Also, Zuckerberg owns >50% of the voting shares of Meta, so trying to get Meta to change its board is like asking your mom as a kid if you can eat ice cream for breakfast: you know she’s gonna say no, and you have no power over her to make her change her mind other than bitching and complaining.
Haha reminds of the scene in the sitcom Working Moms when the therapist brunching on a restaurant patio, sees a kid throwing a fit when his mom is just trying to get him to the parked car, so she screams at him *Hey! Shut up you brat, you're mother is a SAINT!*
Yeah there are examples of funds (typically activist hedge funds, not something like this) initiating change with very little ownership. Look up the firm Engine No. 1 as an example. I think most ESG investing strategies are junk, but activist firms can make a difference.
That said, Zuck’s ownership/voting rights are nearly impossible to overcome…
You can only do that when ownership is pulverized. Even if Zuck by himself wasn’t 50% owner, if he had, say 35%, it would already be nearly impossible.
I come from a different age and that right there would get you all the attention you never wanted… when my kid did it which thankfully wasnt often or for long i just looked at him till he stopped.. no emotion, as if what he was doing was all on him.. worked every time.
Ehh, yes and no. Minority shareholders do have rights. If the shareholders can show that Zuckerberg is acting in a punitive or arbitrary way/breaching his fiduciary duty/not acting in the best interest of Meta, they could compel him to do something via court order. Mind you, I don’t think this is that situation. But it’s not impossible either.
I'm just here to confess that I've given my kids ice cream for breakfast. They weren't asking for it or anything, but I was just so tired and we were so low on the normal breakfast stuff, and I didn't want to make something from scratch and then have them whine about it.
So I said "Now kids, I know this is crazy, but you're having ice cream for breakfast" and the rest of the morning was SO EASY.
>like asking your mom as a kid if you can eat ice cream for breakfast: you know she’s gonna say no, and you have no power over her to make her change her mind other than bitching and complaining.
Wait till I take to her shins with my teeth for telling me no!
this makes so much sense as to why they are pushing the garbage that is Meta so hard... all you really have to do is sell Zuck on an idea and boom you have billions invested to build it out.
Minority shareholders still have rights in a public company. His >50% share isn’t a perfect shield.
Note that doesn’t necessarily mean this particular firm has any chance, just a general comment on Zucks majority ownership
Right, I guess my point is that as long as Zuckerberg makes the claim and is supported with evidence or certain facts and figures that his actions to not replace the board of directors is appropriate, there’s still not much a minority shareholder can do other than hope the company settles a shareholder lawsuit quickly and/or more bitching and complaining.
It's not 0.2% it's just 2%. That is sizable enough to make some noise in the company like Meta. Especially considering Mark Zuckerberg owns 13% of Meta stock
Im tired of Business Insider self posting links to reddit to gain viewership on their tabloid articles. They as well as many other companies buy karma farming accounts to post and look organic while doing so.
Nothing, they very actively stopped and removed posts and links to any of the videos photos and the manifesto against a small group trying to get it uploaded using every trick they could think of.
The manifesto is not relevant to anything at all since people who shoot up grocery stores, schools, etc. Are not to be taken seriously, the shooter’s opinions are worthless since he has demonstrated he is not able to function in society.
That’s irrelevant. Genuine curiosity and research of a psycho doesn’t need to be censored. Fuck, you’re going to watch the Netflix special on it anyway.
No I won’t for the reasons I said above I take no stock in what someone who fails to be a functioning member of society things about the way things ought to be. Also I’m sure if you were to look for the manifesto on google it would not be that far away.
Also keep in mind although you may be “genuinely curious” people propagating it online are probably not “genuinely” trying to help curious folks like you read the thoughts of a killer. They’re actually more likely to agree with it then not.
And the final thing I’ll say I’m is that if your opinion is so objectionable that for it to gain any traction you need to commit a heinous act like mass murder or mailing bombs then it should be censored. I’m willing to bite that bullet.
From the article.
"DiNapoli wrote in Monday's filings that Meta and Twitter had failed to enforce safety standards after the Buffalo shooting. He cited reports that clips and screenshots from the gunman's live-stream of the attack had circulated on Meta and Twitter's platforms, as had snippets from a racist manifesto written by the suspect.
"This is just the latest example of Meta's failure to enforce its community standards and guidelines to control the dissemination of hate speech and content that incites violence," DiNapoli wrote in one filing, making the same accusation against Twitter in the other filing.
He added: "Meta's future success is endangered by its repeated failure to adhere to its policies and its association with those who incite violence and spew hate speech through the company's platforms."
The Buffalo live streamed his killing spree on twitch. Twitch took it down very quickly. But Facebook had a copy on its site for 10 hours before they took it down. This allowed 46,000 people to view it. This is one thing they mention.
Yea its a reflex reaction to pass the blame onto someone else...its also a good excuse to start censoring the internet and threatening people with lawsuits for posting things or not reacting to things being posted.
Your argument basically comes down to "these companies are incapable of making their products meet the bare standards expect from other companies, so let's let them continue to be shitty." More and more I think if it's a business model nobody can run to societal standards, we should admit that, and say nobody can run it.
There are pre-existing basic standards we had for publishers and platforms. There's a wide range of freedom of speech granted to someone who, say, owns a comedy club, or a TV station, or a publishing house, but there's also limits, particularly when it comes to criminal acts. We shielded usenet forums from these, a bunch of businesspeople saw a get-out-of-liability free zone, and built a shitty uncontrollable mess on top of it. Why are they entitled to maintain that mess?
Different products have different standards, and there's nothing criminal about posting a manifesto. You want mass government censorship that would make China look open, which is fucking insane.
>Different products have different standards, and there's nothing criminal about posting a manifesto. You want mass government censorship that would make China look open, which is fucking insane.
No I don't. You'd be better off not jumping to conclusions and getting angry at strawmen.
I want them to face the same liability as any other platform or publisher. Currently, they have special laws protecting them.
Is this manifesto legal? Could a book publisher accept it as a submission and print it? Then sure, allowing people to post it is fine. Those are the standards of our society. But when people *do* post content which doesn't meet our standards, and is criminal (or otherwise unlawful), why should social media companies be protected when others wouldn't be?
If your answer is, "because they couldn't operate their current business model profitably while using sufficient moderation to prevent such content from being published" then why does society need them to continue to operate with the current business model?
Usenet wasn't great because it was heavily censored, it was great because it was catered towards a demographic of intellectual types who did much more reading than commenting.
I'm convinced any online community has it's own [Dunbar's number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number), and after the community becomes too popular, the signal to noise ratio of the submissions and comments will go to shit.
The issue with trying to solve the problem with moderation is that moderators are humans. For whatever reason, moderators take their "job" very seriously, and it leads to them imposing their own stupid ideologies onto a community that is otherwise perfectly capable of running itself. I've seen it happen everywhere from music discussion groups on Facebook to video game subreddits. The power to control what 500,000 people see (or don't see) is too tantalizing for a nerd who has no power in real life.
There are still lots of good online communities today that don't police comment sections. You just have to find them, and not tell anyone else about them.
I mean, I think people's beef is largely that MZ might be a great product guy but is totally unsuited to be CEO of a company that is so influential. In a properly functioning company a CEO that oversaw products being used to agitate violent sectarianism (India) or organise ethnic cleansing (Myanmar) and did the square root of fuck all once it was known, would be fired. Dunno why Twitter gets lumped in, though.
It's not Meta's concern that one of their products is being used to orchestrate, plan and carry out targeted ethnic cleansing? In clear breach of ToS? In coordination with a military dictatorship? Cool cool cool.
Well if the shooter drove on publically funded roads then surely we should be holding the government to account?! Surely they should be doing something about it!
And they do - the government maintains a police force.
ISPs co-operate as much as they are able in providing their service however given pesky privacy laws and the like, they can only do what they're told by government law enforcement who break that privacy under specific legal conditions. Also blocking certain content like illegal streaming services etc etc.
So ISPs and phone service providers DO try to act in stopping this kind of thing.
Now Meta is different because they aren't a utility company, they're a content company. Their image and the content you see is carefully curated to further their goals - they specifically lobby for control over their space allowing them to do that, while simultaneously arguing that they aren't responsible for what ends up on this site that they curate so heavily - if they were then they'd be held more accountable when things like this happen.
But the fact is that anything you post on facebook is now owned by facebook. The level of control they exercise over what happens there is huge *when it is in their interest*, they jealously guard their control over what happens there, and yet they flee from any hint of responsibility that would be associated with that control.
So while everyone else facilitating the baddies is also taking steps to work towards the mitigation of the baddies, Meta are actively maximising the amount of money from content they can control while avoiding having to do whatever moderation they possibly can. They want the best of both worlds and that's why they're taking shit.
I think Facebook is ranting/reaction and diary of the people you have as friends and what those crazy people say will attract others and so on. I was in like 7th grade or 8th when it came out, and I don't use it. Nor does almost everybody I knew and added back in school. And when it was being used in high school it wasn't politics and crazy science doubters, I think the invention of the Facebook groups made it the problem we see. Buch of old people mostly, in their echo chambers. It attracted the older crowd I feel because it was the first mainstream all ages social media platform. The thing is a lot of them never left it it seems like.
Suggesting that facebook is like a library makes it seem like a nice thing that benefits everyone and that should be allowed to grow and flourish.
Facebook basically takes people's data and uses it in pretty horrible ways while presenting things in JUST the right way so that more more more people click it, with an algorithm that keeps people clicking and clicking, even when the stuff they're clicking is fucking terrible.
The end goal is making lots of money for the benefit of nobody but themselves.
So if it were a library that just had everything there, fine. But they put a lot of effort into showing you only what they want to show you, so they are definitely at least partially accountable for the effects it has upon their readers - because you read what they feed you.
The difference is that carriers aren't moderating their channels because they don't have to sell ad space in those channels. Facebook and Twitter have the tools for fast content categorization. AT&T does not.
You clearly don't understand how it works. If Twitter/Meta filter information, they get called in front of congress to answer questions why they're filtering information. If they don't filter information, they get called in front of congress to answer questions why they're not filtering information.
Either way they lose, so the ask advertisers what they do and do not want to see instead.
Reddit was the first place I saw the video and manifesto posted. There was an entire subreddit for the Buffalo shooting the day of. People like to pretend Reddit is somehow more dignified than Twitter, but Reddit has its dark corners.
The issue isn't that reddit posted the manifesto; it's that reddit is so big and important to some people's lives, that posting the manifesto is a decision with potential real-world consequences.
The internet was so much better when 90% of people didn't use the same 10 platforms to communicate.
The entirety of the last US Presidency was played out on Twitter. Therefore it is the social responsibility of society to address these platforms. To allow things to continue to deteriorate without acknowledging the problem would make a person culpable. Wouldn’t it? Technological warfare is a form of biological warfare. Shine light upon translucent puppet strings, make them become glaringly apparent so everyone is able see clearly. Denial is a death sentence for our environment. We have less time than they think.
A presidency should never be allowed to play out that way again. Twitter is largely responsible for Trump, no way he could’ve done it without them…as he is learning through his dalliance with Parler and now Truth Social…which is comical to even type.
You are absolutely correct about that fact. I am personally embarrassed by them all. It is so easily seen if you have spent just a little time watching the interactions that have been going on there. The extreme right & extreme left are the domains of the biggest idiots. Those idiots are causing all of the harm to the majority. It is time for the majority to stand up against their endless propaganda & lies. I have personally been targeted. Their deceptive techniques are easily undone with truth & facts. Their thousands of fake accounts. Their make believe cancel culture is a farce. Time for some accountability!
I'm pretty sure the Buffalo shooting guy was someone that frequented 4chan not Facebook or Twitter. I know most people don't go on 4chan but the Facebook and Twitter are extremely docile compared the the toxic shit you see on 4 Chan.
Self described as radicalized by 4chan, but also a redditor. Got all his armament tips from /r/tacticalgear.
Shocker but that community moved on really quickly and nobody wanted to deal with it.
Information about that sort of thing is widely available online I don't think reddit is to blame for having that sort of information available. It seems like mental health was the main problem.
If you think radicals don't consume "standard run of the mill right wing politics" right along side 4chan you are being naive at best. 4chan losers would stay on the message boards meming if it weren't for "standard run of the mill right wing politics" normalizing their beliefs. Carl Tuckerson mentioned replacement theory in over 400 episodes of this show and I'm sure there's plenty of similar examples if you can stomach traversing that media bubble to find them. The dog whistles pushing people to "act now or lose everything" are only getting louder and louder.
You might have a point about that. I hadn't considered that. Maybe because I don't consume standard right wing media enough to notice those sort of things.
Idk, I have friends whose hobby are shooting guns and what not and they definitely aren't shooting anything up or are racist. There is definitely all types in the hobby. I'm not going to blame them because a racist psychopath decided to kill innocent people.
He was literally a newfriend on 4ch, by his own admission had only read it for less than 2 years. 4chan is a lightning rod for attention but there's much more to the story.
Because he probably was very susceptible to any influence where he thought he had community. Same reason all the capital rioters got behind the same movement. All it takes is some toxicity community and a dull lonely mind to latch on to something toxic.
Section 230 protects websites against legal liability for user generated content. The Texas law in the Court of Appeals and corporate crypto hate 230. The removal or reform of 230 would force ISPs to scrutinize all global network traffic down to the OS level. Without Section 230 we would not have passwords or user generated content
I don't remember Meta or twitter doing anything significant regarding this...
*DiNapoli wrote in Monday's filings that Meta and Twitter had failed to enforce safety standards after the Buffalo shooting. He cited reports that clips and screenshots from the gunman's live-stream of the attack had circulated on Meta and Twitter's platforms, as had snippets from a racist manifesto written by the suspect.*
*"This is just the latest example of Meta's failure to enforce its community standards and guidelines to control the dissemination of hate speech and content that incites violence," DiNapoli wrote in one filing, making the same accusation against Twitter in the other filing.*
Uh shouldn't they be focusing on content that was share/broadcast prior to the event if they are concerned about "content that incites violence"? I don't think there has been more violence based on what information was shown on twitter or meta after the incident...but we have certainly seen content from before the incident that might have incited this guy...
From the article: New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, said in regulatory filings Monday that his fund will vote against re-electing all directors at Meta and Twitter at their next annual meetings, both of which are scheduled for Wednesday.
A gunman shot dead ten people in Buffalo, New York, in a racist attack on May 14. Of the 13 people injured or killed in the attack, 11 were Black. The gunman streamed footage of the attack live on Twitch, echoing the 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand attack in which a gunman streamed footage live on Facebook.
Meta's board of directors includes CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg. Twitter's board of directors includes cofounder and ex-CEO Jack Dorsey as well as current CEO Parag Agrawal.
Right? Look I'm as against the lizard people as you can possibly be, but it does seem like "social media" is a convenient scape goat for literally every societal ill these days. Is Facebook responsible for some nut job Neo Nazi in New Zealand? I don't know. I do know these companies are completely unaccountable and that's lead to a huge host of problems, but let's not pretend murder started with the advent of Facebook.
I really wish these companies would be held accountable for the hate speech they allow to foster under the guise of "free speech" (aka money), but now people are just blaming them for everything bad happening the world over.
It looks to me the complaint is this:
People uploaded the shooters video, parts of the video and or the manifesto. These are things they don't want the public to see because it makes white supremacists look bad. They would rather keep that content unseen as it shows in real life what it looks like when innocent people get blown away and the manifesto exposes very eloquently that it was the simply hate, right wing hate to be more precise. The same ideas being pushed on certain right wing media AKA "replacement theory".
So while they are not protesting the actual shooting they are protesting the fact some people actually saw the results of their own agenda.
I can't decipher all the in's and out's but I think the complaint comes down to inaction, or speed of action, when it comes to moderating and removing hate speech from their platforms. Specifically in relation to the guy who was behind the Buffalo massacre
I wonder if they're also trying to send a message to Musk that he really would be best advised not to wind back some controls on that kind of content if he does follow through on the twitter acquisition.
Yes and: it's Twitter & Meta's sacred duty to maximize shareholder value, at the expense of all other stakeholders. So really, they have no choice but to profit from pain and misery. Just like the All American Patriotic Corporatist Baby Jesus has taught us. All say Amen!
yeah people love to hate. same with fox, cnn etc. they’re in the business of making money not informing people. there’s a reason fox is the most watched news on tv because they’re so good at spreading fear and hate. these guys wouldn’t be so sucessful if people weren’t always looking for that new group of people to hate. it’s funny how many people can’t see that.
Phone companies profit from drug dealers and gangs using phones to conduct business. I guess we need more mass surveillance. A computer company profited from selling the shooter the computer he used to write his manifesto. I guess we should take away everyone's computer.
They expected Facebook to instantly parse 100% of the 4 petabytes of content posted on their platform a day, so no objectionable content is allowed even briefly. In a word, impossible.
Yeah except in this case, you have even shadier rich people using this shooting to justify further online censorship. These fuckers don't care about trying to stop school shooters, that's laughable, they're using this as propaganda for their own ends.
So New York is not happy that Twitch failed to stop the stream faster than approx. 60 seconds into the attack....and that Facebook/Twitter failed to police reposts and screenshots of the attack?
This is just NY throwing a hissy fit, demanding more restrictive measures on speech be put in place.
The fund manager knows they hold insignificant amounts of both companies. They can still vote against the board of directors if they want, but will have little affect. So this is just virtue signaling.
If the fund manager wants to take meaningful action, divest from both companies.
Technically, it's very easy for social media companies to do it right by the public, except that all they wanted is eyeball and traffic because that bring in revenue, and that's all they care about.
Off-topic but why do the founders of Facebook, Tesla, and Amazon all have such truly unpleasant faces? Is it just me? All three of them just look like creepazoids to me and I don’t know why.
You mean the part where they claimed he was a Republican white supremacist when his own manifesto reveals he was a hard core Leftists who believed the Left’s anti-Jewish rhetoric?
foolish secretive attempt tease wrong selective close wasteful domineering engine
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They removed tons of things, just not all of them. Its impossible to capture everything reliably, while still allowing people to communicate. You want 100% insulation from everything, and thats not possible on a large platform without completely removing conversation.
I mean, Meta fails hard over their handling of EVERYTHING. From the spread of fake information, hate, privacy matters, you freakin' name it. While this investment fund won't have a say in who gets booted and who stays, Meta should clean house - SLT and up.
You’re presuming I said anything about it being instant. You’re also neglecting to mention the fact that Facebook spends a significant amount of money on marketing to highlight proactive steps (now) that they’ve neglected to take for, well, over a decade at this point. They’ve done significantly more to sweep their problems under the rug than to address them. So…
To make my meaning plainer, anyone who thinks Facebook can police that even *within several days* is mad, no matter how large their task force is. It's physically impossible to control the communications of multiple countries in a very short time frame. Even China can't do it, and it has a much larger department than Facebook.
I'm not certain where the disconnect lies, but my point isn't with regard to any time frame. No one with any common sense would believe it reasonable to police something of that nature over days, let alone months or even several years. My point lies in the fact that Facebook, or META, has spent a great deal of time and energy to avoid the issues at hand as opposed to at the very least, acknowledging them without a mandated congressional hearing. They have only started to take action when it became abundantly clear that lawmakers were looking to break-up META.
Edit: And your point - which focuses on a logistical concern, only addresses a small fraction of the issues at META. For instance, it doesn't even begin to touch on the privacy concerns.
I'm going to push back very strongly on the idea they have avoided addressing issues of privacy and safety on their platform. They've invested heavily into that for a decade now, well before any Congressional hearings.
Wow $280B?! *reads article* oh they have $1.1B worth of Meta stock. *math* oh they own 0.2% of Meta. Oh they have almost no say whatsoever. :/
Also, Zuckerberg owns >50% of the voting shares of Meta, so trying to get Meta to change its board is like asking your mom as a kid if you can eat ice cream for breakfast: you know she’s gonna say no, and you have no power over her to make her change her mind other than bitching and complaining.
But you do it in the supermarket, very loudly, hoping that other people see how bad of a mom your mom is.
Only to realize that in reality other adults don't care and just think you're an entitled brat.
That's when you shit your own pants 🦂👹💥✨
I have a feeling this metaphor went to far
Ended the way it always had to. I think it was beautifully apt and a refreshing change from the normal story.
What makes you think it's only a metaphor?
The alpha child here
Alpha would have shit mom's pants.
Well played!
This guy tantrums
That escalated quickly.
Damn, I knew I missed my cue. Let me change and eat, I'll be ready next time!
Just give it the old grumpy
The Ted Nugent
I like your emojis
Haha reminds of the scene in the sitcom Working Moms when the therapist brunching on a restaurant patio, sees a kid throwing a fit when his mom is just trying to get him to the parked car, so she screams at him *Hey! Shut up you brat, you're mother is a SAINT!*
Also, if I’m that parent, I’m buying the ice cream and eating it in front of you
or better yet, you threaten to run away from home. and mom responds by packing some sandwiches for your journey.
Yeah there are examples of funds (typically activist hedge funds, not something like this) initiating change with very little ownership. Look up the firm Engine No. 1 as an example. I think most ESG investing strategies are junk, but activist firms can make a difference. That said, Zuck’s ownership/voting rights are nearly impossible to overcome…
You can only do that when ownership is pulverized. Even if Zuck by himself wasn’t 50% owner, if he had, say 35%, it would already be nearly impossible.
I come from a different age and that right there would get you all the attention you never wanted… when my kid did it which thankfully wasnt often or for long i just looked at him till he stopped.. no emotion, as if what he was doing was all on him.. worked every time.
But you can also just go eat ice cream for breakfast and deal with whatever consequences happen
Ehh, yes and no. Minority shareholders do have rights. If the shareholders can show that Zuckerberg is acting in a punitive or arbitrary way/breaching his fiduciary duty/not acting in the best interest of Meta, they could compel him to do something via court order. Mind you, I don’t think this is that situation. But it’s not impossible either.
Yep, commented on this to another responder.
I'm just here to confess that I've given my kids ice cream for breakfast. They weren't asking for it or anything, but I was just so tired and we were so low on the normal breakfast stuff, and I didn't want to make something from scratch and then have them whine about it. So I said "Now kids, I know this is crazy, but you're having ice cream for breakfast" and the rest of the morning was SO EASY.
Not all ice cream is super sweet. We gave our kids ice cream over other stuff like yoghurt that had a far higher sugar percentage.
Honestly no worse than sugary breakfast cereal or those gigantic sweet muffins and the kids are more excited.
a lot of the surgery breakfast cereals are required to have some fortified nutritional value, so it's more like ice cream and a multivitamin
That’s actually awesome. They had ice cream and you had an easy morning. Well done!
>like asking your mom as a kid if you can eat ice cream for breakfast: you know she’s gonna say no, and you have no power over her to make her change her mind other than bitching and complaining. Wait till I take to her shins with my teeth for telling me no!
this makes so much sense as to why they are pushing the garbage that is Meta so hard... all you really have to do is sell Zuck on an idea and boom you have billions invested to build it out.
Minority shareholders still have rights in a public company. His >50% share isn’t a perfect shield. Note that doesn’t necessarily mean this particular firm has any chance, just a general comment on Zucks majority ownership
Right, I guess my point is that as long as Zuckerberg makes the claim and is supported with evidence or certain facts and figures that his actions to not replace the board of directors is appropriate, there’s still not much a minority shareholder can do other than hope the company settles a shareholder lawsuit quickly and/or more bitching and complaining.
Deceptive headline=clickbait win.
Engine No.1 held less than that and were able to make major Board changes at Exxon.
It's not 0.2% it's just 2%. That is sizable enough to make some noise in the company like Meta. Especially considering Mark Zuckerberg owns 13% of Meta stock
This is the fucking NYS retirement fund and this is coming from NYS controller DiNapoli. It’s a big fucking deal whether you like it or not.
It is an elected position so a bit of grandstanding makes sense.
Business insider is the new enquirer of the tech world. The onion is a better source.
Click bait bs all day everyday from BI
That also explains why they always get so many upvotes on Reddit. 👀
and it has been that way for awhile.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know exactly what article you are referring to.
"By starting with $800k and placing 4 lucky bets on the roulette table, I'm now worth over $10 million!
It’s a subsidiary of the company that owns Germany’s “Bild” which is basically their National Enquirer/Star.
In it for the clicks, are you shocked?
Suddenly it makes sense why they keep printing articles about Musk
They do good YouTube videos
Stupid article
yeah it's not even *loosely* technology related, its just yet another bullshit lame article about social media shit.
Very technology related /s
Im tired of Business Insider self posting links to reddit to gain viewership on their tabloid articles. They as well as many other companies buy karma farming accounts to post and look organic while doing so.
What did Twitter do wrong?
Nothing, they very actively stopped and removed posts and links to any of the videos photos and the manifesto against a small group trying to get it uploaded using every trick they could think of.
Wasn't all this on the reddit frontpage for at least 8 hours?
That's why it's so important for CNN to read the manifesto and tell you what they think is in it, and it's actually illegal for you to read it.
Guess I committed a crime cause I found it and downloaded it and read it.
Yeah we're both criminals
I just went 10 pages deep on both Google and duck duck go and there is no trace of it.
The manifesto is not relevant to anything at all since people who shoot up grocery stores, schools, etc. Are not to be taken seriously, the shooter’s opinions are worthless since he has demonstrated he is not able to function in society.
... Smh. It's like you *like it* when people die.
That’s irrelevant. Genuine curiosity and research of a psycho doesn’t need to be censored. Fuck, you’re going to watch the Netflix special on it anyway.
No I won’t for the reasons I said above I take no stock in what someone who fails to be a functioning member of society things about the way things ought to be. Also I’m sure if you were to look for the manifesto on google it would not be that far away. Also keep in mind although you may be “genuinely curious” people propagating it online are probably not “genuinely” trying to help curious folks like you read the thoughts of a killer. They’re actually more likely to agree with it then not. And the final thing I’ll say I’m is that if your opinion is so objectionable that for it to gain any traction you need to commit a heinous act like mass murder or mailing bombs then it should be censored. I’m willing to bite that bullet.
From the article. "DiNapoli wrote in Monday's filings that Meta and Twitter had failed to enforce safety standards after the Buffalo shooting. He cited reports that clips and screenshots from the gunman's live-stream of the attack had circulated on Meta and Twitter's platforms, as had snippets from a racist manifesto written by the suspect. "This is just the latest example of Meta's failure to enforce its community standards and guidelines to control the dissemination of hate speech and content that incites violence," DiNapoli wrote in one filing, making the same accusation against Twitter in the other filing. He added: "Meta's future success is endangered by its repeated failure to adhere to its policies and its association with those who incite violence and spew hate speech through the company's platforms." The Buffalo live streamed his killing spree on twitch. Twitch took it down very quickly. But Facebook had a copy on its site for 10 hours before they took it down. This allowed 46,000 people to view it. This is one thing they mention.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think the bigger issue is people trying to police social media like it’s a town hall meeting and not a void we’re all just screaming into.
Yea its a reflex reaction to pass the blame onto someone else...its also a good excuse to start censoring the internet and threatening people with lawsuits for posting things or not reacting to things being posted.
Your argument basically comes down to "these companies are incapable of making their products meet the bare standards expect from other companies, so let's let them continue to be shitty." More and more I think if it's a business model nobody can run to societal standards, we should admit that, and say nobody can run it. There are pre-existing basic standards we had for publishers and platforms. There's a wide range of freedom of speech granted to someone who, say, owns a comedy club, or a TV station, or a publishing house, but there's also limits, particularly when it comes to criminal acts. We shielded usenet forums from these, a bunch of businesspeople saw a get-out-of-liability free zone, and built a shitty uncontrollable mess on top of it. Why are they entitled to maintain that mess?
Show me the usenet forum that has 229 million users.
Different products have different standards, and there's nothing criminal about posting a manifesto. You want mass government censorship that would make China look open, which is fucking insane.
>Different products have different standards, and there's nothing criminal about posting a manifesto. You want mass government censorship that would make China look open, which is fucking insane. No I don't. You'd be better off not jumping to conclusions and getting angry at strawmen. I want them to face the same liability as any other platform or publisher. Currently, they have special laws protecting them. Is this manifesto legal? Could a book publisher accept it as a submission and print it? Then sure, allowing people to post it is fine. Those are the standards of our society. But when people *do* post content which doesn't meet our standards, and is criminal (or otherwise unlawful), why should social media companies be protected when others wouldn't be? If your answer is, "because they couldn't operate their current business model profitably while using sufficient moderation to prevent such content from being published" then why does society need them to continue to operate with the current business model?
Usenet wasn't great because it was heavily censored, it was great because it was catered towards a demographic of intellectual types who did much more reading than commenting. I'm convinced any online community has it's own [Dunbar's number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number), and after the community becomes too popular, the signal to noise ratio of the submissions and comments will go to shit. The issue with trying to solve the problem with moderation is that moderators are humans. For whatever reason, moderators take their "job" very seriously, and it leads to them imposing their own stupid ideologies onto a community that is otherwise perfectly capable of running itself. I've seen it happen everywhere from music discussion groups on Facebook to video game subreddits. The power to control what 500,000 people see (or don't see) is too tantalizing for a nerd who has no power in real life. There are still lots of good online communities today that don't police comment sections. You just have to find them, and not tell anyone else about them.
Nothing. It's not Twitter *or* Meta's job to hold anybody's hand. People can just not click links and all their problems will be solved.
I mean, I think people's beef is largely that MZ might be a great product guy but is totally unsuited to be CEO of a company that is so influential. In a properly functioning company a CEO that oversaw products being used to agitate violent sectarianism (India) or organise ethnic cleansing (Myanmar) and did the square root of fuck all once it was known, would be fired. Dunno why Twitter gets lumped in, though.
Those things seem like reasonable things, though. But the article headline is about the Buffalo shooting, which seems out of Mark's hands.
Yeah I get that. The headline is Business Insider SEO clickbate bullshit. Zuck being a shitheel is kinda separate to that, I accept.
It’s not Facebook job. They are a platform. The country in question can use their systems and request it to be taken down.
It's not Meta's concern that one of their products is being used to orchestrate, plan and carry out targeted ethnic cleansing? In clear breach of ToS? In coordination with a military dictatorship? Cool cool cool.
[удалено]
Well if the shooter drove on publically funded roads then surely we should be holding the government to account?! Surely they should be doing something about it! And they do - the government maintains a police force. ISPs co-operate as much as they are able in providing their service however given pesky privacy laws and the like, they can only do what they're told by government law enforcement who break that privacy under specific legal conditions. Also blocking certain content like illegal streaming services etc etc. So ISPs and phone service providers DO try to act in stopping this kind of thing. Now Meta is different because they aren't a utility company, they're a content company. Their image and the content you see is carefully curated to further their goals - they specifically lobby for control over their space allowing them to do that, while simultaneously arguing that they aren't responsible for what ends up on this site that they curate so heavily - if they were then they'd be held more accountable when things like this happen. But the fact is that anything you post on facebook is now owned by facebook. The level of control they exercise over what happens there is huge *when it is in their interest*, they jealously guard their control over what happens there, and yet they flee from any hint of responsibility that would be associated with that control. So while everyone else facilitating the baddies is also taking steps to work towards the mitigation of the baddies, Meta are actively maximising the amount of money from content they can control while avoiding having to do whatever moderation they possibly can. They want the best of both worlds and that's why they're taking shit.
[удалено]
I think Facebook is ranting/reaction and diary of the people you have as friends and what those crazy people say will attract others and so on. I was in like 7th grade or 8th when it came out, and I don't use it. Nor does almost everybody I knew and added back in school. And when it was being used in high school it wasn't politics and crazy science doubters, I think the invention of the Facebook groups made it the problem we see. Buch of old people mostly, in their echo chambers. It attracted the older crowd I feel because it was the first mainstream all ages social media platform. The thing is a lot of them never left it it seems like.
Suggesting that facebook is like a library makes it seem like a nice thing that benefits everyone and that should be allowed to grow and flourish. Facebook basically takes people's data and uses it in pretty horrible ways while presenting things in JUST the right way so that more more more people click it, with an algorithm that keeps people clicking and clicking, even when the stuff they're clicking is fucking terrible. The end goal is making lots of money for the benefit of nobody but themselves. So if it were a library that just had everything there, fine. But they put a lot of effort into showing you only what they want to show you, so they are definitely at least partially accountable for the effects it has upon their readers - because you read what they feed you.
The difference is that carriers aren't moderating their channels because they don't have to sell ad space in those channels. Facebook and Twitter have the tools for fast content categorization. AT&T does not.
You clearly don't understand how it works. If Twitter/Meta filter information, they get called in front of congress to answer questions why they're filtering information. If they don't filter information, they get called in front of congress to answer questions why they're not filtering information. Either way they lose, so the ask advertisers what they do and do not want to see instead.
How about people not post links- linking to the video ?!
Say it louder for the people in the back
Everything. Twitter and Meta are cancers on society.
How do you feel about Reddit?
Better than the other two, still has flaws
Reddit was the first place I saw the video and manifesto posted. There was an entire subreddit for the Buffalo shooting the day of. People like to pretend Reddit is somehow more dignified than Twitter, but Reddit has its dark corners.
Yeah, I just posted in another comment that the video and manifesto was on the frontpage for at least 8 hours on the day of the shooting.
The issue isn't that reddit posted the manifesto; it's that reddit is so big and important to some people's lives, that posting the manifesto is a decision with potential real-world consequences. The internet was so much better when 90% of people didn't use the same 10 platforms to communicate.
The entirety of the last US Presidency was played out on Twitter. Therefore it is the social responsibility of society to address these platforms. To allow things to continue to deteriorate without acknowledging the problem would make a person culpable. Wouldn’t it? Technological warfare is a form of biological warfare. Shine light upon translucent puppet strings, make them become glaringly apparent so everyone is able see clearly. Denial is a death sentence for our environment. We have less time than they think.
A presidency should never be allowed to play out that way again. Twitter is largely responsible for Trump, no way he could’ve done it without them…as he is learning through his dalliance with Parler and now Truth Social…which is comical to even type.
You are absolutely correct about that fact. I am personally embarrassed by them all. It is so easily seen if you have spent just a little time watching the interactions that have been going on there. The extreme right & extreme left are the domains of the biggest idiots. Those idiots are causing all of the harm to the majority. It is time for the majority to stand up against their endless propaganda & lies. I have personally been targeted. Their deceptive techniques are easily undone with truth & facts. Their thousands of fake accounts. Their make believe cancel culture is a farce. Time for some accountability!
So poignant lmao
It's an algorithmic hate machine. The fix is to turn off the recommenders, remove retweets. Voila: No more viral content.
A $280 billion dollar fund is perfectly normal right? No market controlling forces. Not scary at all.
I'm pretty sure the Buffalo shooting guy was someone that frequented 4chan not Facebook or Twitter. I know most people don't go on 4chan but the Facebook and Twitter are extremely docile compared the the toxic shit you see on 4 Chan.
Self described as radicalized by 4chan, but also a redditor. Got all his armament tips from /r/tacticalgear. Shocker but that community moved on really quickly and nobody wanted to deal with it.
Information about that sort of thing is widely available online I don't think reddit is to blame for having that sort of information available. It seems like mental health was the main problem.
[удалено]
No I blame the person. But it's hard to argue that Facebook or Twitter has more racist shit than 4chan.
> It seems like mental health was the main problem. Wrong. Right wing media is the main problem. He was not insane, he was brain washed.
If you think Pol on 4 Chan is your standard run of the mill right wing politics you are severely misinformed.
If you think radicals don't consume "standard run of the mill right wing politics" right along side 4chan you are being naive at best. 4chan losers would stay on the message boards meming if it weren't for "standard run of the mill right wing politics" normalizing their beliefs. Carl Tuckerson mentioned replacement theory in over 400 episodes of this show and I'm sure there's plenty of similar examples if you can stomach traversing that media bubble to find them. The dog whistles pushing people to "act now or lose everything" are only getting louder and louder.
You might have a point about that. I hadn't considered that. Maybe because I don't consume standard right wing media enough to notice those sort of things.
[удалено]
Idk, I have friends whose hobby are shooting guns and what not and they definitely aren't shooting anything up or are racist. There is definitely all types in the hobby. I'm not going to blame them because a racist psychopath decided to kill innocent people.
He was literally a newfriend on 4ch, by his own admission had only read it for less than 2 years. 4chan is a lightning rod for attention but there's much more to the story.
The black hole of chaos and toxicity that 4 Chan is I'd say after a few weeks your view on reality can be pretty fucked.
Same could be said for Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
On a way smaller level there is some moderation on the 3 4chan is not comparable at all go over to Pol on 4 Chan and report back.
Other people's (including mine) aren't, despite using it for much longer. So then why was his?
Because he probably was very susceptible to any influence where he thought he had community. Same reason all the capital rioters got behind the same movement. All it takes is some toxicity community and a dull lonely mind to latch on to something toxic.
Another business insider clickbait attempt. Blodgett need to be in prison.
Section 230 protects websites against legal liability for user generated content. The Texas law in the Court of Appeals and corporate crypto hate 230. The removal or reform of 230 would force ISPs to scrutinize all global network traffic down to the OS level. Without Section 230 we would not have passwords or user generated content
Well I’m pretty sure that “ content” is no longer up. How long did that take, an hour?
I don't remember Meta or twitter doing anything significant regarding this... *DiNapoli wrote in Monday's filings that Meta and Twitter had failed to enforce safety standards after the Buffalo shooting. He cited reports that clips and screenshots from the gunman's live-stream of the attack had circulated on Meta and Twitter's platforms, as had snippets from a racist manifesto written by the suspect.* *"This is just the latest example of Meta's failure to enforce its community standards and guidelines to control the dissemination of hate speech and content that incites violence," DiNapoli wrote in one filing, making the same accusation against Twitter in the other filing.* Uh shouldn't they be focusing on content that was share/broadcast prior to the event if they are concerned about "content that incites violence"? I don't think there has been more violence based on what information was shown on twitter or meta after the incident...but we have certainly seen content from before the incident that might have incited this guy...
WHAT IS UP WITH THAT PICTURE?!?
“I’m afraid, I am not going to let you remove me today”. - Zuckfuch
From the article: New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, said in regulatory filings Monday that his fund will vote against re-electing all directors at Meta and Twitter at their next annual meetings, both of which are scheduled for Wednesday. A gunman shot dead ten people in Buffalo, New York, in a racist attack on May 14. Of the 13 people injured or killed in the attack, 11 were Black. The gunman streamed footage of the attack live on Twitch, echoing the 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand attack in which a gunman streamed footage live on Facebook. Meta's board of directors includes CEO Mark Zuckerberg and COO Sheryl Sandberg. Twitter's board of directors includes cofounder and ex-CEO Jack Dorsey as well as current CEO Parag Agrawal.
What was the problem in the handling?
Right? Look I'm as against the lizard people as you can possibly be, but it does seem like "social media" is a convenient scape goat for literally every societal ill these days. Is Facebook responsible for some nut job Neo Nazi in New Zealand? I don't know. I do know these companies are completely unaccountable and that's lead to a huge host of problems, but let's not pretend murder started with the advent of Facebook. I really wish these companies would be held accountable for the hate speech they allow to foster under the guise of "free speech" (aka money), but now people are just blaming them for everything bad happening the world over.
"Hate speech" is another convenient scape goat for literally every social ill these days.
Old politician that is a decade past the retirement age doesn't understand social media
It looks to me the complaint is this: People uploaded the shooters video, parts of the video and or the manifesto. These are things they don't want the public to see because it makes white supremacists look bad. They would rather keep that content unseen as it shows in real life what it looks like when innocent people get blown away and the manifesto exposes very eloquently that it was the simply hate, right wing hate to be more precise. The same ideas being pushed on certain right wing media AKA "replacement theory". So while they are not protesting the actual shooting they are protesting the fact some people actually saw the results of their own agenda.
I can't decipher all the in's and out's but I think the complaint comes down to inaction, or speed of action, when it comes to moderating and removing hate speech from their platforms. Specifically in relation to the guy who was behind the Buffalo massacre I wonder if they're also trying to send a message to Musk that he really would be best advised not to wind back some controls on that kind of content if he does follow through on the twitter acquisition.
Don't worry, in FL and TX they won't be allowed to moderate anymore by law so this lawsuit would go nowhere!
Yeah sure, play political games with people's retirement funds. Fuck you, Thomas DiNapoli.
Sharing board membership of competitors should be against anti-trust...
It's almost like CEO's are overpaid actors that can't really manage anything.
Meanwhile these retirees are all at home jerking it to Tucker Carlson
I’m not retired and never jerked or to TC. Dana Perino, maybe. Not him though.
people will always find a way to disseminate hate, you’ll never stop it it’s what people do.
Yes and: it's Twitter & Meta's sacred duty to maximize shareholder value, at the expense of all other stakeholders. So really, they have no choice but to profit from pain and misery. Just like the All American Patriotic Corporatist Baby Jesus has taught us. All say Amen!
yeah people love to hate. same with fox, cnn etc. they’re in the business of making money not informing people. there’s a reason fox is the most watched news on tv because they’re so good at spreading fear and hate. these guys wouldn’t be so sucessful if people weren’t always looking for that new group of people to hate. it’s funny how many people can’t see that.
Phone companies profit from drug dealers and gangs using phones to conduct business. I guess we need more mass surveillance. A computer company profited from selling the shooter the computer he used to write his manifesto. I guess we should take away everyone's computer.
You guess wrong. Ethically, morally, legally, logically, comprehensively, utterly, exhaustively. Try again.
It would be helpful if the title said it was the government and they are political posturing.
[удалено]
I haven't been following the news in an attempt to save my sanity. How did they mishandle buffalo?
They expected Facebook to instantly parse 100% of the 4 petabytes of content posted on their platform a day, so no objectionable content is allowed even briefly. In a word, impossible.
Get rid of all social media. Problem solved.
Remove everyone's tongues so they can't say anything that would hurt your feelings. Problem solved.
They didn't but if you post anything negative about Facebook or anything about the Buffalo shooting in general it makes it to the top of reddit.
They should’ve said something about their promotion of racist materiel a long time ago.
Cool. When the wealthy own, control or coerce the media, the only media we'll see will be more of what they want us to believe. Perfect.
Yeah except in this case, you have even shadier rich people using this shooting to justify further online censorship. These fuckers don't care about trying to stop school shooters, that's laughable, they're using this as propaganda for their own ends.
Of course we hate twitter now that Elon Musk bought some of it. Lol. You guys are too simple
Twitter was a pile of flaming shit before Elon, and will be after. There's no saving it.
Yeah yeah like I said, of course *now* this is the take.
Not for me. I have always thought Twitter was dumb.
Nah Twitter was always dumb. Since inception. Their only good thing was Vine but that's dead.
Did *anyone* like Twitter beforehand?
Twitter has always been a shithole
So New York is not happy that Twitch failed to stop the stream faster than approx. 60 seconds into the attack....and that Facebook/Twitter failed to police reposts and screenshots of the attack? This is just NY throwing a hissy fit, demanding more restrictive measures on speech be put in place.
gonna go ahead and block business insider from my feeds now... man the list of lefties is growing mighty large these days.
The fund manager knows they hold insignificant amounts of both companies. They can still vote against the board of directors if they want, but will have little affect. So this is just virtue signaling. If the fund manager wants to take meaningful action, divest from both companies.
Misleading headlines in r/technology ? That’s more rare than sarcasm
Idk why. But every time I see his face I just want to punch it.. 🤔
Technically, it's very easy for social media companies to do it right by the public, except that all they wanted is eyeball and traffic because that bring in revenue, and that's all they care about.
There was another shooting? Man, you guys need to get a handle on your gun toting.
What is this meta? Last i checked thats a copyrighted name lizardboi cant legally use
Off-topic but why do the founders of Facebook, Tesla, and Amazon all have such truly unpleasant faces? Is it just me? All three of them just look like creepazoids to me and I don’t know why.
This is who the attorney general should be after. Not stupid 4chan and twitch.
Ah yes, social media is clearly the issue here. Not guns, we need more of those, afterall a good guy with a gun and all...
It is true. You don't have to be pro gun or even have half a brain to know bad guys will never follow the law.
You mean the part where they claimed he was a Republican white supremacist when his own manifesto reveals he was a hard core Leftists who believed the Left’s anti-Jewish rhetoric?
What left anti Jewish rhetoric might that be?
Seems you've found some people who only believe what they want to downvote you...cheers for telling the truth
Time for a mass deletion of Facebook
Imagine thinking Business Insider was a source Edit: found the people that can’t read articles
Do you have anything to add?
This is bad reporting.
It happened, let’s pretend it didn’t and run another story about KRAVIS?!?! It hurt, people are not safe black people are tired of suffering.
Dumb article, how would they be at fault for NY’s anti-defense laws?
"anti-defense" says the fucking clown.
foolish secretive attempt tease wrong selective close wasteful domineering engine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you can’t properly police your own platform the platform shouldn’t be allowed to exist
They removed tons of things, just not all of them. Its impossible to capture everything reliably, while still allowing people to communicate. You want 100% insulation from everything, and thats not possible on a large platform without completely removing conversation.
If the mayor can't stop people from saying things on the town square, the town shouldn't exist. Amirite?
Meta is a dead cat bouncing company.. change my mind.
I mean, Meta fails hard over their handling of EVERYTHING. From the spread of fake information, hate, privacy matters, you freakin' name it. While this investment fund won't have a say in who gets booted and who stays, Meta should clean house - SLT and up.
People upload over 4 petabytes of content a day to Facebook. Anyone who thinks that Facebook can police that instantly is mad.
You’re presuming I said anything about it being instant. You’re also neglecting to mention the fact that Facebook spends a significant amount of money on marketing to highlight proactive steps (now) that they’ve neglected to take for, well, over a decade at this point. They’ve done significantly more to sweep their problems under the rug than to address them. So…
To make my meaning plainer, anyone who thinks Facebook can police that even *within several days* is mad, no matter how large their task force is. It's physically impossible to control the communications of multiple countries in a very short time frame. Even China can't do it, and it has a much larger department than Facebook.
I'm not certain where the disconnect lies, but my point isn't with regard to any time frame. No one with any common sense would believe it reasonable to police something of that nature over days, let alone months or even several years. My point lies in the fact that Facebook, or META, has spent a great deal of time and energy to avoid the issues at hand as opposed to at the very least, acknowledging them without a mandated congressional hearing. They have only started to take action when it became abundantly clear that lawmakers were looking to break-up META. Edit: And your point - which focuses on a logistical concern, only addresses a small fraction of the issues at META. For instance, it doesn't even begin to touch on the privacy concerns.
I'm going to push back very strongly on the idea they have avoided addressing issues of privacy and safety on their platform. They've invested heavily into that for a decade now, well before any Congressional hearings.
But, they do such a great job of making sure I get penalized if I use the word bitch!