Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I don't trust it. They will still "Fact check," but just not about
certain topics.

Right. They are just doing the same, only more subtly.

Meta is panicing because they are losing creators to X by the droves.

They try to justify it with "what if someone posts a threat of
violence?" But that is nonsense because the same thing can happen
during a phonecall, and we don't see Verizon censoring phone
conversations (yet.)

Remember that the Elitists hate free speech and that we still have many free speech haters in our society.


... Life is not fair...it IS, however, quite a circus.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

META IS ENDING ITS FACT-CHECKING PROGRAM IN FAVOR OF A 'COMMUNITY NOTES' SYSTEM SIMILAR TO X'S (9 MINUTE READ) [5]

I don't trust it. They will still "Fact check," but just not about certain topics.

Social network sysops shouldn't be snooping on peoples' posts in the first place. People should be able to communicate freely, and that's still not on

h

menu.

IMHO, the issue is that if they allow you to communicate freely and then someone posts some fake news story that causes people to react badly... like "they're eating the pets in my town" causing numbskulls to pursue migrants
with violence... the platform that allowed you to speak freely could be
held legally responsible.

They supposedly have some immunity against that, IIRC, but that immunity is under challenge from conservatives.

It doesn't really sound like they do intend to fact check. If it really
works like X's community notes, it will be up to others to post relevant information to augment the post. Other sources have indicated that
Zuckerberg is tired of the fact checking, too, and wants to reintroduce
more freedom of speech rather than being a government lackey.


* SLMR 2.1a * A part of the 57% that -didn't- vote for Clinton. Twice.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

IMHO, the issue is that if they allow you to communicate freely and then someone posts some fake news story that causes people to react badly... like "they're eating the pets in my town" causing numbskulls to pursue migrants with violence... the platform that allowed you to speak freely could be held legally responsible.

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk to other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the postal workers who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains blueprints for crime?

It doesn't really sound like they do intend to fact check. If it really works like X's community notes, it will be up to others to post relevant information to augment the post. Other sources have indicated that Zuckerberg is tired of the fact checking, too, and wants to reintroduce more freedom of speech rather than being a government lackey.

That sounds like a good narrative, and hopefully that's really the case, but think of Zuckerberg the same way you think of Musk: Zuckerberg wants to appeal to people. During the pandemic, he wanted to be "the hero who saved lives by limiting free speech," and now that he realizes that the majority of America isn't stupid, he wants to be "the hero who enables free speech."

If the majority of voters aren't stupid, that means that the majority of social media users probably aren't stupid either, and that lack of stupidity is a threat to his ad revenue.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk
to other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the
postal workers who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains
blueprints for crime?

Both the USPS and phone companies are covered under "common carrier" laws that have been around for many decades.

Basically, if a company like that could not feasably check all communications, it was absolved of responsibility for those communications and the responsibility was placed on the caller/reciever parties.

And let's face it, how many people would use those services if they knew that all their communication faced a high level of scrutiny?

Now technology changed and platforms like Facebook **can** feasably check all communications. So Section 230 was created. The real problem with things is that the Social Media companies wanted to police all communications and not be held responsible for the content.

The fact that they weren't held to Section 230 a long time ago shows how long the gov't has been colluding with the Social Media companies.

A thought popped into my head relating to another discussion:
If Google can monitor the communications on my phone for the purpose of sending me ads, then they cannot be protected under Section 230 either.


... Want to confuse people? Quote from the wrong message!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to ta to other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the postal workers who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains blueprints for crime?

Both the USPS and phone companies are covered under "common carrier"
laws that have been around for many decades.

Basically, if a company like that could not feasably check all communications, it was absolved of responsibility for those
communications and the responsibility was placed on the caller/reciever parties.

But I don't believe that a busy social media site can effectively do that either. It's too much information to analyze. And what kind of skills would such an employee need to make those decisions?

It's like owning a bar, and you can't have people driving away drunk, but you also need to sell as much alcohol to them as possible. But in this case, your bar has millions of patrons in a single day.

Now technology changed and platforms like Facebook **can** feasably
check all communications. So Section 230 was created. The real problem with things is that the Social Media companies wanted to police all communications and not be held responsible for the content.

I'm starting to see their side of it. Their best bet is to censor as much as possible, so that there's less to be responsible for.

The fact that they weren't held to Section 230 a long time ago shows how long the gov't has been colluding with the Social Media companies.

That's probably the explanation for Zuckerberg kissing Trump's butt all of a sudden.

A thought popped into my head relating to another discussion:
If Google can monitor the communications on my phone for the purpose of sending me ads, then they cannot be protected under Section 230 either.

My guess is that it would be difficult to prove that they did it to solicit ads, and that they could defend it as "we did it for safety reasons."

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

IMHO, the issue is that if they allow you to communicate freely and then someone posts some fake news story that causes people to react badly... like "they're eating the pets in my town" causing numbskulls to pursue migrants with violence... the platform that allowed you to speak freely could be held legally responsible.

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk to other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the postal workers
who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains blueprints for crime?

Neither of those are public conversations. IIRC, both of them are also
covered by laws that would make it illegal to evesdrop on them without a
court order, so I think that keeps them covered -- since they cannot
legally listen/read, they cannot be liable.

It doesn't really sound like they do intend to fact check. If it really works like X's community notes, it will be up to others to post relevant information to augment the post. Other sources have indicated that Zuckerberg is tired of the fact checking, too, and wants to reintroduce more freedom of speech rather than being a government lackey.

That sounds like a good narrative, and hopefully that's really the case, but think of Zuckerberg the same way you think of Musk: Zuckerberg wants to appeal
to people. During the pandemic, he wanted to be "the hero who saved lives by limiting free speech," and now that he realizes that the majority of America isn't stupid, he wants to be "the hero who enables free speech."

I think of Zuck that way, too, but as of late he has been pretty open about
the administration meddling in their affairs and a few other things. He
may be doing it in part because he anticipates what the new administration
will do, but I also think he is fed up with it.

If the majority of voters aren't stupid, that means that the majority of socia
media users probably aren't stupid either, and that lack of stupidity is a threat to his ad revenue.

I don't have the same faith in social media users when it comes to not
being stupid. IMHO, the smartest Americans are not on social media and therefore comparing voters to social media users is apples to oranges.


* SLMR 2.1a * Keep repeating: It's only four more years......
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the postal workers
who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains blueprints for crime?

Neither of those are public conversations. IIRC, both of them are also covered by laws that would make it illegal to evesdrop on them without a court order, so I think that keeps them covered -- since they cannot legally listen/read, they cannot be liable.

During the Pandemic's peak, Facebook was censoring 1 on 1 chat between me and a friend. He was trying to give me links to some "conspiracy" stuff, and the links wouldn't make it to my phone. Instead, I got messages that said "The message wasn't delivered because it conflicts with our community standards," or something like that. It was creepy! But my point is, that was supposed to be a private conversation.. but it wasn't very private with 'Markie' hovering over our conversation.

I think of Zuck that way, too, but as of late he has been pretty open about the administration meddling in their affairs and a few other
things. He may be doing it in part because he anticipates what the new administration will do, but I also think he is fed up with it.

That or he's putting on a good presentation. Notice he hasn't explained the need for an underground bunker on his Hawaii property.

If the majority of voters aren't stupid, that means that the majority of socia
media users probably aren't stupid either, and that lack of stupidity is threat to his ad revenue.

I don't have the same faith in social media users when it comes to not being stupid. IMHO, the smartest Americans are not on social media and therefore comparing voters to social media users is apples to oranges.

I never thought about it like that, but I'm not sure if most voters are the smartest Americans.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

But I don't believe that a busy social media site can effectively do
that either. It's too much information to analyze. And what kind of
skills would such an employee need to make those decisions?

You start with a simple program that scans new messages for "bad" words. It flags them and makes someone have to vet the message before it gets posted. So you've filtered millions of messages to thousands.

Then you have a bunch of purple haired wokies at their home computers in their PJs vet the message. All they have to do is push a button: good or bad.

Then you have another simple program that sees if you've posted too much "bad" stuff and if you did, puts you in Facebook Jail for 30 days. Now you have people censoring themselves so that they don't get put in Jail. The number of "bad" messages just dropped.

Top that with permanent bans on those who keep getting put in jail.

You now have an effective way of censoring. You don't have to block 100% of the "bad" stuff. Just enough to keep it from being wide-spread.

I'm starting to see their side of it. Their best bet is to censor as
much as possible, so that there's less to be responsible for.

But most of what they censored during the scamdemic was not "bad". It was simply bad for the Elitist Narrative.

There's a big difference between posting an article about how drug xxx works against yyy and you should talk to your doctor, and posting a threat against someone's life.

That's probably the explanation for Zuckerberg kissing Trump's butt all
of a sudden.

Yup. Zuck knows that the Elitists aren't going to be protecting him anymore.

My guess is that it would be difficult to prove that they did it to solicit ads, and that they could defend it as "we did it for safety reasons."

They can try. But most states have some pretty strong wiretapping laws and something like this can fall into that.


... If you want her to show emotion, cut up her credit cards.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

that either. It's too much information to analyze. And what kind of skills would such an employee need to make those decisions?

You start with a simple program that scans new messages for "bad" words. It flags them and makes someone have to vet the message before it gets posted. So you've filtered millions of messages to thousands.

That sounds like a descent approach, but they have millions of users. There's going to be a lot of false alarms and/or people getting banned for no good reason.

There's a big difference between posting an article about how drug xxx works against yyy and you should talk to your doctor, and posting a
threat against someone's life.

What about metaphors? "<Person's name> made me really mad. I'm gonna kill <Person's name> if he/she does that again tomorrow at 4pm at the mall." (lol)

I've had several instances with hispanic people taking me seriously when I said stuff like that. I think they don't talk that way in their language, so they think I'm serious even when I say stuff like that (and of course I don't mean it literally when I say stuff like that.)

Yup. Zuck knows that the Elitists aren't going to be protecting him anymore.

I just doubt that he would care.

My guess is that it would be difficult to prove that they did it to solicit ads, and that they could defend it as "we did it for safety reasons."

They can try. But most states have some pretty strong wiretapping laws and something like this can fall into that.

I don't know how stuff is in your neighborhood, but I don't see regular people suing big companies. They can break me like a toothpick (in court.)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

Neither of those are public conversations. IIRC, both of them are also covered by laws that would make it illegal to evesdrop on them without a court order, so I think that keeps them covered -- since they cannot legally listen/read, they cannot be liable.

During the Pandemic's peak, Facebook was censoring 1 on 1 chat between me and friend. He was trying to give me links to some "conspiracy" stuff, and the links wouldn't make it to my phone. Instead, I got messages that said "The message wasn't delivered because it conflicts with our community standards," o
something like that. It was creepy! But my point is, that was supposed to be a
private conversation.. but it wasn't very private with 'Markie' hovering over our conversation.

Do you mean they were censoring messages received via Messenger, or
messages on Facebook where you tagged each other? If it was over
Messenger, I agree that is creepy but there is more than one way for that
to happen. If your friend was sending you links to FB posts via Messenger,
I suspect that is where the fact check took place.

I sometimes receive links via Messenger to FB posts that Messenger is not
able to open.

That or he's putting on a good presentation. Notice he hasn't explained the need for an underground bunker on his Hawaii property.

Nuclear war might be one. A lot of people have disaster shelters. Why do
we only question it when it is a rich person who does so?

If the majority of voters aren't stupid, that means that the majority o
socia
media users probably aren't stupid either, and that lack of stupidity i
threat to his ad revenue.

I don't have the same faith in social media users when it comes to not being stupid. IMHO, the smartest Americans are not on social media and therefore comparing voters to social media users is apples to oranges.

I never thought about it like that, but I'm not sure if most voters are the smartest Americans.

I didn't mean that voters are the smartest ones, but I am pretty sure the number of voters is greater-than those who vote and use social media. Therefore, your assumption that "voters aren't stupid" = "social media
users probably are not stupid" may not be correct. IMHO, the smartest Americans are smart enough not to use social media, and certainly not as
a trusted source of news.


* SLMR 2.1a * First Rule of Intelligent Tinkering - Save all parts
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

During the Pandemic's peak, Facebook was censoring 1 on 1 chat between m friend. He was trying to give me links to some "conspiracy" stuff, and t links wouldn't make it to my phone. Instead, I got messages that said "T message wasn't delivered because it conflicts with our community standar o
something like that. It was creepy! But my point is, that was supposed t a
private conversation.. but it wasn't very private with 'Markie' hovering our conversation.

Do you mean they were censoring messages received via Messenger, or messages on Facebook where you tagged each other? If it was over Messenger, I agree that is creepy but there is more than one way for that to happen. If your friend was sending you links to FB posts via Messenger, I suspect that is where the fact check took place.

They might have been links to Facebook posts that were getting flagged and stopped, but I don't know (we never arranged for me to get the links in an alternative way.)

It was over Facebook messenger though.

I sometimes receive links via Messenger to FB posts that Messenger is not able to open.

I don't know the laws, so I don't understand how the use of Facebook (or a computer basically) can't be regarded the same way as the telephone and/or postal service. If using Facebook to communicate things that the left don't like is out of the question, then I guess we can at least fall back on email.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)