Facebook (1 Viewer)

[egg_]

but the side-effects *are* the product. you can’t have tobacco without cancer. and you can’t have facebook without mind cancer.

I don't really know what to make of this. Do you think humanity would be better off if we just banned social networks? Serious question

You probably could have facebook without optimising for engagement, and it'd probably look something like thumped

 

[Unicron]

I would note on the print code (newspapers) that while it might seem wooly, both our broadcast and print codes are considered to be some of the best in the english speaking world in terms of balancing freedom of speech with protection of the individual.

We are actually in one of the best positions globally to address any of this.

It's interesting that you're saying that because the line I usually hear (admittedly from people in the media ) is that our overly stringent defamation laws (or is it the size of the awards that the courts grant) stops the press from saying a lot of things about people here.

 

[ann post]

It's interesting that you're saying that because the line I usually hear (admittedly from people in the media ) is that our overly stringent defamation laws (or is it the size of the awards that the courts grant) stops the press from saying a lot of things about people here.

Well yes.

But here's the thing.

Defamation law is not broadcast or media law, defamation law is the law of the land.

The broadcast codes of conduct are application of the law of the land through the lens of media. (But not internet media yet except 2-3 vague lines). Some of this law dates from the 1930's.

So yes - some things dont get printed or broadcast for this reason, but also the person would be within their rights under the law of the state to protect themselves in that way - this is not broadcast code though. If someone talks shit about you on facebook and 500 people see it and you can prove legally that it happened then you can take that case right now.

Now where this gets annoying for journos especially on the budgets of today (demonitised by the internet by the by), rich people have a lawyer on speed dial and the press kinda dont. I have totally pulled an almost all nighter with somone in the past year helping to re-write something to avoid a potential defamation case because of that axis of power. But that is the state, not the media code.

 

[Unicron]

So yes - some things dont get printed or broadcast for this reason, but also the person would be within their rights under the law of the state to protect themselves in that way - this is not broadcast code though. If someone talks shit about you on facebook and 500 people see it and you can prove legally that it happened then you can take that case right now.

And who would be liable in that case? The person shit talking someone on Facebook or Facebook itself?

 

[taubstumm]

I don't really know what to make of this. Do you think humanity would be better off if we just banned social networks? Serious question

honestly would sort of love to, personally speaking. but practically, it’s a bit like nuclear weapons. it exists now, can’t uninvent it. so what to do? is it compatible with the existence of cute little postwar liberal-electoral western societies and governments without rotting them from the inside out? nobody knows. but let’s not pretend it’s a tech/code problem. it’s a social problem now.

 

[Lili Marlene]

And who would be liable in that case? The person shit talking someone on Facebook or Facebook itself?

I could see it being feasible that you could hold FB liable for stuff in their newsfeed but people liable for stuff they post themselves in a private, or even public, group. I can't remember if groups appear in the newsfeed or not, I think there's a, like, separate group feed these days? It's complicated but it could be worked out.

My understanding is that FB are currently not held liable for anything and will do everything they can to never be held liable. I suppose it's similar to companies like Uber wanting to control the entire transport system without ever being considered a transport company. Like @taubstumm is saying, they want to influence a huge part of society, often with little practical way of opting out, without any of the responsibility that comes with that.

 

[egg_]

honestly would sort of love to, personally speaking. but practically, it’s a bit like nuclear weapons. it exists now, can’t uninvent it. so what to do? is it compatible with the existence of cute little postwar liberal-electoral western societies and governments without rotting them from the inside out? nobody knows. but let’s not pretend it’s a tech/code problem. it’s a social problem now.

It's a problem that will need to be addressed politically, but unless a practical/technical solution is actually possible then we're kinda stuck. Or maybe this is some kind of mass hysteria thing that'll just pass as we learn to cope with it

Or maybe we're on the outskirts of the formation of a real First Law of Robotics. Interesting times

 

[ann post]

Or maybe we're on the outskirts of the formation of a real First Law of Robotics. Interesting times

I'd suspect it is this!

 

[magicbastarder]

i dunno if i'm sold on the comparison with tobacco companies, certainly from a legal POV; the link between tobacco and cancer is direct and provable regardless of what they claim to know or not to know.
the effect of social media is more of an emergent phenomenon and more subjective; you'd probably have to prove deliberate ill-intent before anyone is going to pay attention, let alone take action.

 

[Lili Marlene]

It took about 50 odd years to convince people that the connection between tobacco and cancer was "direct and provable" though, and even now I occasionally come across usually-quite cautious articles talking about how it's not quite as direct and provable as we all think.

 

[taubstumm]

can’t wait to see what the FB chaff will be like during the invasion of taiwan

 

[Cormcolash]

Just turn it off.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GO]

Can you believe it I've never seen that! Snake Plisken double bill this weekend

 

[Cormcolash]

I only found out recently that filters on cigarettes were a marketing tool that does nothing dreamt up to sell plastic because the cigarette, oil, and plastic companies all work together and share lawyers etc..

Wait, you mean, the filters don't stop all the bad chemicals???

 

[Cormcolash]

Can you believe it I've never seen that! Snake Plisken double bill this weekend

It's basically shite apart from the ending though haha

 

[Cormcolash]

I'd suspect it is this!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Anthony]

Holy fuck, the book has changed it's whole backend posting, scheduling etc and surprise surprise, it is a fucking mess.

 

[Cormcolash]

I'd be outraged if I knew what you were on about

 

[pete]

Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

theintercept.com

A few mentions for Generation Identity UK & Ireland under Hate, Óglaigh na hÉireann & the Real IRA under Terror, and something called the "3rd Irish Volunteer Regiment" that's listed as Militarized Social Movement

 

[JohnnyRaz]

Facebook Dangerous Individuals and Organizations List (Reproduced Snapshot)

theintercept.com

A few mentions for Generation Identity UK & Ireland under Hate, Óglaigh na hÉireann & the Real IRA under Terror, and something called the "3rd Irish Volunteer Regiment" that's listed as Militarized Social Movement

UDA gets a mention too.