Facebook profits smeared with blood Watch

Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#1
Facebook made a $7bn profit in the last quarter of 2018 alone. :eek:

It's perhaps no surprise that given the vast scale of these profits, they might not want to change what they are doing. But what they are doing, at least in part, encourages mass killing.

I refer partly to Facebook Livestream, which has clearly now become a major tool in the hands of terrorists everywhere and a big draw for the deranged and the disordered. Everything from child abuse to mass murder is now available as a live feed. Facebook are now directly contributing to making the world more violent, hateful and scary.

The founder and boss, Mark Zuckerberg, continues to refuse to engage.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...h-is-deafening

In some countries, such as India and Myanmar, something much more like genocide has been encouraged using Facebook as the organising tool, with very little reaction from the company.

It is increasingly clear that drastic steps need to be taken to reign this new evil social media force in, because the psuedo-libertarian-justified oligarchs making mountainous profits from it won't.

Should Facebook...

Switch off Livestreaming until it can be made more socially acceptable?
Be split up as a monopoly?
Face sanctions or huge fines?
Be prosecuted for causing killings?
Or is it fine and no action should be taken?
0
reply
Wōden
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 months ago
#2
So if a terrorist group organised it's attacks with handwritten letters, Royal Mail should be held responsible for causing terrorism? Perhaps the paper and pen companies should be held responsible too?
9
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 months ago
#3
Is this a troll post?
3
reply
EU-Invader
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 months ago
#4
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why...
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 months ago
#5
(Original post by Decahedron)
Is this a troll post?
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
0
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 months ago
#6
(Original post by Notoriety)
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
They don't wind me up, just leave me utterly perplexed :eek4:
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 months ago
#7
Nah
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#8
(Original post by EU-Invader)
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why...
You're 100% missing the point. Facebook only pretend to be a libertarian force. In fact, they are the new authorities. So in 2084, it will be the successor to the Facebooks running Big Brother. In many ways, they already are.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#9
(Original post by Wōden)
So if a terrorist group organised it's attacks with handwritten letters, Royal Mail should be held responsible for causing terrorism? Perhaps the paper and pen companies should be held responsible too?
You're making the mistake of assuming they are a common carrier. They really aren't. They are the world's largest publisher and advert carrier. Also, do you see the Royal Mail distributing leaflets that incite genocide?
0
reply
EU-Invader
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 months ago
#10
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You're 100% missing the point. Facebook only pretend to be a libertarian force. In fact, they are the new authorities. So in 2084, it will be the successor to the Facebooks running Big Brother. In many ways, they already are.
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#11
(Original post by EU-Invader)
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
You need to read more. The whole basis of the main social media companies is an extremist interpretation of libertarianism.
0
reply
EU-Invader
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 months ago
#12
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You need to read more. The whole basis of the main social media companies is an extremist interpretation of libertarianism.
Libertarians are for freedom of speech and meritocracy, the extreme censorship on Facebook mixed with racial and gender quotas and stalking is a very socialist thing.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 months ago
#13
You are beyond ridiculous.


Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Last edited by Andrew97; 5 months ago
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#14
(Original post by Andrew97)
You are beyond ridiculous.


Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Of course I blame the perpetrator and his international far-right buddies and sympathisers. But are you saying it's sufficient to blame the perpetrator and that's that, one shouldn't be opposed to the mass-spreading of his message and further incitements to repeat his actions being comprehensively circulated by large corporations as part of their money-making activities?
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 months ago
#15
While i am certainly wary of the market power Facebook has and its dominance, i do not believe that individuals using its technology to do harm warrant taking action against the technology rather than the individuals. Certainly when the technology is free.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#16
(Original post by Rakas21)
While i am certainly wary of the market power Facebook has and its dominance, i do not believe that individuals using its technology to do harm warrant taking action against the technology rather than the individuals. Certainly when the technology is free.
It isn't a 'technology' in the abstract, like the 'internet' or 'video' - it's one of the largest corporations in the world and it needs to be reigned in. Individuals are one thing, facilitation to killing by one of our largest companies, quite another.
0
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 months ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Of course I blame the perpetrator and his international far-right buddies and sympathisers. But are you saying it's sufficient to blame the perpetrator and that's that, one shouldn't be opposed to the mass-spreading of his message and further incitements to repeat his actions being comprehensively circulated by large corporations as part of their money-making activities?
Far more people will have heard about the story through the established media like television channels and newspapers, compared to the relatively small amount of people who saw the Facebook live stream before it was taken down.

Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#18
(Original post by jameswhughes)
Far more people will have heard about the story through the established media like television channels and newspapers, compared to the relatively small amount of people who saw the Facebook live stream before it was taken down.

Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
I am not talking about journalism. The BBC does not offer a self-controlled instant live feed service for any user to be shown globally. Facebook does and look at the results.
0
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 months ago
#19
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I am not talking about journalism. The BBC does not offer a self-controlled instant live feed service for any user to be shown globally. Facebook does and look at the results.
So what? Would people had survived had the attacker not been live-streaming?

If you're concerned about the spread of his message/intentions then the normal media has contributed to that far more than Facebook.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 5 months ago
#20
(Original post by jameswhughes)
So what? Would people had survived had the attacker not been live-streaming?

If you're concerned about the spread of his message/intentions then the normal media has contributed to that far more than Facebook.
It's clear that this was planned with F/book L-stream in mind.

The normal media have not repeatedly distributed the full version to millions of unrecoverable locations.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (115)
24.78%
Pop (108)
23.28%
Jazz (20)
4.31%
Classical (23)
4.96%
Hip-Hop (87)
18.75%
Electronic (37)
7.97%
Indie (74)
15.95%

Watched Threads

View All