Go to first unread
Back
to top
Facebook profits smeared with blood Watch
Facebook made a $7bn profit in the last quarter of 2018 alone. 
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?
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
Report
#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
Report
#4
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why... 
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Decahedron)
Is this a troll post?
Is this a troll post?
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Notoriety)
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
The classic question regarding FoS's threads. Certainly designed to wind up.
0
reply
(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...
I think that you should read 1984 and keep reading it over and over again until you figure out why...
1
reply
(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?
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?
0
reply
Report
#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.
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.
0
reply
(Original post by EU-Invader)
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
Facebook isn't pretending to be libertarian.
0
reply
Report
#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.
You need to read more. The whole basis of the main social media companies is an extremist interpretation of libertarianism.
0
reply
Report
#13
You are beyond ridiculous.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
Last edited by Andrew97; 5 months ago
1
reply
(Original post by Andrew97)
You are beyond ridiculous.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
You are beyond ridiculous.
Whatever happened to blaming the actual PERPETRATOR rather than every other single thing.
1
reply
Report
#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
(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.
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
Report
#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?
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?
Should the BBC be closed down for reporting the story?
0
reply
(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?
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
Report
#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.
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.
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
(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.
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.
The normal media have not repeatedly distributed the full version to millions of unrecoverable locations.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Oxford rated world's best uniTops global league table for fourth year running
- A level subject combination?
- Friend ghosted me
- When do GCSE re-marks come back?
- Scared about making friends at university