On the one hand, I hope he loses.
On the other hand, I hope Meta also loses.
Something tells me we are the ones who lose.
And on the brain… Worms!
Regardless, the lawyers win.
And for once I’m OK with that
“When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers”
I am the one who walks away from Omelas.
The brain worm is up to something…
Get em wormy
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
That lil dude goes hard and saved my ass multiple times
-RFK jr probably
So what? How does he think Meta is liable for anything here?
it’s gotta be posturing for his base “lone hero stands up to big tech”
He lets the worm do the thinking.
They’re oppressing him! The chatbot said so!!
What a time locked headline.
You can’t get elected without big tech bribes, and he just bit the hand that feeds.
It’s ok. He can’t get elected anyway
He’ll never recover after the death of his running mate: VP Brain Worm.
Don’t worry, VP Brain Worm laid eggs.
Yes, because Americans would never consider electing a President with health issues.
Real life Connor Roy soldiers bravely on.
Man talking to himself accuses company of action they are allowed to perform
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise. Only government.
Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly to basically mean “I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.” How these people running for office don’t get the first amendment is amazing.
There is no freedom of speech guarantee in private or public enterprise.
And the consequence of this policy is a back-door path to censorship. A combination of surveillance, selective-admittance, and media saturation allow certain ideological beliefs to suffice the “marketplace of ideas” while others are silenced.
“I want to force people to listen to my bullshit.”
Its more that privatized media infrastructure allows for a monopolization of speech.
Big media companies still force people to listen to bullshit, by way of advertising and algorithmic promotion. Go on YouTube, click through their “recommended” list a few times, and you’ll quickly find yourself watching some Mr. Beast episode or PraegerU video, simply because these folks have invested so heavily in self-promotion.
But there’s a wide swath of content you won’t see, either because YouTube’s algorithm explicitly censors it for policy reasons, because the media isn’t maxing out the SEO YouTube execs desire (the classic Soy Face thumbnail for instance), or because you’re not spending enough money to boost visibility.
This has nothing to do with what the generic video watcher wants to see and everything to do with what YouTube administration wants that watcher to see.
RFK Jr is a nasty little freak with some very toxic beliefs. But that’s not why he’s struggling to get noticed on the platform, when plenty of other nasty freaks with toxic beliefs get mainstream circulation.
He could have been a great dude but he just HAD to go down the antivax rabbit hole. Fuckin’ shame.
Meta is a private company and can do whatever the fuck they like.
This guy shouldn’t be let anywhere near a position of decision making, let alone the highest office in the nation.
Private companies should not be able to do whatever the fuck they like. They have a very important responsibility, and they will not consider ethics over profit, unless we as a society force them to.
Okay sure, but there’s nothing on the books that says that meta has to allow people to use their platform. You are not entitled to unlimited access to a private service.
Ever single person from RFK and Donald Trump to you and me all sign the exact same fucking EULA and TOS when you register for an account. Stop holding these people above the law by pretending that the rules shouldn’t apply to them.
The fact meta has received 2 billion dollars in taxpayer gov’t money should entitle every single taxpayer to their 1st amendment.
Meta is not the government. Something being government funded does not make it an apparatus of the government. There has been no curtailing of 1st amendment rights here.
There has indeed been curtailing of 1st amendment rights. We all remember the twitter files I’m sure. You can bet anything that same crap happens on meta platforms. Surely there is an argument to be made on the curtailing of 1st amendment rights and whether these social media companies are an apparatus of the gov.
But yea according to all these expert lawyers in the comments nothing to see here.
nothing of what you wrote has anything to do with the first amendment.
Private company in what way? The company is publicly traded - there are rules and regulations that organizations have to abide by. it’s not totally lawless current state … They’re legally beholden to shareholders to maximize value. They can do what they like but probably don’t want them allowing certain folks to have a platform (moderating the platform). Meta uses the grey area to manipulate and addict users, that’s just their business practice to drive value and generate views/engagement with their platform.
Agree this dude is unhinged.
private company in that it is not owned by the government. Those are the two categories.
Either they’re owned by the government or they’re owned by private citizens. Being traded on the stock market, or traded privately, or not traded at all makes no difference to them being a private company
EDIT: publicly traded still means privately bought and owned by private citizens and private businesses/companies. At no point does the government become involved.
They sure have received a lot of government/taxpayer money for being such a private anti free speech company.
Tesla just got $17 billion from the government, is Musk now owned by the USA government? No.
A coal miner just got laid off work and is collecting his first unemployment check while he looks for new work. Because he got support from the government between jobs, does that mean the government owns him like a slave?
Or perhaps you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about? Yes, that seems to be the case.
I’m just saying there can be a case made in front of a judge about the government funding these companies and then using these companies to reprive people of their 1st amendment rights as they have been proven to have done on X.
But whatever you say… Coal miners… Unemployment… Between jobs… Slavery… Wtf are you talking about?
as for “what I’m talking about” - the same thing you are. Government giving money.
Tell me, how is the government giving money as an unemployment check different to the government giving money to a company? And if your logic is “if the government gives you money, that means the government owns you, that means 1st amendment”, then tell us all how someone who is getting money from the government isn’t just as owned and controlled?
Because you’re an idiot, that’s how.
There is no case, because they’re not the government. End of discussion. 1st amendment has nothing to do here.
No, they have to follow laws.
Which law are you referencing?
You agree to their EULA and TOS when you make your account. In that, there exists a clause that states that you can be banned for any reason or no reason at all at the site administrators discretion.
So explain to me again how meta is in the wrong here?
All companies have to follow laws. It’s not rocket science.
Again, what laws are you referring to? I want to hear you explain it.
Laws, the ones that countries and sometimes bigger entities enact as rules
Okay, so you have no clue what you’re talking about. Got it 👌
Corporations have to follow laws. It’s pretty simple? I am refuting your statement that they don’t have to follow laws. It’s up to you (once you grasp the concept) to continue the debate here
Shadow banning is definitely too much imo. It’s simply unethical no matter how you look at it.
First, it doesn’t do anything to prevent bots. It takes less than a second for a bot to check whether they are shadow banned. It’s simply a tool to bully and gaslight people - just block them. Why these abusive games?
IDK, I think it can be an effective tool against trolls because it wastes the time they’d otherwise spend harassing people.
But that’s not what RFK is, he’s a legitimate candidate for president and should be given the same consideration other candidates are, not shadowbanned because someone doesn’t like his message.
Nothing legit about him. He has no chance.
That’s fine. But he shouldn’t be silenced. If he gets some traction, debate him to show voters what’s wrong with his ideas, that really shouldn’t be hard.
Takes time and money to explain the truth. Lying is free.
He’s legit in that his campaign went through the process to get on the ballot in certain states. That has nothing to do with his chances.
I suppose in a strict legal sense, fuck him though.
The whole problem with shadowbans is that they are not very easy to prove (without cooperation from Meta). One can be shadowbanned from one area (by geolocation), but not from another. One can be shadowbanned for some users but not for other. The decisions here can be made based on any kind of data and frankly Meta has a lot to make it efficient and yet hard to prove.
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing, first, and second, some of the arguments against him from the article are negligible.
I just don’t get you people hating him more than the two main candidates. It seems being a murderer is a lesser problem than being a nutcase for you.
You think hes better than Biden? Why?
Because he thinks of him as a murderer?
Because I can gather a pretty believable list of pros and cons for him as a person, which make sense together and didn’t change too sharply. Not the case with Biden.
Way to not answer
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing
I bet you scream about your first amendment rights being violated whenever a moderator deletes your posts.
A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?
Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say “I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare”; if you respond “no, there is no right to healthcare” you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.
I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don’t apply to companies performing shadowbans.
I bet you think this reply was sharp-minded and on spot and something else.
How much would you like to bet? I accept PayPal.
Oh, if this is not a figure of speech, then how much was your bet? I accept BTC (being in a sanctioned country and all that).
Mine was, of course, this is not worth a penny to me, I already know your measure.
If you would bet nothing, I guess you don’t actually believe your own words.
Thanks for admitting what you said was false. I think we can move on now.
If you would bet nothing, I guess you don’t actually believe your own words.
There are a few factors, one of them is your value as a person.
Thanks for admitting what you said was false.
Why would you say that if that’s false?
What is my value as a person?
And your question makes absolutely no sense.
Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted. Similar to vote obfuscation. It wastes bot’s time so it’s a good thing.
I’ve seen reddit accounts who regularly posted comments for months all at +1 vote and never received any response or reply at all because nobody had ever seen their comments. They got hit with some automod shadowban they were yelling into the void, likely wondering why nobody ever felt they deserved to be heard.
I find this unsettling and unethical. I think people have a right to be heard and deceiving people like this feels wrong.
There are other methods to deal with spam that aren’t potentially harmful.
There’s also an entirely different discussion about shadowbans being a way to silence specific forms of speech. Today it may be crazies or hateful speech, but it can easily be any subversive speech should the administration change.
I agree with other commenter, it probably shouldn’t be allowed.
I think people have a right to be heard
You are wrong. You have no right to a voice on a private platform.
Maybe he was speaking morally rather than legally.
For example, if I said “I believe people have a right to healthcare”, you might correctly respond “people do not have a legal right to healthcare” (in America at least). But you’d be missing the point, because I’m speaking morally, not legally.
I believe, morally, that people have a right to be heard.
This just means privatizing public spaces becomes a method of censorship. Forcing competitors farther and farther away from your captured audience, by enclosing and shutting down the public media venues, functions as a de facto media monopoly.
Generally speaking, you don’t want a single individual with the administrative power to dictate everything anyone else sees or hears.
So if I own a cafe and I have an open mic night and some guy gets up yelling racial epithets and Nazi slogans, it’s their right to be heard in my cafe and I am just censoring them by kicking them out?
As the one with the administrative power, should I put it up to a vote?
So if I own a cafe
More if you own Ticketmaster, and you decide you’re going to freeze out a particular artist from every venue you contact with.
And yes. Absolutely censorship.
Changing the scenario doesn’t answer my question.
I came up with a scenario directly related to your previous post.
I can only imagine you are changing the scenario because you realize what I said makes what you said seem unreasonable.
I’ve seen reddit accounts who regularly posted comments for months all at +1 vote and never received any response or reply at all because nobody had ever seen their comments.
Then how did you see them?
Shadowbans help prevent bot activity by preventing a bot from knowing if what they posted was actually posted
I have not seen anything to support the theory that shadowbans reduce the number of bots on a platform. If anything, a sophisticated account run by professional engagement farmers is going to know it’s been shadowbanned - and know how to mitigate the ban - more easily than an amateur publisher producing sincere content. The latter is far more likely to run afoul of an difficult-to-detect ban than the former.
It wastes bot’s time
A bot has far more time to waste than a human. So this technique is biased against humans, rather than bots.
If you want to discourage bots from referencing their own metrics, put public metrics behind a captcha. That’s far more effective than undermining visibility in a way only a professional would notice.
It wastes shadowbanned person’s time, so it’s not.
Similar to vote obfuscation.
Which sucks just as badly.
Don’t post shit that gets you shadowbanned. Problem solved.
Truth is treason in the Empire of Lies
That’s a good solution for you, but some of us don’t generally bend over to assholes.
And that’s not serious. You’ll get shadowbanned for any kind of stuff somebody with that ability wants to shadowban you for. You won’t know the reason and what to avoid.
I got shadowbanned on Reddit a few times for basically repeating the 1988 resolution of the European Parliament on Artsakh (the one in support of reunification with Armenia).
Don’t hang out in spaces that don’t align with your beliefs.
I was on reddit for 15 years and never caught a ban and I’m not exactly a demure person. If you go to an anti vax thread (this is an example since i know nothing of armenia) and post stuff about vaccination, even it’s 100% factual, it’s not surprising when you catch a ban.
Why should shadow bans be illegal?
Because a good person would never need those. If you want to have shadowbans on your platform, you are not a good one.
A bit like animal protection, while animals can’t have rights balanced by obligations, you would want to keep people cruel to animals somewhere where you are not.
Because a good person would never need those. If you want to have shadowbans on your platform, you are not a good one.
This basically reads as “shadow bans are bad and have no redeeming factors,” but you haven’t explained why you think that.
If you’re a real user and you only have one account (or have multiple legitimate accounts) and you get shadow-banned, it’s a terrible experience. Shadow bans should never be used on “real” users even if they break the ToS, and IME, they generally aren’t. That’s because shadow bans solve a different problem.
In content moderation, if a user posts something that’s unacceptable on your platform, generally speaking, you want to remove it as soon as possible. Depending on how bad the content they posted was, or how frequently they post unacceptable content, you will want to take additional measures. For example, if someone posts child pornography, you will most likely ban them and then (as required by law) report all details you have on them and their problematic posts to the authorities.
Where this gets tricky, though, is with bots and multiple accounts.
If someone is making multiple accounts for your site - whether by hand or with bots - and using them to post unacceptable content, how do you stop that?
Your site has a lot of users, and bad actors aren’t limited to only having one account per real person. A single person - let’s call them a “Bot Overlord” - could run thousands of accounts - and it’s even easier for them to do this if those accounts can only be banned with manual intervention. You want to remove any content the Bot Overlord’s bots post and stop them from posting more as soon as you realize what they’re doing. Scaling up your human moderators isn’t reasonable, because the Bot Overlord can easily outscale you - you need an automated solution.
Suppose you build an algorithm that detects bots with incredible accuracy - 0% false positives and an estimated 1% false negatives. Great! Then, you set your system up to automatically ban detected bots.
A couple days later, your algorithm’s accuracy has dropped - from 1% false negatives to 10%. 10 times as many bots are making it past your algorithm. A few days after that, it gets even worse - first 20%, then 30%, then 50%, and eventually 90% of bots are bypassing your detection algorithm.
You can update your algorithm, but the same thing keeps happening. You’re stuck in an eternal game of cat and mouse - and you’re losing.
What gives? Well, you made a huge mistake when you set the system up to ban bots immediately. In your system, as soon as a bot gets banned, the bot creator knows. Since you’re banning every bot you detect as soon as you detect them, this gives the bot creator real-time data. They can basically reverse engineer your unpublished algorithm and then update their bots so as to avoid detection.
One solution to this is ban waves. Those work by detecting bots (or cheaters, in the context of online games) and then holding off on banning them until you can ban them all at once.
Great! Now the Bot Overlord will have much more trouble reverse-engineering your algorithm. They won’t know specifically when a bot was detected, just that it was detected within a certain window - between its creation and ban date.
But there’s still a problem. You need to minimize the damage the Bot Overlord’s accounts can do between when you detect them and when you ban them.
You could try shortening the time between ban waves. The problem with this approach is that the ban wave approach is more effective the longer that time period is. If you had an hourly ban wave, for example, the Bot Overlord could test a bunch of stuff out and get feedback every hour.
Shadow bans are one natural solution to this problem. That way, as soon as you detect it, you can prevent a bot from causing more damage. The Bot Overlord can’t quickly detect that their account was shadow-banned, so their bots will keep functioning, giving you more information about the Bot Overlord’s system and allowing you to refine your algorithm to be even more effective in the future, rather than the other way around.
I’m not aware of another way to effectively manage this issue. Do you have a counter-proposal?
Out of curiosity, do you have any experience working in content moderation for a major social media company? If so, how did that company balance respecting user privacy with effective content moderation without shadow bans, accounting for the factors I talked about above?
Shadowbans should just be illegal as a thing
I mean, regional coding makes sense from a language perspective. I don’t really want to see a bunch of foreign language recommendations on my feed, unless I’m explicitly searching for content in that language.
But I do agree there’s a lack of transparency. And I further agree that The Algorithm creates a rarified collection of “popular” content entirely by way of excluding so much else. The end result is a very generic stream of crap in the main feed and some truly freaky gamed content that’s entirely focused on click-baiting children. Incidentally, jesus fucking christ whomever is responsible for promoting “unboxing” videos should be beaten to death with a flaming bag of nalpam.
None of this is socially desirable or good, but it all appears to be incredibly profitable. Its a social media environment that’s converged on “Oops! All Ads!” and is steadily making its way to “Oops! All scams!” as the content gets worse and worse and worse.
The shadowbanning and segregation of content is just a part of the equation that makes all this possible. But funneling people down into a handful of the most awful, libidinal content generators is really not good.
Does everyone hate Bobby Kennedy so much that they’ll side with Facebook and Zuckerberg over a career environmental attorney because he’s running for president?
He’s an unhinged anti-vaxxer and all around conspiracy theorist. Summarizing him as an environmental lawyer is being real generous.
“Let’s imagine: It’s time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Which would you choose:
“Candidate A: Associates with ward healers and consults with astrologists; has had two mistresses; chain-smokes and drinks eight to ten martinis a day.
“Candidate B: Was kicked out of office twice; sleeps until noon; used opium in college; drinks a quart of brandy every evening.
“Candidate C: Is a decorated war hero, a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer, and has had no illicit love affairs.
“Which of these candidates is your choice? You don’t really need any more information, do you? Candidate A is Franklin Roosevelt. Candidate B is Winston Churchill. Candidate C is Adolf Hitler.”
Biased and selective comparisons can prove anything.
Okay, but he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms. I don’t think that it’s a horrible bias to say that people who have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of brain worms probably shouldn’t be president.
I agree, the statement earlier was another example. RFK is a terrible choice for many reasons (the worms thing is almost certainly bullshit though). But everyone has some good qualities you can focus on if you want to promote them. Similarly, everyone has bad qualities if that’s your M.O.
he also has admitted to have decreased cognitive function and memory problems because of the brain worms.
Not permanently
I’m not sure why you’re not aware of this, but brains don’t grow back.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rfk-jr-claims-doctor-parasite-ate-part-brain/story?id=110027317
Doctors interviewed by ABC News clarified that these types of parasites don’t actually eat brain tissue. Rather, they absorb nutrients passively before dying.
According to doctors interviewed by ABC News, an infection like this could lead to seizures, which could potentially cause short-lived memory problems as Kennedy described, but most patients would mount a full recovery.
That’s true. I’d pick that over thieves and murderers any time though. Especially as a politician to vote for.
I’d prefer not to die in a pandemic because a president is afraid of THE AUTISMS, but you do you.
Somebody quoted him saying that his family is vaccinated.
Not everyone likes to decide for others as much as you do.
What did I decide for others and when did I decide it?
It’s the most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers.
The most likely cause of assuming that his presidency would lead to mass deaths because of antivaxxers is me deciding something for others?
Again, what did I decide for others and when did I decide it?
No one cares
How would you know who cares or not, if you are not even a person by my measure?
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power. I can see his conspiracy theories appealing to the Q type, but most of them are going to go for Trump. He’s polling this highly because he’s an unknown. As more people start paying attention to who he actually is, he will be the Herman Cain of the race.
Would you agree that Bobby Kennedy would draw more voters from Trump as it stands?
A “conspiracy theorist” is rejected on the left until government-sanctioned evidence is provided. The right doesn’t have that constraint.
The left believes conspiracy theories. They’re just different conspiracy theories.
No, because he’s actually quite mad and belongs nowhere near any kind of power.
I’d trust a person openly mad more than a person still likely mad.
He actually had (much smaller) power from time to time in his career, and after becoming as he is now too. He did better with it than many people would.
I’m not sure how he’s any more ‘openly mad’ than Trump. Neither of them admit it.
Trump is demented, not mad.
Second word from the top on the list:
Demented is usually used meaning that somebody’s intelligence has sharply declined.
Mad is usually used meaning that somebody’s sanity has sharply declined.
According to Kennedy, Meta is colluding with the Biden administration to sway the 2024 presidential election by suppressing Kennedy’s documentary and making it harder to support Kennedy’s candidacy. This allegedly has caused “substantial donation losses,” while also violating the free speech rights of Kennedy, his supporters, and his film’s production company, AV24.
In this case, Meta and the Biden administration are claimed to be co-conspirators colluding to block citizens from promoting their favorite presidential candidate.
We can very much dislike both while also agreeing that this is fucking stupid. While we continue to very much dislike both, one is clearly in the wrong on this issue and pointing out the sheer stupidity of Kennedy’s actions is not “siding” with Zuckerberg.
I don’t care what his profession is/was - he’s wrong and it would be disingenuous to give him a pass because he did a thing at some point in his life that I agreed with.
The second quote is stupid, but acceptable in a contentious environment. He can say that.
The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it’s convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious. It would take Meta to go out of their way to not do that.
The first quote is formally wrong (because Meta is a privileged entity which is a platform when it’s convenient and a private something not subject to free speech when that is convenient), but in fact almost certainly true. Even obvious.
I have no idea if it is or isn’t, but they’re both still terrible people.
How is RFK terrible?
I don’t think it’s productive to spend time regurgitating what’s already been said numerous times regarding his antivax beliefs and other conspiracy theories.
If you don’t think those are bad, then you do you, but I’m not going to debate it here. Have a good night.
Yes, it’d be productive for you to defend your point of view and not refer to some crowd thinking some way, I could care less about tons of bullshit which have already been said. Since the invention of machine gun this should have ceased to be an argument even emotionally.
Obviously it’s only my point of view and arguments against yours , “everybody does that” means that you are an irresponsible person who shouldn’t be considered.
Obviously yes, I don’t think these are worse than what others do.
Also it was morning for me.
I don’t think anyone “hates” him. He’s just an absurd human that no one takes seriously. And we all agree we have much more dire things to discuss than what rich white people are calling managers about now.
Nah he’s great. He should take the rest of those brain worms, I think the worms should be in charge!
Worms/Kennedy 2024!
