhouse I don't think it's a big problem.
posted by msalt at 10:07 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
This is a good point. But IMHO the real danger of social media is the way they are infectious, allowing driven people with QANON, etc. theories an algorithm-boosted way to spread their ideas. Anger drives engagement and creates profits. The growth curve of QANON tripe was astronomical.
The "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group may continue to stew and share anti-vax memes or whatever amongst themselves, but as long as they stay in their little clubhouse I don't think it's a big problem.
posted by msalt at 10:07 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Disengaging is the way you can act now, mobilizing political commitment to regulate or break up Facebook is the next step which is made easier when there is clear commitment demonstrated in the demand for change which provides impetus to the congress to act as they can actively see the resolve for action in their constituency. You can certainly call your political representatives and pressure for change without doing anything else, but the demand is stronger when you act to demonstrate values and worry Facebook over the declining metrics and accompanying loss of revenue. Political action is far more likely when it is accompanied by individual action and always has been.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:18 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by gusottertrout at 10:18 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
You can certainly call your political representatives and pressure for change without doing anything else, but the demand is stronger when you act to demonstrate values and worry Facebook over the declining metrics and accompanying loss of revenue.
I disagree. Facebook does not care about the loss of revenue when an individual quits, as they have 2,899,999,999 other users to make them revenue.
And the message "Facebook has policies that make disaffected users quit, so Congress should regulate Facebook to satisfy the people who already quit" doesn't make sense either. Facebook would simply argue that anyone who doesn't like FB can leave, and they have done so, so no changes are needed.
Facebook is a collective problem that needs collective action. Individual action may make one feel righteous, and more power to you, but it affects Facebook not a whit. If it did, Facebook would have changed to get the users who quit back. It hasn't.
Facebook needs to be regulated -- harshly -- by Congress.
posted by Gelatin at 11:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
I disagree. Facebook does not care about the loss of revenue when an individual quits, as they have 2,899,999,999 other users to make them revenue.
And the message "Facebook has policies that make disaffected users quit, so Congress should regulate Facebook to satisfy the people who already quit" doesn't make sense either. Facebook would simply argue that anyone who doesn't like FB can leave, and they have done so, so no changes are needed.
Facebook is a collective problem that needs collective action. Individual action may make one feel righteous, and more power to you, but it affects Facebook not a whit. If it did, Facebook would have changed to get the users who quit back. It hasn't.
Facebook needs to be regulated -- harshly -- by Congress.
posted by Gelatin at 11:02 AM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Also, calling Congress to pressure them about regulating Facebook is the way one can act now, quitting notwithstanding. Indeed, one's call to regulate Facebook, again, has more weight as a current member than ex-member.
Quitting Facebook is in no way a prerequisite for pressuring Congress to take collective action on a collective problem.
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Quitting Facebook is in no way a prerequisite for pressuring Congress to take collective action on a collective problem.
posted by Gelatin at 11:05 AM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Facebook is a collective problem that needs collective action.
And collective action requires the individual to act as part of a group. Think of it as a strike if you prefer, if you're posting to Facebook you effectively are working for them after all. Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated unfair practices and encouraged unsafe conditions and been challenged for that on numerous occasions resulting in only minimal efforts to change. You can do nothing and wait for your representative to force action alone, which has thus far gotten little and doesn't hold much promise for more as is or you can strike, which requires you to act, to make a sacrifice for the collective good along with your fellow "workers" to gain leverage in hopes of forcing concessions. That assumes your representative has actually been working in your interests the whole time, which in politics isn't always the case, so the action is further needed to convince some of them to act as much as it is to gain leverage over Facebook. You have to decide to act yourself before you can act as part of a collective.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2021
And collective action requires the individual to act as part of a group. Think of it as a strike if you prefer, if you're posting to Facebook you effectively are working for them after all. Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated unfair practices and encouraged unsafe conditions and been challenged for that on numerous occasions resulting in only minimal efforts to change. You can do nothing and wait for your representative to force action alone, which has thus far gotten little and doesn't hold much promise for more as is or you can strike, which requires you to act, to make a sacrifice for the collective good along with your fellow "workers" to gain leverage in hopes of forcing concessions. That assumes your representative has actually been working in your interests the whole time, which in politics isn't always the case, so the action is further needed to convince some of them to act as much as it is to gain leverage over Facebook. You have to decide to act yourself before you can act as part of a collective.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:18 AM on October 6, 2021
Individual action may make one feel righteous, and more power to you, but it affects Facebook not a whit.
You know, there's a long history of boycotts, and the implication here seems to be that there's no way that can ever work now. And that seems very odd to me.
But I do want to say that the reason I'm not on Facebook has nothing to do with feeling righteous. I'm not on Facebook because I've considered the costs and benefits and decided that , for me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. I made that decision when Facebook was new, and I periodically reconsider because I know I miss out on some things. There seems to be an underlying idea here that just deciding not to have a Facebook account means you must be making some grand statement about Facebook rather than just living your life in the way that seems best for you.
Someone will probably point out that I've argued against Facebook here, so I'll point out what I've argued against is not Facebook itself, but the idea that it's not possible for most people to live without it.
posted by FencingGal at 11:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
You know, there's a long history of boycotts, and the implication here seems to be that there's no way that can ever work now. And that seems very odd to me.
But I do want to say that the reason I'm not on Facebook has nothing to do with feeling righteous. I'm not on Facebook because I've considered the costs and benefits and decided that , for me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. I made that decision when Facebook was new, and I periodically reconsider because I know I miss out on some things. There seems to be an underlying idea here that just deciding not to have a Facebook account means you must be making some grand statement about Facebook rather than just living your life in the way that seems best for you.
Someone will probably point out that I've argued against Facebook here, so I'll point out what I've argued against is not Facebook itself, but the idea that it's not possible for most people to live without it.
posted by FencingGal at 11:24 AM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
FWIW, Zuckerberg is probably more afraid of declining signups and user interactions than he is of action by the US legislature.
posted by ryanrs at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2021
posted by ryanrs at 11:28 AM on October 6, 2021
Just to finish the thought and end my contributions for the day, yes, it isn't identical to a strike as there wouldn't be a mass simultaneous walk off of a work force nor could it possibly be meant as a complete shut down of the site as there is no chance of that happening. But it doesn't need to be that to gain leverage, it just needs to show a continuing decline of engagement from increasing numbers of users to work as each user is linked to others who eventually would drop off as well if the decline continued, no matter their beliefs, if they found their use/enjoyment of the site was suffering for loss of content. It becomes a snowball effect if it runs unchecked and Facebook knows that and would need to seriously address it. Not that I expect that to happen, as the pushback here suggests few would even limit their time on or contributions to the site, but that would be the goal to force results.
posted by gusottertrout at 11:47 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by gusottertrout at 11:47 AM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
One of the things I've been saying to libraries when I have the chance (yes, I'm a librarian) is that libraries should reconsider their Facebook presences, and should absolutely remove all links to Facebook from their websites. Why lend a genocidal, anti-democracy, mental-health-destroying abyss of irresponsibility any of libraries' credibility?
This is a hard sell to many, of course, though I can hope that Marshall Breeding saying essentially the same thing the other day will help. But I think "pressure local orgs, especially public/civic orgs, to get off Facebook" is a reasonably reasonable attack vector.
At LEAST can we pressure public-serving organizations not to wall me (and other Facebook-quitters) off by putting material ONLY on Facebook? This really, really irks me.
posted by humbug at 12:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
This is a hard sell to many, of course, though I can hope that Marshall Breeding saying essentially the same thing the other day will help. But I think "pressure local orgs, especially public/civic orgs, to get off Facebook" is a reasonably reasonable attack vector.
At LEAST can we pressure public-serving organizations not to wall me (and other Facebook-quitters) off by putting material ONLY on Facebook? This really, really irks me.
posted by humbug at 12:13 PM on October 6, 2021 [9 favorites]
You know, there's a long history of boycotts, and the implication here seems to be that there's no way that can ever work now. And that seems very odd to me.
The difference here is that the boycotts which have succeeded have had two advantages in the boycotter's favor, which we don't have when it comes to Facebook:
1. They were more localized in nature. When people started boycotting the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, they couldn't draw revenue from other bus systems in Topeka, Kansas or in Vancouver or in Mumbai or anywhere else. The Montgomery, Alabama bus system got all of its revenue from only people who happened to be traveling in Montgomery, Alabama. And when they lost that revenue they were over a barrel. With Facebook, however, if every single Facebook user in Montgomery, Alabama decided to quit the site en masse, Mark Zuckerberg would yawn and say "that's okay, we've still got Selma and Birmingham and Mobile and Tuscaloosa and....and that's just in Alabama." So it wouldn't have the same impact.
2. There were alternatives boycotting customers could turn to. When there was a boycott against California grapes to protest working conditions for migrant laborers, people who wanted to participate could eat apples or pears or something else instead if they wanted fruit. Similarly, when people wanted to boycott Nestle for shilling infant formula in developing nations, people who wanted to participate could eat Hershey's instead if they wanted chocolate. With Facebook, there really is no alternative that's as easily available as Hershey's and apples were during those boycotts. Alternatives exist, yeah, but they're much smaller and harder for new users to adopt, and it'd be like if during the California grape boycott the only other option for fruit was durian or something, and you could only get it in one market across town.
I mean, look - I agree that on paper, a boycott looks like an attractive option. I'm just pointing out that Facebook has pulled a lot of corporate strings to stack the deck in their favor, to the point that finding people to join you in that boycott is going to be much, much more difficult than you may anticipate, and to be ready for that.
And for people who want to give up Facebook for their own reasons, that's fine too - but good Lord let's not shame the people who still have decided to hold their nose and use it, or at least let's not treat them like cruel heartless hosebeasts when it maybe is just that they're allergic to durian (metaphorically).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:15 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
The difference here is that the boycotts which have succeeded have had two advantages in the boycotter's favor, which we don't have when it comes to Facebook:
1. They were more localized in nature. When people started boycotting the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama, they couldn't draw revenue from other bus systems in Topeka, Kansas or in Vancouver or in Mumbai or anywhere else. The Montgomery, Alabama bus system got all of its revenue from only people who happened to be traveling in Montgomery, Alabama. And when they lost that revenue they were over a barrel. With Facebook, however, if every single Facebook user in Montgomery, Alabama decided to quit the site en masse, Mark Zuckerberg would yawn and say "that's okay, we've still got Selma and Birmingham and Mobile and Tuscaloosa and....and that's just in Alabama." So it wouldn't have the same impact.
2. There were alternatives boycotting customers could turn to. When there was a boycott against California grapes to protest working conditions for migrant laborers, people who wanted to participate could eat apples or pears or something else instead if they wanted fruit. Similarly, when people wanted to boycott Nestle for shilling infant formula in developing nations, people who wanted to participate could eat Hershey's instead if they wanted chocolate. With Facebook, there really is no alternative that's as easily available as Hershey's and apples were during those boycotts. Alternatives exist, yeah, but they're much smaller and harder for new users to adopt, and it'd be like if during the California grape boycott the only other option for fruit was durian or something, and you could only get it in one market across town.
I mean, look - I agree that on paper, a boycott looks like an attractive option. I'm just pointing out that Facebook has pulled a lot of corporate strings to stack the deck in their favor, to the point that finding people to join you in that boycott is going to be much, much more difficult than you may anticipate, and to be ready for that.
And for people who want to give up Facebook for their own reasons, that's fine too - but good Lord let's not shame the people who still have decided to hold their nose and use it, or at least let's not treat them like cruel heartless hosebeasts when it maybe is just that they're allergic to durian (metaphorically).
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:15 PM on October 6, 2021 [10 favorites]
And collective action requires the individual to act as part of a group. Think of it as a strike if you prefer
Yes, exactly! A strike or boycott requires individuals to act in an organized manner in a way that causes their target economic pain. In the present scenario, that would be Congress imposing stiff regulations on Facebook.
Congress has the power to harm Facebook -- which it implicitly acknowledged with its history of lying to lawmakers.
And once again, the choices aren't limited to "quitting Facebook" and "waiting for Congress to act on its own." (Though the high profile hearings certainly may herald action!) One can call one's Congressperson to demand that they act -- which, again, is likely more effective a message coming from a user than a non-user.
Individuals quitting is not like a strike or a boycott at all in that it isn't organized and a certain amount of churn is no doubt already factored into Facebook's metrics.
You're trying to make the point that Facebook will notice and change its ludicrously profitable ways if individuals start quitting in droves. How many people need to quit in order to affect Facebook's bottom line? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Individual decisions don't work on that scale.
And how are you going to spread that word? On Facebook?
posted by Gelatin at 12:26 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yes, exactly! A strike or boycott requires individuals to act in an organized manner in a way that causes their target economic pain. In the present scenario, that would be Congress imposing stiff regulations on Facebook.
Congress has the power to harm Facebook -- which it implicitly acknowledged with its history of lying to lawmakers.
And once again, the choices aren't limited to "quitting Facebook" and "waiting for Congress to act on its own." (Though the high profile hearings certainly may herald action!) One can call one's Congressperson to demand that they act -- which, again, is likely more effective a message coming from a user than a non-user.
Individuals quitting is not like a strike or a boycott at all in that it isn't organized and a certain amount of churn is no doubt already factored into Facebook's metrics.
You're trying to make the point that Facebook will notice and change its ludicrously profitable ways if individuals start quitting in droves. How many people need to quit in order to affect Facebook's bottom line? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Individual decisions don't work on that scale.
And how are you going to spread that word? On Facebook?
posted by Gelatin at 12:26 PM on October 6, 2021 [5 favorites]
EmpressCallipygos, thank you for answering my boycott question with such a carefully thought-out response. I was really worried I was going to just get snark.
posted by FencingGal at 12:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by FencingGal at 12:39 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
IMHO the real danger of social media is the way they are infectious, allowing driven people with QANON, etc. theories an algorithm-boosted way to spread their ideas. Anger drives engagement and creates profits. The growth curve of QANON tripe was astronomical. The "Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad" private group may continue to stew and share anti-vax memes or whatever amongst themselves, but as long as they stay in their little clubhouse I don't think it's a big problem.
Pointing out to you that you posted this in response to my quip about how the Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad would not be affected by Facebook eliminating such algorithms in the first place. So...you'll be pleased to hear that the GTCHSHSVS (or, the "Gitch-Sivs", as they call themselves) mostly just post info about volunteer opportunities and photos from the Big Park Trash Pick-Up Day and stuff like that.
My point being: much of Facebook is a useful tool that people are using for useful things, and can continue to be used for useful things even after we amputate the evil bit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:34 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Pointing out to you that you posted this in response to my quip about how the Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad would not be affected by Facebook eliminating such algorithms in the first place. So...you'll be pleased to hear that the GTCHSHSVS (or, the "Gitch-Sivs", as they call themselves) mostly just post info about volunteer opportunities and photos from the Big Park Trash Pick-Up Day and stuff like that.
My point being: much of Facebook is a useful tool that people are using for useful things, and can continue to be used for useful things even after we amputate the evil bit.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:34 PM on October 6, 2021 [2 favorites]
Wait, do we have to go over the points non-southeast Asians have rudely made about a fruit they have no familiarity with as well? In this thread? In a moment when we're finally having something useful to discuss other than giving comments that have no insight about how other ppl are using a thing? (Hmmm...) There's a MeTa comment even.
(Is this my brand on metafilter?)
posted by cendawanita at 5:54 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
(Is this my brand on metafilter?)
posted by cendawanita at 5:54 PM on October 6, 2021 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, reply above left; seriously, we have been around the block a few times on not exoticising non-US/Western cultural stuff, and that very much includes variations on "lol durians".
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:44 PM on October 6, 2021 [3 favorites]
Maybe rather than framing the suggestion as "leave Facebook" or "delete your Facebook account", we could instead make more incremental suggestions in the other direction: things people can do without leaving Facebook, in order to start creating the alternative platforms that are necessary for themselves and others to, in the future, actually be able to leave FB.
Because right now, we're basically at an impasse: there are people telling others not to use Facebook, and people responding that nothing else provides an alternative at this point in time. I don't think it's anyone's business to say that someone else's judgement about the usability of alternatives is wrong; personal needs and use cases vary too much.
Anyway, here's my list of modest steps that I think most people (in the West and not on shitty FB-subsidized data plans) can take:
Install and set up Signal. You don't need to leave Facebook to get a Signal account. Every person who installs and signs up for Signal makes that network more useful and closer to parity with WhatsApp/Messenger. And Signal even shows you when other people you know sign up. I try to say hi to people I know when I've seen they've signed up (always awkward if they signed up at the recommendation of their drug dealer) just to convey the idea that it's fine to message me on the platform. If you want to, you can set Signal as your default messaging app, and it will send SMS to people who don't use it, and encrypted Signal messages to people who do. But if you don't want to do that, fine—just having it set up and installed and running in the background on your phone, so you can receive messages, helps with network effects.
The same argument holds with signing up on Facebook-alternative services like Ello ("The Creators Network") or Vero ("Ad-free & Algorithm-free"), but I'm not familiar enough with them or their backers to really make that recommendation. Maybe others can?
Use something like Flickr or Photobucket to store photo content. Facebook makes it really easy to share photos by uploading and attaching them to posts, but when you do they're locked into Facebook's walled-garden ecosystem. Instead, if you use an app/service like Flickr to store your photos, you can just share a link to the album on Facebook. That way Aunt Edna who doesn't know anything other than FB will still get to see your vacation pics, but you won't have any particularly valuable content stored there. When you pull the plug on FB in the future, you won't have to worry about tracking down and re-uploading all your photos and losing the albuming/organizational scheme you've put them in. (BTW, if you ditched Flickr during the terrible Yahoo years, they have started to suck less now.)
Get your news elsewhere. There are enough sources for news coverage that I really think this one is attainable for most people; going through FB in order to read the NYT or WaPo is just giving Zuck a bunch of extra analytics on your interests (and probable political leanings and other factors). If a news source (like a community blog or whatever) is only on FB, then it's probably not the low-hanging fruit I'm really talking about here. RSS still lives in 2021, and I think it's the best way to get tailored news feeds without FB's rage-pump algo. On desktop, The Old Reader has now exceeded feature parity with the doomed Google Reader. Feedly and Newsify are well-regarded on mobile.
I think getting people to use Facebook less by encouraging the use of alternatives is likely to be more productive than trying to push people into giving it up cold turkey.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Because right now, we're basically at an impasse: there are people telling others not to use Facebook, and people responding that nothing else provides an alternative at this point in time. I don't think it's anyone's business to say that someone else's judgement about the usability of alternatives is wrong; personal needs and use cases vary too much.
Anyway, here's my list of modest steps that I think most people (in the West and not on shitty FB-subsidized data plans) can take:
Install and set up Signal. You don't need to leave Facebook to get a Signal account. Every person who installs and signs up for Signal makes that network more useful and closer to parity with WhatsApp/Messenger. And Signal even shows you when other people you know sign up. I try to say hi to people I know when I've seen they've signed up (always awkward if they signed up at the recommendation of their drug dealer) just to convey the idea that it's fine to message me on the platform. If you want to, you can set Signal as your default messaging app, and it will send SMS to people who don't use it, and encrypted Signal messages to people who do. But if you don't want to do that, fine—just having it set up and installed and running in the background on your phone, so you can receive messages, helps with network effects.
The same argument holds with signing up on Facebook-alternative services like Ello ("The Creators Network") or Vero ("Ad-free & Algorithm-free"), but I'm not familiar enough with them or their backers to really make that recommendation. Maybe others can?
Use something like Flickr or Photobucket to store photo content. Facebook makes it really easy to share photos by uploading and attaching them to posts, but when you do they're locked into Facebook's walled-garden ecosystem. Instead, if you use an app/service like Flickr to store your photos, you can just share a link to the album on Facebook. That way Aunt Edna who doesn't know anything other than FB will still get to see your vacation pics, but you won't have any particularly valuable content stored there. When you pull the plug on FB in the future, you won't have to worry about tracking down and re-uploading all your photos and losing the albuming/organizational scheme you've put them in. (BTW, if you ditched Flickr during the terrible Yahoo years, they have started to suck less now.)
Get your news elsewhere. There are enough sources for news coverage that I really think this one is attainable for most people; going through FB in order to read the NYT or WaPo is just giving Zuck a bunch of extra analytics on your interests (and probable political leanings and other factors). If a news source (like a community blog or whatever) is only on FB, then it's probably not the low-hanging fruit I'm really talking about here. RSS still lives in 2021, and I think it's the best way to get tailored news feeds without FB's rage-pump algo. On desktop, The Old Reader has now exceeded feature parity with the doomed Google Reader. Feedly and Newsify are well-regarded on mobile.
I think getting people to use Facebook less by encouraging the use of alternatives is likely to be more productive than trying to push people into giving it up cold turkey.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:50 PM on October 6, 2021 [7 favorites]
Re: leaving Facebook, it is almost impossible for certain people. In my experience, standup comedians (who are mostly Millennial) network almost exclusively through FB, and use FB Messenger in place of email for some reason. I would literally leave tomorrow except that it would be career suicide.
More generally, FB has been insidiously effective in getting people to log in to other websites using their login, as was demonstrated Monday when their outage damaged many unrelated businesses, esp. in the 3rd world.
Pointing out to you that you posted this in response to my quip about how the Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad would not be affected by Facebook eliminating such algorithms in the first place. So...you'll be pleased to hear that the GTCHSHSVS (or, the "Gitch-Sivs", as they call themselves) mostly just post info about volunteer opportunities and photos from the Big Park Trash Pick-Up Day and stuff like that.
Oh, sorry! I thought your point was that private groups could continue to do evil without the algorithm (which is also true). I'm glad to hear good is being perpetrated as well.
posted by msalt at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2021
More generally, FB has been insidiously effective in getting people to log in to other websites using their login, as was demonstrated Monday when their outage damaged many unrelated businesses, esp. in the 3rd world.
Pointing out to you that you posted this in response to my quip about how the Grover T. Cleveland High School Honor Society Volunteer Squad would not be affected by Facebook eliminating such algorithms in the first place. So...you'll be pleased to hear that the GTCHSHSVS (or, the "Gitch-Sivs", as they call themselves) mostly just post info about volunteer opportunities and photos from the Big Park Trash Pick-Up Day and stuff like that.
Oh, sorry! I thought your point was that private groups could continue to do evil without the algorithm (which is also true). I'm glad to hear good is being perpetrated as well.
posted by msalt at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2021
I think getting people to use Facebook less by encouraging the use of alternatives is likely to be more productive than trying to push people into giving it up cold turkey.
That's a good suggestion as establishing alternatives or just broadening engagement to more places generally would be a benefit. I'll look into that too.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:24 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
That's a good suggestion as establishing alternatives or just broadening engagement to more places generally would be a benefit. I'll look into that too.
posted by gusottertrout at 10:24 PM on October 6, 2021 [1 favorite]
Coming in after the kerfuffle has left, but I wanted to say:
When I was speaking of durian I only used it as an example because I understand it is somewhat divisive (i.e., you can either REALLY love it or REALLY hate it), and because of its relative difficulty to obtain in the United States (a region where I know that the person I was speaking to lived). It was the "you love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground" and "where you are in the world, it's hard to find" were the points I was using by comparison.
But I thank you all for the reminder that others are listening on this conversation and this isn't just between me and one other person, and apologies for forgetting that and causing distress.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:15 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
When I was speaking of durian I only used it as an example because I understand it is somewhat divisive (i.e., you can either REALLY love it or REALLY hate it), and because of its relative difficulty to obtain in the United States (a region where I know that the person I was speaking to lived). It was the "you love it or you hate it, there is no middle ground" and "where you are in the world, it's hard to find" were the points I was using by comparison.
But I thank you all for the reminder that others are listening on this conversation and this isn't just between me and one other person, and apologies for forgetting that and causing distress.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:15 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it.
posted by dazed_one at 7:34 AM on October 7, 2021
posted by dazed_one at 7:34 AM on October 7, 2021
Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it.
Enough of this, already. As noted several times upthread and in other FB threads, for some -- at-risk youth, just to name one example -- Facebook isn't a matter of convenience, it's a matter of finding an accepting community when little exists in the offline world where they are. And that matter is one, potentially, of life and death as well.
Unless one is a total hermit, participating in the global economy in any way is to be complicit in a system that "ruins lives" and facilitates "genocide." If you buy anything made in China, or from parts sourced from China, use any device that has a gasoline engine, or wear clothing manufactured overseas, then that "convenience" means participating in a genocidal system that ruins lives.
And against that global system, individual consumer choice matters not at all. The only way to make that system change is to get governments to use the power of law law to force them to change. And no one here disagrees with doing so. It's just some of us don't pretend that our own, personal, silent boycott will serve any purpose other than making us feel righteous.
posted by Gelatin at 8:10 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
Enough of this, already. As noted several times upthread and in other FB threads, for some -- at-risk youth, just to name one example -- Facebook isn't a matter of convenience, it's a matter of finding an accepting community when little exists in the offline world where they are. And that matter is one, potentially, of life and death as well.
Unless one is a total hermit, participating in the global economy in any way is to be complicit in a system that "ruins lives" and facilitates "genocide." If you buy anything made in China, or from parts sourced from China, use any device that has a gasoline engine, or wear clothing manufactured overseas, then that "convenience" means participating in a genocidal system that ruins lives.
And against that global system, individual consumer choice matters not at all. The only way to make that system change is to get governments to use the power of law law to force them to change. And no one here disagrees with doing so. It's just some of us don't pretend that our own, personal, silent boycott will serve any purpose other than making us feel righteous.
posted by Gelatin at 8:10 AM on October 7, 2021 [7 favorites]
Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it.
Have you used a smartphone lately?
posted by warriorqueen at 8:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Have you used a smartphone lately?
posted by warriorqueen at 8:49 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it.
There's a reason that manichaeism got defined as heresy, and comments like this are a good demonstration of it. There is little in this world that is black and white, and acting as if it is winds up being a very good way to harm people.
Posted over on the Facebook is down page was this piece by Jim Wright over at Stonekettle Station, and in it he points out how the internet - and Facebook in particular - provides community and connection to people who, for a number of reasons, are unable to get that bond in other ways. And he points out that those people would be the collateral damage if the "tear it down" group had their way.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:02 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
There's a reason that manichaeism got defined as heresy, and comments like this are a good demonstration of it. There is little in this world that is black and white, and acting as if it is winds up being a very good way to harm people.
Posted over on the Facebook is down page was this piece by Jim Wright over at Stonekettle Station, and in it he points out how the internet - and Facebook in particular - provides community and connection to people who, for a number of reasons, are unable to get that bond in other ways. And he points out that those people would be the collateral damage if the "tear it down" group had their way.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:02 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it.
Either you can accept that life is quite rarely the all-or-nothing life with each answers and clear good guys and bad guys you want it to be or you will drive more and more people away with your rigidity of thought.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Either you can accept that life is quite rarely the all-or-nothing life with each answers and clear good guys and bad guys you want it to be or you will drive more and more people away with your rigidity of thought.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
And he points out that those people would be the collateral damage if the "tear it down" group had their way.
Except where there is demand, especially in this case, something else will come along to supply it. All these arguments in favor of a private Corp doing as it sees fit in an arena where it is the only contender.
posted by dazed_one at 10:49 AM on October 7, 2021
Except where there is demand, especially in this case, something else will come along to supply it. All these arguments in favor of a private Corp doing as it sees fit in an arena where it is the only contender.
posted by dazed_one at 10:49 AM on October 7, 2021
Either you can accept that life is quite rarely the all-or-nothing life with each answers and clear good guys and bad guys you want it to be or you will drive more and more people away with your rigidity of thought.
I mean, didn't everyone want clear bad guys and good guys in life? But I accept that it's not always so clear. In this case, most people who aren't actively investing in FB stock have limited options. One is to keep things as is in this far from perfect world, as you point out. The other is to stop supporting the damn corporation in the hopes that a more ethical competitor can start up, hopefully aided by well thought out legislation (but I'm not too hopeful about the last part).
But nah, let's just shrug and admit fb is too big to fail and besides its super important to my life and work. Maybe someone in the government will wave their wand and start making Zuckerberg behave without him getting hit in the wallet first.
posted by dazed_one at 11:03 AM on October 7, 2021
I mean, didn't everyone want clear bad guys and good guys in life? But I accept that it's not always so clear. In this case, most people who aren't actively investing in FB stock have limited options. One is to keep things as is in this far from perfect world, as you point out. The other is to stop supporting the damn corporation in the hopes that a more ethical competitor can start up, hopefully aided by well thought out legislation (but I'm not too hopeful about the last part).
But nah, let's just shrug and admit fb is too big to fail and besides its super important to my life and work. Maybe someone in the government will wave their wand and start making Zuckerberg behave without him getting hit in the wallet first.
posted by dazed_one at 11:03 AM on October 7, 2021
Except where there is demand, especially in this case, something else will come along to supply it.
This is bullshit on two levels.
First, there's the fact that this is objectively false, as we've seen with the number of fields where Google gutted the market by pushing a product only to later pull support, destroying the previously existing infrastructure and leaving a hole after. So no, demand doesn't mean that supply will be provided - a lot of times, all it means is people lose something vital to them.
Second, even if the above was false, these people are relying on infrastructure that exists today, built on significant amounts of labor. Are you proposing to provide that labor as a replacement? Or are you just expecting them to rebuild at a significant cost to them to satisfy your need for purity?
Sorry, but your position is indefensible. "If you build it, they will come" is a line from a movie, not a plan for people relying on a service to support their lives.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:04 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is bullshit on two levels.
First, there's the fact that this is objectively false, as we've seen with the number of fields where Google gutted the market by pushing a product only to later pull support, destroying the previously existing infrastructure and leaving a hole after. So no, demand doesn't mean that supply will be provided - a lot of times, all it means is people lose something vital to them.
Second, even if the above was false, these people are relying on infrastructure that exists today, built on significant amounts of labor. Are you proposing to provide that labor as a replacement? Or are you just expecting them to rebuild at a significant cost to them to satisfy your need for purity?
Sorry, but your position is indefensible. "If you build it, they will come" is a line from a movie, not a plan for people relying on a service to support their lives.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:04 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but your position is indefensible.
Meh. I presented two positions. I guess we're taking option 2 here. Let's all not change a thing and start hoping really hard that the US government will handle this one for us.
posted by dazed_one at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2021
Meh. I presented two positions. I guess we're taking option 2 here. Let's all not change a thing and start hoping really hard that the US government will handle this one for us.
posted by dazed_one at 11:07 AM on October 7, 2021
lol at the idea that I could "change a thing" in a way that stops facebook from doing whatever the hell they want
which is what people are trying to tell you, but clearly you've already made your judgements
posted by sagc at 11:08 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
which is what people are trying to tell you, but clearly you've already made your judgements
posted by sagc at 11:08 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
lol at the idea that I could "change a thing" in a way that stops facebook from doing whatever the hell they want
Ikr. That's why I don't bother voting. What can one person's choice matter in the grand scheme of things.
posted by dazed_one at 11:10 AM on October 7, 2021
Ikr. That's why I don't bother voting. What can one person's choice matter in the grand scheme of things.
posted by dazed_one at 11:10 AM on October 7, 2021
"have limited options"..."One is to"..."The other is to"...
There are more than two options. False dilemmas are tiresome. Facebook is not an immutable force of nature, and we created power structures to work for us in situations like this, they are called governments.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:13 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
There are more than two options. False dilemmas are tiresome. Facebook is not an immutable force of nature, and we created power structures to work for us in situations like this, they are called governments.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:13 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
My point being: much of Facebook is a useful tool that people are using for useful things, and can continue to be used for useful things even after we amputate the evil bit.
I mean, that's literally a billion dollar question. Facebook's ubiquity is partly because most people use it and people spend more time on it than elsewhere. If the algorithms and other factors that contribute to people doing that are reduced or even removed, then people would spend less time on it and maybe even leave. That hurts Facebook obviously, but wouldn't it also make it less useful to other users too?
posted by FJT at 11:16 AM on October 7, 2021
I mean, that's literally a billion dollar question. Facebook's ubiquity is partly because most people use it and people spend more time on it than elsewhere. If the algorithms and other factors that contribute to people doing that are reduced or even removed, then people would spend less time on it and maybe even leave. That hurts Facebook obviously, but wouldn't it also make it less useful to other users too?
posted by FJT at 11:16 AM on October 7, 2021
Facebook is not an immutable force of nature
Thanks. This is what I've been trying to say all along. See the above comment saying that nothing an individual can do could stop Facebook from doing as they please.
posted by dazed_one at 11:17 AM on October 7, 2021
Thanks. This is what I've been trying to say all along. See the above comment saying that nothing an individual can do could stop Facebook from doing as they please.
posted by dazed_one at 11:17 AM on October 7, 2021
You haven't exactly disproved that? My leaving facebook is, as many people have explained, useless without a critical mass of people also leaving facebook.
Your argumentation tactics in this thread don't exactly make me think you're going to be all that convincing to the average person who just wants to see some vacation photos.
posted by sagc at 11:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Your argumentation tactics in this thread don't exactly make me think you're going to be all that convincing to the average person who just wants to see some vacation photos.
posted by sagc at 11:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
But nah, let's just shrug and admit fb is too big to fail and besides its super important to my life and work.
This statement is an incredibly bad faith reading of your critics' argument. But yes, for some people the life-sustaining connections they have on Facebook truly are super important to their life.
Maybe someone in the government will wave their wand and start making Zuckerberg behave without him getting hit in the wallet first.
Whether an individual quits Facebook or not does not hit Facebook in the wallet at all, so yes, the kind of government action being discussed by both parties at the hearing the other day -- and which Facebook clearly fears, given how much they've routinely lied during prior hearings -- is indeed how to make Facebook behave.
But since you bring it up, I'll ask again: How many individuals need to quit Facebook before it hits Facebook in the wallet, and how do you propose to organize them to do so?
posted by Gelatin at 11:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
This statement is an incredibly bad faith reading of your critics' argument. But yes, for some people the life-sustaining connections they have on Facebook truly are super important to their life.
Maybe someone in the government will wave their wand and start making Zuckerberg behave without him getting hit in the wallet first.
Whether an individual quits Facebook or not does not hit Facebook in the wallet at all, so yes, the kind of government action being discussed by both parties at the hearing the other day -- and which Facebook clearly fears, given how much they've routinely lied during prior hearings -- is indeed how to make Facebook behave.
But since you bring it up, I'll ask again: How many individuals need to quit Facebook before it hits Facebook in the wallet, and how do you propose to organize them to do so?
posted by Gelatin at 11:20 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
We also don't have to "hope really hard" that the government does something; we can lobby our Congresspeople to do so. I suggest that such lobbying is more likely to be noticed where it counts than an individual quitting Facebook.
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Gelatin at 11:22 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Your argumentation tactics in this thread don't exactly make me think you're going to be all that convincing to the average person who just wants to see some vacation photos.
I'm not on metafilter to try and convince the average person of anything. I'm here cos the subject matter is interesting.
We also don't have to "hope really hard" that the government does something; we can lobby our Congresspeople to do so. I suggest that such lobbying is more likely to be noticed where it counts than an individual quitting Facebook.
Why not try all 3? I bet that would be the most effective.
posted by dazed_one at 11:24 AM on October 7, 2021
I'm not on metafilter to try and convince the average person of anything. I'm here cos the subject matter is interesting.
We also don't have to "hope really hard" that the government does something; we can lobby our Congresspeople to do so. I suggest that such lobbying is more likely to be noticed where it counts than an individual quitting Facebook.
Why not try all 3? I bet that would be the most effective.
posted by dazed_one at 11:24 AM on October 7, 2021
because facebook has positive effects on people's lives?
This isn't a new argument, as you can scroll back a couple of screens to see.
posted by sagc at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021
This isn't a new argument, as you can scroll back a couple of screens to see.
posted by sagc at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021
Facebook's ubiquity is partly because most people use it and people spend more time on it than elsewhere. If the algorithms and other factors that contribute to people doing that are eliminated or reduced, then people would spend less time on it and maybe even leave. That hurts Facebook obviously, but wouldn't it also make it less useful to other users too?
The people who find it useful as a networking tool for coordinating teen volunteer clubs or Harley-Davidson fan clubs or what have you would no doubt continue to find it more useful than having to go back to using a phone tree to spread information. That's the kind of thing we're talking about - my local CSA doesn't have to send out messages via email blasts (which they can't do without triggering random people's spam filters) or via phone trees, they just post something on the Facebook page - and those of us in the group aren't in the group because "ooh it's a lot of people", we're in the group because we're already in the CSA in real life.
And I question the claim that "Facebook's ubiquity is partly because most people use it and spend more time on it than elsewhere". I'd say that a greater part of Facebook's ubiquity is because Mark Zuckerberg bought up any of his competition.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
The people who find it useful as a networking tool for coordinating teen volunteer clubs or Harley-Davidson fan clubs or what have you would no doubt continue to find it more useful than having to go back to using a phone tree to spread information. That's the kind of thing we're talking about - my local CSA doesn't have to send out messages via email blasts (which they can't do without triggering random people's spam filters) or via phone trees, they just post something on the Facebook page - and those of us in the group aren't in the group because "ooh it's a lot of people", we're in the group because we're already in the CSA in real life.
And I question the claim that "Facebook's ubiquity is partly because most people use it and spend more time on it than elsewhere". I'd say that a greater part of Facebook's ubiquity is because Mark Zuckerberg bought up any of his competition.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:26 AM on October 7, 2021 [4 favorites]
Why not try all 3? I bet that would be the most effective.
Then you'd lose that bet, because again, there's zero evidence that an individual's actions have any effect on Facebook at all. One user out of 2.8 billion doesn't matter. Facebook won't even notice, let alone care. As I said upthread, a certain amount of churn is doubtless baked into Facebook's metrics already.
That's called actually addressing your point! Now, you address mine: How many individuals need to quit Facebook before it hits Facebook in the wallet, and how do you propose to organize them to do so?
posted by Gelatin at 11:29 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Then you'd lose that bet, because again, there's zero evidence that an individual's actions have any effect on Facebook at all. One user out of 2.8 billion doesn't matter. Facebook won't even notice, let alone care. As I said upthread, a certain amount of churn is doubtless baked into Facebook's metrics already.
That's called actually addressing your point! Now, you address mine: How many individuals need to quit Facebook before it hits Facebook in the wallet, and how do you propose to organize them to do so?
posted by Gelatin at 11:29 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Just spitballing, but if the folks on the "quit Facebook" end of the spectrum wanted to set up a sort of pledge page, where a group of people agree to quit FB at the same time once a certain number of others have signed up to do so too, that might ameliorate both the social perils of going it alone, and it might create a big enough movement in Facebook's KPIs to cause a human on their end to sit up and take notice.
The US Libertarian Party (I know, MeFi's absolute favorites) had a thing back in the 90s where a bunch of people all pledged to move to New Hampshire and politically overrun the place, but only when enough other people had also pledged to do it to give it a shot at being successful. I don't know what the 'tripwire' value was, or if they ever achieved it, but it was conceptually interesting.
You could even let different people pledge to quit different services, or quit at different tripwire thresholds. Bonus points if you sent out periodic email reminders to members, letting them know how progress against the tripwire was going and reminding them of their commitment.
You'd need someone with some technical skills to set it up, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Or, I suppose, you could set up a Facebook group. :)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:39 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
The US Libertarian Party (I know, MeFi's absolute favorites) had a thing back in the 90s where a bunch of people all pledged to move to New Hampshire and politically overrun the place, but only when enough other people had also pledged to do it to give it a shot at being successful. I don't know what the 'tripwire' value was, or if they ever achieved it, but it was conceptually interesting.
You could even let different people pledge to quit different services, or quit at different tripwire thresholds. Bonus points if you sent out periodic email reminders to members, letting them know how progress against the tripwire was going and reminding them of their commitment.
You'd need someone with some technical skills to set it up, but it doesn't strike me as that hard. Or, I suppose, you could set up a Facebook group. :)
posted by Kadin2048 at 11:39 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
How many individuals need to quit Facebook before it hits Facebook in the wallet, and how do you propose to organize them to do so?
A few million Americans quitting FB would probably be eye opening but I don't plan on organizing anything. Why do people think I'm here on metafilter trying to organize resistance or convince people of things. This shit is interesting to talk about.
I think it's fascinating that all the stay on Facebook people seem to expect some external force to deal with the problematic parts of the service they enjoy without hampering the utility they get out of it.
posted by dazed_one at 11:47 AM on October 7, 2021
A few million Americans quitting FB would probably be eye opening but I don't plan on organizing anything. Why do people think I'm here on metafilter trying to organize resistance or convince people of things. This shit is interesting to talk about.
I think it's fascinating that all the stay on Facebook people seem to expect some external force to deal with the problematic parts of the service they enjoy without hampering the utility they get out of it.
posted by dazed_one at 11:47 AM on October 7, 2021
I mean, people expect regulations to exist to regulate things? They don't expect to have to do everything themselves? Is this not what the state is for?
posted by sagc at 11:48 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by sagc at 11:48 AM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Absolutely, and I am 100 percent in favor of regulatory measures against Facebook.
posted by dazed_one at 11:49 AM on October 7, 2021
posted by dazed_one at 11:49 AM on October 7, 2021
I'm curious what your concern is, then - is it simply that you don't think there's any morally-acceptable justification for being on FB, literally regardless of any benefit it brings to you?
posted by sagc at 11:51 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 11:51 AM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
expect some external force to deal with the problematic parts of the service they enjoy
Yes, I expect the government that I pay a lot in taxes to help fund, to actually do things on our behalf. Yes, that is correct.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:53 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Yes, I expect the government that I pay a lot in taxes to help fund, to actually do things on our behalf. Yes, that is correct.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:53 AM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Absolutely, and I am 100 percent in favor of regulatory measures against Facebook.
Then why on earth are you advocating so hard that people abandon it entirely, instead of advocating pressure on Congress to regulate it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Then why on earth are you advocating so hard that people abandon it entirely, instead of advocating pressure on Congress to regulate it?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:58 AM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Because I lack confidence in Congress's ability to regulate Facebook in such a fashion to prevent its misuse of engagement driven functionality, and would prefer regulation that encourages competitors that function on different parameters.
posted by dazed_one at 12:01 PM on October 7, 2021
posted by dazed_one at 12:01 PM on October 7, 2021
Why is it you put more trust in random individuals than you do in elected officials?.....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:02 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:02 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
The people who find it useful as a networking tool for coordinating teen volunteer clubs or Harley-Davidson fan clubs or what have you would no doubt continue to find it more useful than having to go back to using a phone tree to spread information.
But if people stop using it as much or start leaving, then it's less useful for the teen volunteer club and H-D fan club to find new people and to make sure everyone sees timely information. There's not only changes within FB itself, but also the wider internet. A regulation of FB would also be a clarion call to smaller social media and other startups to start promoting themselves for people to join or switch. In the end, those clubs may be need anyway to not only run an FB group, but keep a presence on a dozen other services anyway. And this is true especially if something is done like breaking FB up into smaller FB's. But that result would still be a net good.
posted by FJT at 12:11 PM on October 7, 2021
But if people stop using it as much or start leaving, then it's less useful for the teen volunteer club and H-D fan club to find new people and to make sure everyone sees timely information. There's not only changes within FB itself, but also the wider internet. A regulation of FB would also be a clarion call to smaller social media and other startups to start promoting themselves for people to join or switch. In the end, those clubs may be need anyway to not only run an FB group, but keep a presence on a dozen other services anyway. And this is true especially if something is done like breaking FB up into smaller FB's. But that result would still be a net good.
posted by FJT at 12:11 PM on October 7, 2021
Tbh I don't trust either, but I think there's a better chance in using legislation to create competitors to FB than there is in using legislation to inject decency into a corporation. And people need to be willing to leave fb for that to happen.
Truth be told, though, the most likely result is Facebook smiles, nods, and continues doing whatever the fuck it wants.
posted by dazed_one at 12:12 PM on October 7, 2021
Truth be told, though, the most likely result is Facebook smiles, nods, and continues doing whatever the fuck it wants.
posted by dazed_one at 12:12 PM on October 7, 2021
But if people stop using it as much or start leaving, then it's less useful for the teen volunteer club and H-D fan club to find new people and to communicate timely information.
My point is that the people who are likely to leave FB because "oh it's not popular any more" were never using it for the teen volunteer clubs or the like in the first place.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:13 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
My point is that the people who are likely to leave FB because "oh it's not popular any more" were never using it for the teen volunteer clubs or the like in the first place.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:13 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'd say that a greater part of Facebook's ubiquity is because Mark Zuckerberg bought up any of his competition.
It's not just that, it's the cost of de-scaling what FB does. I think if you aren't on Facebook you have NO IDEA what groups are giving up in one fell swoop.
Like, we know that the experience of the people who keep the horrific videos (porn and killings etc.) for Facebook is horrific and traumatizing...and yet, Facebook is able to do that. So there's already a moderation cost that is removed from the end users for using Facebook. Facebook functionality that has to be replaced is:
- messaging system with up to date information that works across devices/platforms
- calendar of events with notifications
- group functionality to manage group conversations
- page functionality to manage web presence for small businesses
- ability for people to post their own things (blog capability)
- photo and video storage
- fundraising platform
- advertising/post boosting platform that can target by geography, interest
- Marketplace (Craigslist for sale)
- phone book (Facebook business listing) and review site
- and oh yeah, games
posted by warriorqueen at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's not just that, it's the cost of de-scaling what FB does. I think if you aren't on Facebook you have NO IDEA what groups are giving up in one fell swoop.
Like, we know that the experience of the people who keep the horrific videos (porn and killings etc.) for Facebook is horrific and traumatizing...and yet, Facebook is able to do that. So there's already a moderation cost that is removed from the end users for using Facebook. Facebook functionality that has to be replaced is:
- messaging system with up to date information that works across devices/platforms
- calendar of events with notifications
- group functionality to manage group conversations
- page functionality to manage web presence for small businesses
- ability for people to post their own things (blog capability)
- photo and video storage
- fundraising platform
- advertising/post boosting platform that can target by geography, interest
- Marketplace (Craigslist for sale)
- phone book (Facebook business listing) and review site
- and oh yeah, games
posted by warriorqueen at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
dazed_one Christ. If FB didn't have a monopoly on social networking the way they do, maybe people would be a bit more receptive to your "just leave!" refrain? Like, obviously that would be good. Did you miss the part where people explained that there aren't good alternatives right now?
posted by sagc at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by sagc at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Tbh I don't trust either, but I think there's a better chance in using legislation to create competitors to FB than there is in using legislation to inject decency into a corporation. And people need to be willing to leave fb for that to happen.
So...you're chiding people for not doing something you never trusted them to do in the first place?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:16 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
So...you're chiding people for not doing something you never trusted them to do in the first place?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:16 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
A few million Americans quitting FB would probably be eye opening
I agree.
but I don't plan on organizing anything.
Neither is anyone else. Which is why you'll never get the million people to quit Facebook en masse, and again, individuals dropping out don't amount to a hill of beans as far as Facebook is concerned. The data point is just too small to care about.
I think it's fascinating that all the stay on Facebook people seem to expect some external force to deal with the problematic parts of the service they enjoy without hampering the utility they get out of it.
No one is saying that. Is making things up part of the interesting discussion?
Tbh I don't trust either, but I think there's a better chance in using legislation to create competitors to FB than there is in using legislation to inject decency into a corporation.
Legislation will not "inject decency" into a corporation, but it can make the costs of bad behavior exceed the profits they are likely to gain by doing so.
And people need to be willing to leave fb for that to happen.
Again, no. Congress is fully within its power to regulate Facebook, and Facebook knows it, because as the whistleblower told the committee, Facebook has been deliberately lying to Congress (among others).
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
I agree.
but I don't plan on organizing anything.
Neither is anyone else. Which is why you'll never get the million people to quit Facebook en masse, and again, individuals dropping out don't amount to a hill of beans as far as Facebook is concerned. The data point is just too small to care about.
I think it's fascinating that all the stay on Facebook people seem to expect some external force to deal with the problematic parts of the service they enjoy without hampering the utility they get out of it.
No one is saying that. Is making things up part of the interesting discussion?
Tbh I don't trust either, but I think there's a better chance in using legislation to create competitors to FB than there is in using legislation to inject decency into a corporation.
Legislation will not "inject decency" into a corporation, but it can make the costs of bad behavior exceed the profits they are likely to gain by doing so.
And people need to be willing to leave fb for that to happen.
Again, no. Congress is fully within its power to regulate Facebook, and Facebook knows it, because as the whistleblower told the committee, Facebook has been deliberately lying to Congress (among others).
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Did you miss the part where people explained that there aren't good alternatives right now?
Nope. That's why I said it's probably going to be status quo at the end there. No good alternatives, so people won't leave, and if people don't leave then FB can keep doing what it wants. It's a shit sandwich and no mistake.
But we're not here fixing the world. We just talking about interesting stuff. So quit Facebook! Break the chain!
posted by dazed_one at 12:19 PM on October 7, 2021
Nope. That's why I said it's probably going to be status quo at the end there. No good alternatives, so people won't leave, and if people don't leave then FB can keep doing what it wants. It's a shit sandwich and no mistake.
But we're not here fixing the world. We just talking about interesting stuff. So quit Facebook! Break the chain!
posted by dazed_one at 12:19 PM on October 7, 2021
No good alternatives, so people won't leave, and if people don't leave then FB can keep doing what it wants.
You've said that you don't believe Congress will act, but that doesn't excuse your pretending that Congress acting to regulate Facebook isn't a possibility.
posted by Gelatin at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2021
You've said that you don't believe Congress will act, but that doesn't excuse your pretending that Congress acting to regulate Facebook isn't a possibility.
posted by Gelatin at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2021
I forgot voice/video conferencing too.
posted by warriorqueen at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2021
posted by warriorqueen at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2021
But we're not here fixing the world. We just talking about interesting stuff.
What you believe to be "talking about interesting stuff" is coming across as "lecturing people as a way to show off how self-righteous I am". You may want to reconsider your approach.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
What you believe to be "talking about interesting stuff" is coming across as "lecturing people as a way to show off how self-righteous I am". You may want to reconsider your approach.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
My point is that the people who are likely to leave FB because "oh it's not popular any more" were never using it for the teen volunteer clubs or the like in the first place.
Well, not necessarily leave, but use it less is one of the possibilities too. And I don't know if it's safe assumption to make that there's no overlap between these groups or the way someone uses the platform does not change over time.
posted by FJT at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2021
Well, not necessarily leave, but use it less is one of the possibilities too. And I don't know if it's safe assumption to make that there's no overlap between these groups or the way someone uses the platform does not change over time.
posted by FJT at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2021
A few million Americans quitting FB would probably be eye opening
This is kind of happening though, right?
Young people are using it less or leaving, at least in the US. Which is why FB is falling over itself to try to be hip and make IG for Kids, etc.
posted by FJT at 12:30 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is kind of happening though, right?
Young people are using it less or leaving, at least in the US. Which is why FB is falling over itself to try to be hip and make IG for Kids, etc.
posted by FJT at 12:30 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Well, not necessarily leave, but use it less is one of the possibilities too. And I don't know if it's safe assumption to make that there's no overlap between these groups or the way someone uses the platform does not change over time.
...Well...yeah. People's use of the platform would change over time becuase people change over time.
What I mean is - I get the feeling that you're claiming that "the only reason that groups use Facebook to organize is because it's so popular, and if it weren't popular people would just up and stop using it" - and my point is that its popularity made it convenient as well as popular, and that the people who have found it to be convenient may choose to keep it as a convenience even when its popularity wanes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:32 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
...Well...yeah. People's use of the platform would change over time becuase people change over time.
What I mean is - I get the feeling that you're claiming that "the only reason that groups use Facebook to organize is because it's so popular, and if it weren't popular people would just up and stop using it" - and my point is that its popularity made it convenient as well as popular, and that the people who have found it to be convenient may choose to keep it as a convenience even when its popularity wanes.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:32 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
What you believe to be "talking about interesting stuff" is coming across as "lecturing people as a way to show off how self-righteous I am". You may want to reconsider your approach.
My first comment was a reiterating of the argument so far, that either Facebook was so convenient that people could excuse the corporate bad behavior, or it wasn't and that because it had a monopoly it could act badly. I never mentioned my own Facebook status, nor got short until the 'rigidity of my thought' was called into question.
posted by dazed_one at 12:35 PM on October 7, 2021
My first comment was a reiterating of the argument so far, that either Facebook was so convenient that people could excuse the corporate bad behavior, or it wasn't and that because it had a monopoly it could act badly. I never mentioned my own Facebook status, nor got short until the 'rigidity of my thought' was called into question.
posted by dazed_one at 12:35 PM on October 7, 2021
This is kind of happening though, right?
Young people are using it less or leaving, at least in the US.
That fact has much more to do with perception that Facebook is not sufficiently hip than any comment on its practices (especially if younger people use Instagram instead, which Facebook owns and which the whistleblower also mentioned is about as bad from a company ethics standpoint).
In any case, it's hardly an organized revolt over Facebook's business practices, revolting as they are.
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on October 7, 2021
Young people are using it less or leaving, at least in the US.
That fact has much more to do with perception that Facebook is not sufficiently hip than any comment on its practices (especially if younger people use Instagram instead, which Facebook owns and which the whistleblower also mentioned is about as bad from a company ethics standpoint).
In any case, it's hardly an organized revolt over Facebook's business practices, revolting as they are.
posted by Gelatin at 12:36 PM on October 7, 2021
What you believe to be "talking about interesting stuff" is coming across as "lecturing people as a way to show off how self-righteous I am".
Let's not forget you opened this conversation with "Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it."
That position is not only more absolutist than you now claim your position actually is, but you literally accused people who don't quit Facebook of being complicit in genocide.
posted by Gelatin at 12:40 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Let's not forget you opened this conversation with "Either Facebook facilitating the ruin of lives is enough for you to quit or it's so convenient for managing your work and your social life that helping a little bit of genocide is worth it."
That position is not only more absolutist than you now claim your position actually is, but you literally accused people who don't quit Facebook of being complicit in genocide.
posted by Gelatin at 12:40 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
no, it's sophomoric, as, again, many people have pointed out to you.
"We are all engaged in harming others by our actions" is... not the revelation you expect it to be to us? Do you go yell at people in this same fashion when you see they're wearing a cheap blouse or something?
posted by sagc at 12:43 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
"We are all engaged in harming others by our actions" is... not the revelation you expect it to be to us? Do you go yell at people in this same fashion when you see they're wearing a cheap blouse or something?
posted by sagc at 12:43 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
My first comment was a reiterating of the argument so far, that either Facebook was so convenient that people could excuse the corporate bad behavior, or it wasn't and that because it had a monopoly it could act badly.
But that argument has been debunked in many ways.
People can use Facebook, disapprove of its practices, and support Congress exercising its power to force Facebook to change those practices.
People can disapprove of Facebook's practices but use it because it provides a vital service to them for which alternatives don't exist.
Yes, Facebook is acting badly because it has a monopoly. But again, your dichotomy and emphasis on individual consumer choice elides both that individual consumer choice is too paltry to affect Facebook, and that Congress can -- for example, by using its power to regulate interstate commerce to break up Facebooks monopoly.
posted by Gelatin at 12:45 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
But that argument has been debunked in many ways.
People can use Facebook, disapprove of its practices, and support Congress exercising its power to force Facebook to change those practices.
People can disapprove of Facebook's practices but use it because it provides a vital service to them for which alternatives don't exist.
Yes, Facebook is acting badly because it has a monopoly. But again, your dichotomy and emphasis on individual consumer choice elides both that individual consumer choice is too paltry to affect Facebook, and that Congress can -- for example, by using its power to regulate interstate commerce to break up Facebooks monopoly.
posted by Gelatin at 12:45 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Do you go yell at people in this same fashion when you see they're wearing a cheap blouse or something?
I would certainly mention it if we were in a discussion about sweat shops and labor conditions, yeah.
posted by dazed_one at 12:45 PM on October 7, 2021
I would certainly mention it if we were in a discussion about sweat shops and labor conditions, yeah.
posted by dazed_one at 12:45 PM on October 7, 2021
So... you just wanted to come into a thread and say "you support genocide, and I do too?"
I guess I join one of the many people who say that the way you're coming across is wildly different from how you think you're coming across.
posted by sagc at 12:52 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
I guess I join one of the many people who say that the way you're coming across is wildly different from how you think you're coming across.
posted by sagc at 12:52 PM on October 7, 2021 [6 favorites]
I would certainly mention it if we were in a discussion about sweat shops and labor conditions, yeah.
But I already mentioned it in my first response to your risible point:
Again, you're free to doubt that Congress will take effective action, but it's dishonest to pretend that Congress can't do anything and so the responsibility is on the individual to solve the collective problem.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
But I already mentioned it in my first response to your risible point:
Unless one is a total hermit, participating in the global economy in any way is to be complicit in a system that "ruins lives" and facilitates "genocide." If you buy anything made in China, or from parts sourced from China, use any device that has a gasoline engine, or wear clothing manufactured overseas, then that "convenience" means participating in a genocidal system that ruins lives.None of the global problems like climate change, Facebook, sweat shops, etc., can be solved by individual action. The power of an individual to affect global capital is negligible. It's only possible thru collective action, and the best lever we have is government action.
And against that global system, individual consumer choice matters not at all. The only way to make that system change is to get governments to use the power of law law to force them to change. And no one here disagrees with doing so. It's just some of us don't pretend that our own, personal, silent boycott will serve any purpose other than making us feel righteous.
Again, you're free to doubt that Congress will take effective action, but it's dishonest to pretend that Congress can't do anything and so the responsibility is on the individual to solve the collective problem.
posted by Gelatin at 12:53 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Again, you're free to doubt that Congress will take effective action, but it's dishonest to pretend that Congress can't do anything and so the responsibility is on the individual to solve the collective problem.
Or, to be more accurate: you're free to doubt that Parliament will take effective action.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
Or, to be more accurate: you're free to doubt that Parliament will take effective action.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:54 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
None of the global problems like climate change, Facebook, sweat shops, etc., can be solved by individual action. The power of an individual to affect global capital is negligible. It's only possible thru collective action, and the best lever we have is government action.
This is true, but lots of people quitting Facebook becomes collective action. Turn cancel culture on Facebook.
Anyway, I'm out, you guys win. I really hope congress sorts it out for you guys and I'm sorry for suggesting that if you use Fb you have helped bad things happen.
posted by dazed_one at 1:03 PM on October 7, 2021
This is true, but lots of people quitting Facebook becomes collective action. Turn cancel culture on Facebook.
Anyway, I'm out, you guys win. I really hope congress sorts it out for you guys and I'm sorry for suggesting that if you use Fb you have helped bad things happen.
posted by dazed_one at 1:03 PM on October 7, 2021
The thing about trolls is, they’re never full. They can be fed endlessly.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:03 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 1:03 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is true, but lots of people quitting Facebook becomes collective action. Turn cancel culture on Facebook.
...."Cancel culture" usually only works if you direct the ire at the person you're trying to cancel, as opposed to directing at the people you're trying to enlist.
I really hope congress sorts it out for you guys and I'm sorry for suggesting that if you use Fb you have helped bad things happen.
Thank you for admitting it was intentional, as well, instead of an "I'm just sayin'!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
...."Cancel culture" usually only works if you direct the ire at the person you're trying to cancel, as opposed to directing at the people you're trying to enlist.
I really hope congress sorts it out for you guys and I'm sorry for suggesting that if you use Fb you have helped bad things happen.
Thank you for admitting it was intentional, as well, instead of an "I'm just sayin'!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:06 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is true, but lots of people quitting Facebook becomes collective action.
Not unless it's sufficiently organized so that 1) there are sufficient numbers that Facebook notices and b) Facebook knows it's a direct result of its odious business practices.
And again, you keep focusing on individual action, and not legislative action.
You're basically wishing that people won't use Facebook, which is great, I guess, but not really much of a point after all.
...."Cancel culture" usually only works if you direct the ire at the person you're trying to cancel, as opposed to directing at the people you're trying to enlist.
Which is why these hearings seem to have been effective (and I wonder what she's telling the House Select Committee today!). The whistleblower both went public with her story in a hig-profile way -- 60 Minutes, network news, NPR, etc. -- and took her story to Congress in a way that elicited statements that something ought to be done from members of both parties. Her actions seem an effective way of prompting collective action.
posted by Gelatin at 1:21 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Not unless it's sufficiently organized so that 1) there are sufficient numbers that Facebook notices and b) Facebook knows it's a direct result of its odious business practices.
And again, you keep focusing on individual action, and not legislative action.
You're basically wishing that people won't use Facebook, which is great, I guess, but not really much of a point after all.
...."Cancel culture" usually only works if you direct the ire at the person you're trying to cancel, as opposed to directing at the people you're trying to enlist.
Which is why these hearings seem to have been effective (and I wonder what she's telling the House Select Committee today!). The whistleblower both went public with her story in a hig-profile way -- 60 Minutes, network news, NPR, etc. -- and took her story to Congress in a way that elicited statements that something ought to be done from members of both parties. Her actions seem an effective way of prompting collective action.
posted by Gelatin at 1:21 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments deleted. Please avoid turning the conversation into a 1-on-1 discussion and be willing to give your fingers a rest and let others continue with the conversation.
posted by loup (staff) at 1:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by loup (staff) at 1:33 PM on October 7, 2021 [3 favorites]
This seems relevant to some of the threads going on here:
https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html*
Particularly, EmpressCallipygos' suggestion of keeping the good and excising the bad of Facebook. Someone tried doing just that? They got a Cease and Desist (and permaban!)
I want to thank all of the non-US commenters who have expressed how big a deal WhatsApp is outside of US. I had no clue. The fact that FB is essentially subsidizing phones so they can data mine is ... ugh. Glad people can increase their reach, but so horrible that FB is profiting off of shitty conditions for people.
Currently, there is no good answer with Facebook. Definitely, no easy answer. Hopefully, Frances Haugen's whistle blowing will make a demonstrable difference.
*Incognito/Private Tab generally opens Slate regardless of page views. If you consistently use one browser (say, Chrome), try another (Firefox). Still having issues? Download Vivaldi. Should open right up.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html*
Particularly, EmpressCallipygos' suggestion of keeping the good and excising the bad of Facebook. Someone tried doing just that? They got a Cease and Desist (and permaban!)
I want to thank all of the non-US commenters who have expressed how big a deal WhatsApp is outside of US. I had no clue. The fact that FB is essentially subsidizing phones so they can data mine is ... ugh. Glad people can increase their reach, but so horrible that FB is profiting off of shitty conditions for people.
Currently, there is no good answer with Facebook. Definitely, no easy answer. Hopefully, Frances Haugen's whistle blowing will make a demonstrable difference.
*Incognito/Private Tab generally opens Slate regardless of page views. If you consistently use one browser (say, Chrome), try another (Firefox). Still having issues? Download Vivaldi. Should open right up.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2021 [5 favorites]
Hank Green's thoughtful take on the subject. YouTube
posted by Glinn at 5:42 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Glinn at 5:42 PM on October 7, 2021 [1 favorite]
https://slate.com/technology/2021/10/facebook-unfollow-everything-cease-desist.html
That tool -- Unfollow Everything! -- sounds awesome. Does anyone know if it's still available via a mirror site, or if anyone else has created a tool with the same functionality?
posted by msalt at 11:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
That tool -- Unfollow Everything! -- sounds awesome. Does anyone know if it's still available via a mirror site, or if anyone else has created a tool with the same functionality?
posted by msalt at 11:22 PM on October 7, 2021 [2 favorites]
Particularly, EmpressCallipygos' suggestion of keeping the good and excising the bad of Facebook. Someone tried doing just that? They got a Cease and Desist (and permaban!)
For the record, I envisioned that Congress would help with that by making Facebook go along with it...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:58 AM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
For the record, I envisioned that Congress would help with that by making Facebook go along with it...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:58 AM on October 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
How to blow the whistle on Facebook – from someone who already did
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:12 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:12 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
John Oliver also just did a piece on misinformation amongst non-english and diaspora spaces on FB but also WhatsApp.
posted by cendawanita at 12:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by cendawanita at 12:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
Which is why these hearings seem to have been effective (and I wonder what she's telling the House Select Committee today!).
This is a thing that I've seen white-privileged redditors often use as a talking point. The notion is that public policy is "effective" and "individual" action (canceling, boycotting, abstaining, etc.) is "ineffective". It is bad theorizing (because collective action is also ultimately comprised of individual action) and it is not that hard to deconstruct such terms and false dichotomies to show why center-leaning white-privileged (male) people will use such arguments to win their position.
posted by polymodus at 1:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is a thing that I've seen white-privileged redditors often use as a talking point. The notion is that public policy is "effective" and "individual" action (canceling, boycotting, abstaining, etc.) is "ineffective". It is bad theorizing (because collective action is also ultimately comprised of individual action) and it is not that hard to deconstruct such terms and false dichotomies to show why center-leaning white-privileged (male) people will use such arguments to win their position.
posted by polymodus at 1:14 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is a thing that I've seen white-privileged redditors often use as a talking point.
Enough already. So what if "white privileged redditors" point out that government regulation is effective? Implying that the argument that government action is more effective at changing Facebook's behavior than individual action stems from "white privilege," besides being wrong, is an incredibly bad faith argument.
The notion is that public policy is "effective" and "individual" action (canceling, boycotting, abstaining, etc.) is "ineffective".
Individual actions, including those of the people here who have quit Facebook, have obviously not caused Facebook's behavior to change, because they're a drop in the bucket compared to Facebook's hundreds of millions of other users.
(And why the scare quotes around "effective"? If Facebook didn't consider public policy effective, they wouldn't work so hard to prevent it.)
To that point, Facebook clearly fears government regulation, because they have lied to congressional committees repeatedly. We know government action is more effective than individual action, because Facebook tells us by its behavior.
These points have all been made above, and playing the "white privilege" card doesn't distract anyone from noticing that you haven't refuted those arguments simply by re-asserting the virtue of pointless individual action.
It is bad theorizing (because collective action is also ultimately comprised of individual action)
Except without organization, individual action does not reach the level of collective action, and the actions of individuals don't affect Facebook at all. The don't care if an individual quits; they don't even notice.
and it is not that hard to deconstruct such terms and false dichotomies to show why center-leaning white-privileged (male) people will use such arguments to win their position.
It isn't hard to deconstruct an ad hominem argument and point out that such an argument -- besides being factually incorrect, as at least one of the commentors above is not a white male -- does nothing to refute the above facts.
Let's just accept the deployment of an ad hoc argument as an admission that those advocating individual over government action have no point after all.
posted by Gelatin at 5:35 AM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
Enough already. So what if "white privileged redditors" point out that government regulation is effective? Implying that the argument that government action is more effective at changing Facebook's behavior than individual action stems from "white privilege," besides being wrong, is an incredibly bad faith argument.
The notion is that public policy is "effective" and "individual" action (canceling, boycotting, abstaining, etc.) is "ineffective".
Individual actions, including those of the people here who have quit Facebook, have obviously not caused Facebook's behavior to change, because they're a drop in the bucket compared to Facebook's hundreds of millions of other users.
(And why the scare quotes around "effective"? If Facebook didn't consider public policy effective, they wouldn't work so hard to prevent it.)
To that point, Facebook clearly fears government regulation, because they have lied to congressional committees repeatedly. We know government action is more effective than individual action, because Facebook tells us by its behavior.
These points have all been made above, and playing the "white privilege" card doesn't distract anyone from noticing that you haven't refuted those arguments simply by re-asserting the virtue of pointless individual action.
It is bad theorizing (because collective action is also ultimately comprised of individual action)
Except without organization, individual action does not reach the level of collective action, and the actions of individuals don't affect Facebook at all. The don't care if an individual quits; they don't even notice.
and it is not that hard to deconstruct such terms and false dichotomies to show why center-leaning white-privileged (male) people will use such arguments to win their position.
It isn't hard to deconstruct an ad hominem argument and point out that such an argument -- besides being factually incorrect, as at least one of the commentors above is not a white male -- does nothing to refute the above facts.
Let's just accept the deployment of an ad hoc argument as an admission that those advocating individual over government action have no point after all.
posted by Gelatin at 5:35 AM on October 11, 2021 [3 favorites]
No, it isn't enough. Just look at the way you're responding to my comment.
The fact that access to policy is itself privileged, and privileged through white hegemony, does not require a wall of text defense. It is not an ad hominem and your performativity for centrist logics is quite apparent. When you respond by ignoring the power dynamic of access, that reinforces white privilege attitudes in this very conversation. So maybe take a moment to unpack that. It is in fact irrelevant whether you yourself are white or not.
"Efficacy" is a neoliberal cudgel used to browbeat every dissenter into toeing centrist political ideology. So quoting your uncritical use of the term is not merely scare quotes, it is pointing out uncritical usage and such presuppositions being made. But if you want them to be scare quotes, you'll never step back and consider that.
posted by polymodus at 5:46 AM on October 11, 2021
The fact that access to policy is itself privileged, and privileged through white hegemony, does not require a wall of text defense. It is not an ad hominem and your performativity for centrist logics is quite apparent. When you respond by ignoring the power dynamic of access, that reinforces white privilege attitudes in this very conversation. So maybe take a moment to unpack that. It is in fact irrelevant whether you yourself are white or not.
"Efficacy" is a neoliberal cudgel used to browbeat every dissenter into toeing centrist political ideology. So quoting your uncritical use of the term is not merely scare quotes, it is pointing out uncritical usage and such presuppositions being made. But if you want them to be scare quotes, you'll never step back and consider that.
posted by polymodus at 5:46 AM on October 11, 2021
There's not really any conflict here unless someone is saying that only individual action should be taken. Those who can quit Facebook can do that and the government can regulate Facebook or the law can be changed to specifically allow them to be sued for their editorial choices, preferably along with a safe harbor for strictly chronological timelines of content a user has specifically chosen to follow and/or intentionally user-directed prioritization choices. (With a clause saying they get to pay the plaintiff's fees and costs when they lose, private causes of action can be a good enforcement mechanism since it doesn't depend on an executive branch that gives a shit)
posted by wierdo at 5:50 AM on October 11, 2021
posted by wierdo at 5:50 AM on October 11, 2021
These points have all been made above, and playing the "white privilege" card doesn't distract anyone from noticing that you haven't refuted those arguments simply by re-asserting the virtue of pointless individual action.
Sorry, but this is just implicit racism and microaggression.
posted by polymodus at 5:58 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Sorry, but this is just implicit racism and microaggression.
posted by polymodus at 5:58 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
The fact that access to policy is itself privileged, and privileged through white hegemony, does not require a wall of text defense.
Well, there's also the fact that the fetishization of individual action is also white hegemony, as the myth of the rugged individual forcing change through their own will is very much rooted in ideas of how white culture sees both the world and their place in it.
The reality is that individual action cannot solve societal problems, just from a matter of scale. Worse, the desire for individual action can be twisted to encourage people to engage in ineffective praxis - the classic example of this is the recycling movement, which was created by the manufacturing industry in response to public outcry over waste in order to preempt bans on types of packaging. We've seen this also with data collection, where there's been a concerted effort to shift the locus of responsibility from the companies engaged in collecting data to individuals for not protecting it.
Look, I get why individual action is seductive - organizing is hard work, requiring getting people aligned to a larger plan, whether that is shifting policy or more direct action. It would be nicer to be able to just do something yourself, and then because other people are doing them as well, you get the change you want. But that's not how this works (and in the end, accomplishing a specific end is the goal here) - you need concerted collective action. Facebook has a term for people randomly leaving the service - churn. If you want them to actually take notice, you need organization to make your direct action have impact.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:33 AM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
Well, there's also the fact that the fetishization of individual action is also white hegemony, as the myth of the rugged individual forcing change through their own will is very much rooted in ideas of how white culture sees both the world and their place in it.
The reality is that individual action cannot solve societal problems, just from a matter of scale. Worse, the desire for individual action can be twisted to encourage people to engage in ineffective praxis - the classic example of this is the recycling movement, which was created by the manufacturing industry in response to public outcry over waste in order to preempt bans on types of packaging. We've seen this also with data collection, where there's been a concerted effort to shift the locus of responsibility from the companies engaged in collecting data to individuals for not protecting it.
Look, I get why individual action is seductive - organizing is hard work, requiring getting people aligned to a larger plan, whether that is shifting policy or more direct action. It would be nicer to be able to just do something yourself, and then because other people are doing them as well, you get the change you want. But that's not how this works (and in the end, accomplishing a specific end is the goal here) - you need concerted collective action. Facebook has a term for people randomly leaving the service - churn. If you want them to actually take notice, you need organization to make your direct action have impact.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:33 AM on October 11, 2021 [6 favorites]
Also, since it keeps coming up, there is a vast difference between organized direct action and individual action. Nobody is saying that things like organized boycotts cannot be effective and help unify action - what's being said is that haranging people into quitting Facebook individually is not organized action.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:43 AM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:43 AM on October 11, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am perfectly happy to let the reader decide whether the one who keeps deploying ad hominem arguments or the one who addresses (repeatedly) their interlocutors' errors have the better of the argument.
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
that's not how this works (and in the end, accomplishing a specific end is the goal here) - you need concerted collective action.
Indeed. The bottom line here is that Facebook is 1) clearly unconcerned whether individuals quit their service and b) clearly concerned over Congress regulating their ability to make profits with their bad behavior. Calling Congressional action "white hegemony" or effective policy "neoliberal" doesn't detract from the fact that Facebook's own actions show that it thinks that tack will force it to change its behavior. When one is reduced to name-calling rather than refuting that self-evident fact, one admits one doesn't have a valid point.
posted by Gelatin at 7:13 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
Indeed. The bottom line here is that Facebook is 1) clearly unconcerned whether individuals quit their service and b) clearly concerned over Congress regulating their ability to make profits with their bad behavior. Calling Congressional action "white hegemony" or effective policy "neoliberal" doesn't detract from the fact that Facebook's own actions show that it thinks that tack will force it to change its behavior. When one is reduced to name-calling rather than refuting that self-evident fact, one admits one doesn't have a valid point.
posted by Gelatin at 7:13 AM on October 11, 2021 [1 favorite]
A bit of false distinction here? Government regulation is collective action; the government in a democracy is how the people formally act, collectively. We also have social tools (e.g., individual and collective actions) at our disposal. Both/and.
posted by LooseFilter at 7:54 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by LooseFilter at 7:54 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
To follow up on Sophie Zhang's advice above:
The education of Frances Haugen: How the Facebook whistleblower learned to use data as a weapon from years in tech
Haugen’s calls to change Facebook’s incentives have broken through because of careful planning and enthusiasm for deep research, according to interviews with her and with those who know her.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:30 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
The education of Frances Haugen: How the Facebook whistleblower learned to use data as a weapon from years in tech
Haugen’s calls to change Facebook’s incentives have broken through because of careful planning and enthusiasm for deep research, according to interviews with her and with those who know her.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:30 AM on October 11, 2021 [2 favorites]
You’ve decided to quit Facebook. Here’s how to migrate your online life elsewhere.
Every time there’s a Facebook scandal, you may have thought about quitting the social network, and this time for real. But you run into the same problem every time: Where exactly should you go?
After a rough month of revelations about Facebook’s business practices, culminating with a whistleblower testifying in front of lawmakers about the social network’s harmful impact on children, many are once again trying to figure out how to extricate themselves from the company.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:34 AM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Every time there’s a Facebook scandal, you may have thought about quitting the social network, and this time for real. But you run into the same problem every time: Where exactly should you go?
After a rough month of revelations about Facebook’s business practices, culminating with a whistleblower testifying in front of lawmakers about the social network’s harmful impact on children, many are once again trying to figure out how to extricate themselves from the company.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:34 AM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
b) clearly concerned over Congress regulating their ability to make profits with their bad behavior.
Facebook's latest is that they're asking the government to get involved, and I think this is a bad thing actually.
Facebook is entering a phase of its existence where it can now start to co-opt their regulators, just as soon as they get some. Facebook having a more intimate relationship with the government and implementing whatever regulatory framework emerges from a process where FB has a seat at the table means that (I speculate) Facebook rules will start to have actual existing laws backing them up. I honestly think that FB is embarking on a gambit to give their business model the imprimatur of the legal system, much like we see in police departments under consent decrees that still don't e.g. keep unarmed people safe from police murder.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 AM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Facebook's latest is that they're asking the government to get involved, and I think this is a bad thing actually.
Facebook is entering a phase of its existence where it can now start to co-opt their regulators, just as soon as they get some. Facebook having a more intimate relationship with the government and implementing whatever regulatory framework emerges from a process where FB has a seat at the table means that (I speculate) Facebook rules will start to have actual existing laws backing them up. I honestly think that FB is embarking on a gambit to give their business model the imprimatur of the legal system, much like we see in police departments under consent decrees that still don't e.g. keep unarmed people safe from police murder.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 AM on October 13, 2021 [5 favorites]
Association of Facebook Use With Compromised Well-Being: A Longitudinal Study
Our analyses here are very unusual in that we used 3 waves of nationally representative survey data, including real-world social network measures, in combination with objective measures of Facebook use that were determined from each respondent's Facebook account. Using this rich source of data, we were able to investigate the associations of Facebook use and of real-world social network activity with self-reported physical health, self-reported mental health, self-reported life satisfaction, and BMI. Although there were some variations in the significance of the different measures across outcomes, a clear pattern emerged. Our results showed that although real-world social networks were positively associated with overall well-being, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with overall well-being. These associations were robust to multivariate cross-sectional analyses, as well as to 2-wave prospective analyses.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:11 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
Our analyses here are very unusual in that we used 3 waves of nationally representative survey data, including real-world social network measures, in combination with objective measures of Facebook use that were determined from each respondent's Facebook account. Using this rich source of data, we were able to investigate the associations of Facebook use and of real-world social network activity with self-reported physical health, self-reported mental health, self-reported life satisfaction, and BMI. Although there were some variations in the significance of the different measures across outcomes, a clear pattern emerged. Our results showed that although real-world social networks were positively associated with overall well-being, the use of Facebook was negatively associated with overall well-being. These associations were robust to multivariate cross-sectional analyses, as well as to 2-wave prospective analyses.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:11 PM on October 13, 2021 [3 favorites]
Facebook provided false testimony in campaign transparency lawsuit, Washington attorney general says
A Facebook representative provided false testimony in a lawsuit that accuses the social media giant of violating state campaign finance laws, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson alleges in court filings.
Both Facebook and Facebook’s attorneys knew the testimony was false, Ferguson says in court filings. He also alleges that Facebook set up a formalized process for people seeking information on political ads that requires them to limit their requests “in direct contravention of Washington law.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:27 PM on October 13, 2021 [6 favorites]
A Facebook representative provided false testimony in a lawsuit that accuses the social media giant of violating state campaign finance laws, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson alleges in court filings.
Both Facebook and Facebook’s attorneys knew the testimony was false, Ferguson says in court filings. He also alleges that Facebook set up a formalized process for people seeking information on political ads that requires them to limit their requests “in direct contravention of Washington law.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:27 PM on October 13, 2021 [6 favorites]
This should probably be a FPP, but I don't have the time to construct one right now: the American who built a pro-Trump fake news empire unmasks himself
For two years, he ran websites and Facebook groups that spread bogus stories, conspiracy theories, and propaganda. Under him was a dedicated team of writers and editors paid to produce deceptive content—from outright hoaxes to political propaganda—with the supreme goal of tipping the 2016 election to Donald Trump.posted by 1970s Antihero at 7:19 AM on October 14, 2021 [8 favorites]
Pieces that ran during this crucial period claimed, among other things, that Clinton had plans to "criminalize" gun owners, to kill the free press, to forcefully "drug" conservatives, to vaccinate people against their wills, to euthanize some adults, and to ban the US flag.
Yet Facebook, which directed plenty of traffic to Koala, never cut the site off. In the two years of the operation that Willis oversaw, Facebook banned only one of Koala's posts, Willis said.
Instagram Struggles With Fears of Losing Its ‘Pipeline’: Young Users
But even as Mr. Zuckerberg praised Instagram, the app was privately lamenting the loss of teenage users to other social media platforms as an “existential threat,” according to a 2018 marketing presentation.
By last year, the issue had become more urgent, according to internal Instagram documents obtained by The New York Times. “If we lose the teen foothold in the U.S. we lose the pipeline,” read a strategy memo, from last October, that laid out a marketing plan for this year.
In the face of that threat, Instagram left little to chance. Starting in 2018, it earmarked almost its entire global annual marketing budget — slated at $390 million this year — to targeting teenagers, largely through digital ads, according to planning documents and people directly involved in the process. Focusing so singularly on a narrow age group is highly unusual, marketers said, though the final spending went beyond teenagers and encompassed their parents and young adults.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:12 AM on October 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
But even as Mr. Zuckerberg praised Instagram, the app was privately lamenting the loss of teenage users to other social media platforms as an “existential threat,” according to a 2018 marketing presentation.
By last year, the issue had become more urgent, according to internal Instagram documents obtained by The New York Times. “If we lose the teen foothold in the U.S. we lose the pipeline,” read a strategy memo, from last October, that laid out a marketing plan for this year.
In the face of that threat, Instagram left little to chance. Starting in 2018, it earmarked almost its entire global annual marketing budget — slated at $390 million this year — to targeting teenagers, largely through digital ads, according to planning documents and people directly involved in the process. Focusing so singularly on a narrow age group is highly unusual, marketers said, though the final spending went beyond teenagers and encompassed their parents and young adults.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:12 AM on October 16, 2021 [3 favorites]
Some people upset they got caught:
We expect the press to hold us accountable, given our scale and role in the world. But when reporting misrepresents our actions and motivations, we believe we should correct the record.
Over the last 6 weeks, including over the weekend, we’ve seen how documents can be mischaracterized. Obviously, not every employee at Facebook is an executive; not every opinion is the company’s position.
Right now 30+ journalists are finishing up a coordinated series of articles based on thousands of pages of leaked documents. We hear that to get the docs, outlets had to agree to the conditions and a schedule laid down by the PR team that worked on earlier leaked docs.
A curated selection out of millions of documents at Facebook can in no way be used to draw fair conclusions about us. Internally, we share work in progress and debate options. Not every suggestion stands up to the scrutiny we must apply to decisions affecting so many people.
To those news organizations who would like to move beyond an orchestrated ‘gotcha’ campaign, we are ready to engage on the substance. - John Pinette, VP Communications
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:34 AM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
We expect the press to hold us accountable, given our scale and role in the world. But when reporting misrepresents our actions and motivations, we believe we should correct the record.
Over the last 6 weeks, including over the weekend, we’ve seen how documents can be mischaracterized. Obviously, not every employee at Facebook is an executive; not every opinion is the company’s position.
Right now 30+ journalists are finishing up a coordinated series of articles based on thousands of pages of leaked documents. We hear that to get the docs, outlets had to agree to the conditions and a schedule laid down by the PR team that worked on earlier leaked docs.
A curated selection out of millions of documents at Facebook can in no way be used to draw fair conclusions about us. Internally, we share work in progress and debate options. Not every suggestion stands up to the scrutiny we must apply to decisions affecting so many people.
To those news organizations who would like to move beyond an orchestrated ‘gotcha’ campaign, we are ready to engage on the substance. - John Pinette, VP Communications
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:34 AM on October 19, 2021 [1 favorite]
Facebook groups promoting ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment continue to flourish
Facebook has taken down a handful of the groups dedicated to these discussions. But dozens more remain up, according to recent research. In some of those groups, members discuss strategies to evade the social network’s rules.
Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, found 60 public and private Facebook groups dedicated to ivermectin discussion, with tens of thousands of members in total. After the organization flagged the groups to Facebook, 25 of them closed down. The remaining groups, which were reviewed by The New York Times, had nearly 70,000 members. Data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned social network analytics tool, showed that the groups generate thousands of interactions daily.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:27 PM on October 19, 2021
Facebook has taken down a handful of the groups dedicated to these discussions. But dozens more remain up, according to recent research. In some of those groups, members discuss strategies to evade the social network’s rules.
Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, found 60 public and private Facebook groups dedicated to ivermectin discussion, with tens of thousands of members in total. After the organization flagged the groups to Facebook, 25 of them closed down. The remaining groups, which were reviewed by The New York Times, had nearly 70,000 members. Data from CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned social network analytics tool, showed that the groups generate thousands of interactions daily.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:27 PM on October 19, 2021
Facebook is planning to rebrand the company with a new name
Facebook already has more than 10,000 employees building consumer hardware like AR glasses that Zuckerberg believes will eventually be as ubiquitous as smartphones. In July, he told The Verge that, over the next several years, “we will effectively transition from people seeing us as primarily being a social media company to being a metaverse company.”
A rebrand could also serve to further separate the futuristic work Zuckerberg is focused on from the intense scrutiny Facebook is currently under for the way its social platform operates today. A former employee turned whistleblower, Frances Haugen, recently leaked a trove of damning internal documents to The Wall Street Journal and testified about them before Congress. Antitrust regulators in the US and elsewhere are trying to break the company up, and public trust in how Facebook does business is falling.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:16 PM on October 19, 2021
Facebook already has more than 10,000 employees building consumer hardware like AR glasses that Zuckerberg believes will eventually be as ubiquitous as smartphones. In July, he told The Verge that, over the next several years, “we will effectively transition from people seeing us as primarily being a social media company to being a metaverse company.”
A rebrand could also serve to further separate the futuristic work Zuckerberg is focused on from the intense scrutiny Facebook is currently under for the way its social platform operates today. A former employee turned whistleblower, Frances Haugen, recently leaked a trove of damning internal documents to The Wall Street Journal and testified about them before Congress. Antitrust regulators in the US and elsewhere are trying to break the company up, and public trust in how Facebook does business is falling.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:16 PM on October 19, 2021
What's the point of this?
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:34 AM on October 20, 2021
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:34 AM on October 20, 2021
Because Zuck is working on other things beyond FB (AR, WhatsApp, the metaverse (wtf?)), and the FB brand is slowly becoming a difficult one to manage, I think?
Besides, OmniCreep would be more descriptive than Facebook. That's just my suggestion; the real one will likely be some bland nonsense that's been focused grouped to a lukewarm state.
posted by nubs at 8:56 AM on October 20, 2021
Besides, OmniCreep would be more descriptive than Facebook. That's just my suggestion; the real one will likely be some bland nonsense that's been focused grouped to a lukewarm state.
posted by nubs at 8:56 AM on October 20, 2021
I saw Casey Newton speculating on twitter that it might be Meta, or Meta-something, and I swear to fucking GOD
posted by cortex at 11:10 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by cortex at 11:10 AM on October 20, 2021 [8 favorites]
Metafilter: some bland nonsense that's been focused grouped to a lukewarm state
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:51 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:51 AM on October 20, 2021 [3 favorites]
I saw Casey Newton speculating on twitter that it might be Meta, or Meta-something, and I swear to fucking GOD
You have my axe.
posted by nubs at 12:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
You have my axe.
posted by nubs at 12:03 PM on October 20, 2021 [4 favorites]
Another whistleblower comes out. This doesn't sound like Facebook being overwhelmed by a technical problem, but making a positive choice to publish hate for cash:
New whistleblower claims Facebook allowed hate, illegal activity to go unchecked
The whistleblower’s allegations, which were declared under penalty of perjury and shared with The Post on the condition of anonymity, echoed many of those made by Frances Haugen, another former Facebook employee whose scathing testimony before Congress this month intensified bipartisan calls for federal action against the company. Haugen, like the new whistleblower, also made allegations to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees publicly traded companies.
The new whistleblower is a former member of Facebook’s Integrity team whose identity is known to The Post and who agreed to be interviewed about the issues raised in the legal filing. Perhaps the most vivid moment in the affidavit comes in a direct quote the whistleblower reported hearing from a top Facebook communications official during the controversy following Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The whistleblower’s name is redacted in the affidavit.
As the company sought to quell the political controversy during a critical period in 2017, Facebook communications official Tucker Bounds allegedly said, according to the affidavit, “It will be a flash in the pan. Some legislators will get pissy. And then in a few weeks they will move onto something else. Meanwhile we are printing money in the basement, and we are fine.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:12 PM on October 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
New whistleblower claims Facebook allowed hate, illegal activity to go unchecked
The whistleblower’s allegations, which were declared under penalty of perjury and shared with The Post on the condition of anonymity, echoed many of those made by Frances Haugen, another former Facebook employee whose scathing testimony before Congress this month intensified bipartisan calls for federal action against the company. Haugen, like the new whistleblower, also made allegations to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees publicly traded companies.
The new whistleblower is a former member of Facebook’s Integrity team whose identity is known to The Post and who agreed to be interviewed about the issues raised in the legal filing. Perhaps the most vivid moment in the affidavit comes in a direct quote the whistleblower reported hearing from a top Facebook communications official during the controversy following Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The whistleblower’s name is redacted in the affidavit.
As the company sought to quell the political controversy during a critical period in 2017, Facebook communications official Tucker Bounds allegedly said, according to the affidavit, “It will be a flash in the pan. Some legislators will get pissy. And then in a few weeks they will move onto something else. Meanwhile we are printing money in the basement, and we are fine.”
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:12 PM on October 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
Inside Facebook, Jan. 6 violence fueled anger, regret over missed warning signs
The company exhaustively studies potential policy changes for their impacts on user growth and other factors key to corporate profits, such as engagement, the extent of sharing and other reactions. Public relations and political impacts also are carefully weighed — to the point that potentially flattering and unflattering news headlines about the company are sketched out for review. The documents show that Facebook has declined to deploy some mitigation tactics when chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has objected on the basis that they will cause too many “false positives” or might stop people from engaging with its platforms.
The documents report, for example, that Facebook research, based on data from 2019, found that misinformation shared by politicians was more damaging than that coming from ordinary users. Yet the company maintained a policy that year that explicitly allowed political leaders to lie without facing the possibility of fact checks.
That same year, a report titled “Carol’s Journey to QAnon” examined how Facebook’s recommendation algorithms affected the feeds to an experimental account supposedly representing a conservative mother in North Carolina. The report found that rapid polarization was an entrenched feature in how the platform operated. The first QAnon page landed in the conservative user’s feed in just five days.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:33 PM on October 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
The company exhaustively studies potential policy changes for their impacts on user growth and other factors key to corporate profits, such as engagement, the extent of sharing and other reactions. Public relations and political impacts also are carefully weighed — to the point that potentially flattering and unflattering news headlines about the company are sketched out for review. The documents show that Facebook has declined to deploy some mitigation tactics when chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has objected on the basis that they will cause too many “false positives” or might stop people from engaging with its platforms.
The documents report, for example, that Facebook research, based on data from 2019, found that misinformation shared by politicians was more damaging than that coming from ordinary users. Yet the company maintained a policy that year that explicitly allowed political leaders to lie without facing the possibility of fact checks.
That same year, a report titled “Carol’s Journey to QAnon” examined how Facebook’s recommendation algorithms affected the feeds to an experimental account supposedly representing a conservative mother in North Carolina. The report found that rapid polarization was an entrenched feature in how the platform operated. The first QAnon page landed in the conservative user’s feed in just five days.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 2:33 PM on October 23, 2021 [3 favorites]
The Facebook Papers project started publishing today.
The Facebook Papers project represents a unique collaboration among 17 American news organizations, including The Associated Press. Journalists from a variety of newsrooms, large and small, worked together to gain access to thousands of pages of internal company documents obtained by Frances Haugen, the former Facebook product manager-turned-whistleblower.
A separate consortium of European news outlets had access to the same set of documents, and members of both groups began publishing content related to their analysis of the materials at 7 a.m. EDT on Monday, Oct. 25.
posted by nubs at 10:23 AM on October 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
The Facebook Papers project represents a unique collaboration among 17 American news organizations, including The Associated Press. Journalists from a variety of newsrooms, large and small, worked together to gain access to thousands of pages of internal company documents obtained by Frances Haugen, the former Facebook product manager-turned-whistleblower.
A separate consortium of European news outlets had access to the same set of documents, and members of both groups began publishing content related to their analysis of the materials at 7 a.m. EDT on Monday, Oct. 25.
posted by nubs at 10:23 AM on October 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
This is perhaps a meta-Metafilter comment, but... do we think that the Facebook Papers drop justifies a new thread, or do we want to continue discussing here? I could see pros/cons to either approach. Lots of very interesting discussion about it today on Mastodon, and I suspect MeFi would have Things to Say about it.
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:18 PM on October 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Kadin2048 at 4:18 PM on October 25, 2021 [2 favorites]
A new thread for the Papers seems like a good idea. A two-week-old thread like this one is unlikely to spark much fresh discussion.
posted by Not A Thing at 4:58 PM on October 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Not A Thing at 4:58 PM on October 25, 2021 [1 favorite]
New thread for the Facebook Papers discussion.
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:48 PM on October 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by Kadin2048 at 5:48 PM on October 26, 2021 [1 favorite]
« Older Building friendships based on principles from... | Blackpink! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GallonOfAlan at 3:45 AM on October 4, 2021 [8 favorites]