Faceberk Down.

[sphexx]

As you can guess, Richard..many people, including Sirch, after hearing or being made aware of the evidence given by the whistleblower, Frances Haugen, might conclude that there is, in fact, a lot more of a problem with FB and it's associate platforms other than just hegemony.

I‘m not sure I agree with you there John, it seems to me it’s hegemony is a necessary but not sufficient condition for its harmfulness.

 

[RedRobin]

I won't quote from those who can't see what's wrong with Facebook and its lack of ethics as there are a few who have posted to that effect but I assume they will no doubt read this post.I suggest they make some effort to find out what evidence is being given by the whistleblower. There's a lot more to FB and its associate platforms than meets the eye and it's pretty ugly.

This afternoon I watched the whistleblower ex FB employee/product manager Frances Haugen (MBA-Harvard) giving evidence to Congress. Each one of those questioning her thanked her for her bravery. She said she's done it even though she knows that quote "Facebook could destroy me" She left with copies of tens of thousands of documents proving her allegations. She's done this because other staff members have raised their concerns to no avail. The mantra is. 'Growth at all costs' She opened her evidence saying..

“I’m here today because I believe Facebook’s products harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy. The company’s leadership knows how to make Facebook and Instagram safer, but won’t make the necessary changes because they have put their astronomical profits before people.” She added that Facebook was “buying its profits with our safety”

Mark Zuckerberg made himself available to the media and Congress.as mentioned in my previous post, over the Cambridge Analytica scandal but this time he's out sailing in the Pacific with his wife and child. The modus operandi of FB when in trouble is to sit back, with a few comments thrown out now and then and wait for the issue to blow over. It's not going to happen this time,there's no way this will blow over because it's not about adults, politicians and targetting voters or Trump and January 6th it's about children and their safety. Senator Richard Blumenthal sent MZ a list of questions and now knows he received misleading answers. Bluenthal ,as Attorney General for Connecticut, prosecuted the tobacco industry and he said that this is Facebook's 'tobacco moment'

These are some of the issues she spoke about. I expect a full transcript will become available at some point.

No-one under 13 is allowed to sign up yet they're aware that kids will give false ages but they have a system of backtracking which can establish an age and it intentionally targets teenagers and children under 13. At present it's in the process of studying 8 year olds for targeting re their 'Messenger Kids' app. A current employee ( the Global Safety officer,I think) had been asked at a previous hearing how they get details of young kids and she said that they get permission from parents. Facebook's own researchers came back to them with evidence of the harm that the algorithms were doing yet the Global Safety office, when giving evidence to a previous hearing, minimised the findings. Teenagers are allowed to set up secret accounts unbeknown to their parents. Seems the longer a user is actively on the platform the more money FB makes. Quite how,I have no idea. Comes back to adds and viewing time,I assume.

1.5 billion user details are being sold on a hacker's forum. Frances Haugen said that Facebook knew it steered young users towards damaging content...especially anorexia-related forums and that its Instagram app was like cigarettes for under-18s.and that the company did not have enough staff to keep the platform safe and was literally fanning ethnic violence in developing countries.In 2018 they were told about the effect that algorithms containing hate information were having in relation to the murderous campaign against the Rohingya of Myanmar and FB did nothing and it's happening all over again but this time in Ethiopia.

This statistic is awful.13% of UK youngsters and 6% of US youngsters can directly trace their desire to commit suicide back to FB and it's other platforms. Another issue was bullying which takes place at school and whereas in pre social media days kids got home and were isolated from it, it's now with them at home and worse, they're so-called friends post nasty comments. This sort of contact has lead to suicide.

The algorithms even target house sales adverts in certain locations to white's only..ie not to black or Hispanic people.They don't have the same spread for non-whites as they do for white people. She gave an example of how dangerous some ads are and she showed three on a screen advertising quote 'A party like no other' and the background to the lettering were prescription drugs,so the party was about abuse of prescription drugs. Another.. 'Find a love partner' and it was aimed at 13-17 year olds. Another promoting anerexia-related forums.Haugen said that most likely a human hadn't seen these ads..all done by AI tailored to age, gender and location.

She was asked what FB would fear most from the authorities and said...oversight of the algorithms. She said that FB will not change unless forced to. Also, amending, not nullifying, legislation that makes them liable for the consequences of their content because ,at present, section 230 of a 1996 Act protects social media companies from the consequences of their content. They'd do that to negate the protection of the First Amendment re free speech and to avoid the lawyers of FB citing that to negate any action.

Whilst Haugen was giving evidence FB was putting out ,in real time, information to the effect that she couldn't know about some of the evidence she was giving as she didn't and hadn't worked in the relevant departments. However, amongst all the material she has she has covered that aspect,probably knowing FB would say that..

During the hearing Senator Bloomenthal looked at the camera and said "Mark Zuckerberg..if you're watching this we're coming for you and you either work with us or without us..your choice" He described FB as "a monster'. Senator Ed Markey said “Here’s my message for Mark Zuckerberg: your time of invading our privacy, promoting toxic content in preying on children and teens is over. Congress will be taking action. We will not allow your company to harm our children and our families and our democracy, any longer.”

.... Sounds like a witch hunt by extremists. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

 

[RedRobin]

No, it doesn’t refer to ads at all but to everything else. Not sure why you are so hung up on ads in FB because none of this is about those, if they even exist — I don't use it enough to be sure .

.... Doesn't "content relevant to interests" in your post refer to ads which specifically target the individual? Sorry but that is how I have been understanding your recent posts.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

People look at me as if I have two heads when I say I'm not on FB. It was a few months ago that I finally knocked it on the head and had to overcome FOMO for the first month until FB actually deleted my account. Since then, not being on Facebook has been an absolute pleasure. At the same time I completely stopped looking at the Daily Mail website as much of the content made me rather angry, as I suspect it is designed to do. I only watch the first minute of the news on the TV just to get the headlines. I don't buy newspapers. I do know what's going on in the world as I get a lot of my news from what I hope are reliable sources, FT website, New Scientist, et al. Trying to find impartial journalism has always been a bit of a balancing act but the secret is to look at, and compare, many sources and try to make a reasoned judgement based on the many outcomes. Facebook stifles this worldly view of things by giving people reinforcement of any view they might express. It IS toxic but the general public wallow in it's toxicity because all their friends do the same, and there is a misinformed 'safety' in numbers. Facebook would lose it's hold over people's minds if only those people would try to think for themselves; alas, I fear that ship has long ago sailed away.

 

[whiteflyer]

FB has 3.5 billion users. For many (most?) people FB = Internet .

But how many of those are fake ?
By Facebook's own statistics they are deleting an average 1.5B fake accounts a quarter

 

[sphexx]

.... Doesn't "content relevant to interests" in your post refer to ads which specifically target the individual? Sorry but that is how I have been understanding your recent posts.

No, it refers to ‘news items’ or other postings .

 

[sphexx]

At the same time I completely stopped looking at the Daily Mail website as much of the content made me rather angry, as I suspect it is designed to do

Exactly so. It’s also the sort of thing FB excels at with a wider audience though different immediate motive though ultimately the same one — money!

 

[RedRobin]

Facebook stifles this worldly view of things by giving people reinforcement of any view they might express. It IS toxic but the general public wallow in it's toxicity because all their friends do the same, and there is a misinformed 'safety' in numbers. Facebook would lose it's hold over people's minds if only those people would try to think for themselves; alas, I fear that ship has long ago sailed away.

.... I use Facebook many times a day (when I'm not out taking photos) and my Settings are such that I don't see ANY information or opinion on Facebook about what's going on in the world and I like it that way and enjoy the many positives which Facebook (and Instagram) have to offer. I am like you in that I don't buy any newspapers but I am not like you in that I make absolutely no effort to spend time reading about what's going on in specialist websites.

I get more information on what's going on in the world from the Hot Topics section of TP! Although it is somewhat biassed due to the views expressed by those who post the most there .

Many of you here insist that Facebook is toxic - I don't see any toxicity and if there is any it's so easy to bypass it and be uneffected - To carry on living in a cosy bubble away from people who don't think for themselves and would be no different whether Facebook existed or not.

 

[RedRobin]

Exactly so. It’s also the sort of thing FB excels at with a wider audience though different immediate motive though ultimately the same one — money!

.... Whether we like it or not, doesn't just about every organisation, even charities, aim and strive to make money? Whether it's hundreds or billions it's relative and doesn't matter.

They say that Money Is the Root of all Evil and also that Money makes the World go round. Like it or not, money is the lube of human existence and has been for centuries.

Furthermore, every media has its biassed opinions and if you don't agree with them you are likely to view them as toxic.

 

[sphexx]

@RedRobin

But it not about you! You have only to look a what’s happened with QAnon in the US which is rooted in the mad belief that a cabal of the “elite” paedophiles led by Hilary Clinton is capturing and eating children, sometimes in the cellar of a pizza cafe in (Chicago?) and that Trump is leading a crusade to kill them. They formed a large part of the mob that stormed the Capitol though egged on by “normal” fascists.

I have just read a lengthy piece in the NYT Technology Newsletter (subscribers only) which is about YouTube but apples to FB etc. Heres a longish quote:

Most people who see YouTube videos (falsely) claiming that an animal deworming medicine cures the coronavirus won’t guzzle Fido’s pills, and most people who post their concerns about vaccine side effects are not anti-vaccine zealots. Aren’t we capable of talking freely on the internet and making up our own minds? Isn’t it counterproductive and un-American to declare certain discussions off limits?

There are no easy answers to these questions. But I want to share how my perceptions changed a bit after talking with Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth College professor who studies misperceptions about politics and health care. Dr. Nyhan gave me a different way to think about online misinformation: It’s not about you.

Dr. Nyhan suggested that we think about the internet companies’ rules as being crafted for the tiny number of people who strongly believe in or are inclined to believe in demonstratively false and potentially dangerous things. Stick with me.

The conversation resonated because it got to something that bugs me about the catchall term “misinformation.” It conjures a world in which everyone is either a neo-Nazi, anarchist or grifter selling fake health potions — or vulnerable to being taken in by them.

We know that’s hogwash. But Dr. Nyhan said that it was crucial that we had rules on the internet for the extremes of both speaker and listener.

“Lots of people will be exposed to misinformation, and it won’t have any effect,” Dr. Nyhan told me. “But if even a few people believe in powerful false claims like an election was illegitimate or this vaccine causes autism, then that might call for a more aggressive approach.”

Dr. Nyhan isn’t saying that popular websites should restrict any discussions that include extreme or unpopular views. (He has written that the kinds of online limits on Covid-19 discussions shouldn’t apply to most political expression.)

But for a selection of high-stakes issues that could lead to real world harm, internet companies may need restrictive rules. Internet companies have also been encouraging people to think carefully about what they read and share, without banning certain kinds of conversations.

Dr. Nyhan recognizes that it’s hard to decide what topics are high stakes, and he’s worried that a handful of internet companies have grown so influential that they dictate public discourse, and they often enforce their policies poorly.

Most of all, Dr. Nyhan rejects two overly simplistic ideas: that the average person is susceptible to falling for any kooky thing that they read online, and that those kooky things online pose little risk.

“We need to focus more on how the platforms can enable an extremist minority to foment harm and not on how the average person might be brainwashed by a piece of content they viewed a few times,” Dr. Nyhan said. “We should be thinking about the people who consume a large amount of hateful or extremist content on YouTube, or the anti-vaccine groups that don’t reach a lot of people but could do a lot of harm to the people they do reach.”

 

[sphexx]

.... Whether we like it or not, doesn't just about every organisation, even charities, aim and strive to make money? Whether it's hundreds or billions it's relative and doesn't matter.

You're doing it again! Claiming that corruption and crookedness don’t matter because everyone wants money! It’s just wrong and is completely amoral .

They say that Money Is the Root of all Evil and also that Money makes the World go round. Like it or not, money is the lube of human existence and has been for centuries.

Furthermore, every media has its biassed opinions and if you don't agree with them you are likely to view them as toxic.

I think you’ll find the quote should be The love of money is a root … . Rather different .

 

[RedRobin]

@RedRobin

But it not about you! You have only to look a what’s happened with QAnon in the US which is rooted in the mad belief that a cabal of the “elite” paedophiles led by Hilary Clinton is capturing and eating children, sometimes in the cellar of a pizza cafe in (Chicago?) and that Trump is leading a crusade to kill them. They formed a large part of the mob that stormed the Capitol though egged on by “normal” fascists.

.... I know it's not about me! I am only giving myself as a typical example of another kind of Facebook user and how I see Facebook. You may not agree with me but please be tolerant of my different views. Doesn't a discussion flow based on sharing and debating differing individual views?

I think you’ll find the quote should be The love of money is a root … . Rather different

.... Indeed and thanks for correcting my quote but the difference is subtle and whether it's "The love of money is..." or "Money is..." I think you are splitting hairs in the context of how I posted this quote.

 

[sphexx]

.... I know it's not about me! I am only giving myself as a typical example of another kind of Facebook user and how I see Facebook. You may not agree with me but please be tolerant of my different views. Doesn't a discussion flow based on sharing and debating differing individual views?

Well that’s sort of what I’m saying. I don’t think you are stupid just incorrect in this instance probably because you are not really interested in the wider problems with FB etc.

And you may be a typical example of the majority of FB users but that’s no the point, it’s the mad minority tail that can end up wagging the dog.

.... Indeed and thanks for correcting my quote but the difference is subtle and whether it's "The love of money is..." or "Money is..." I think you are splitting hairs in the context of how I posted this quote.

OK, I think it’s very different but … . .

 

[sphexx]

Was that you Robin? @RedRobin

 

[JohnC6]

I‘m not sure I agree with you there John, it seems to me it’s hegemony is a necessary but not sufficient condition for its harmfulness.

Misunderstanding,Richard. R-reading it I can why how it came about, though.

As I don't indulge in any social media..unless TP and a railway website are classed as such..dunno..I was aware FB is massive but not alone.I have no opinion on the hegamony status of it but I just heard today that the EU do and are are thinking about breaking it up. It's a US company..how can they do that ?


BRUSSELS (Reuters) -U.S. technology firms including Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google face fines of up to 10% of annual turnover and could even be broken up under draft European Union rules announced on Tuesday aimed at curbing their powers.

It hasn't gone down well with Washington,though. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-tech-idUSKBN28P0HH

 

[RedRobin]

View attachment 332226

Was that you Robin? @RedRobin

.... Very good!

Fortunately I had already shown my dinner to my Fwends on Facebook before it went down :

LOBSTER FOR DINNER! by Robin Procter, on Flickr

 

[sphexx]

As I don't indulge in any social media..unless TP and a railway website are classed as such..dunno..I was aware FB is massive but not alone.

3.5 billion accounts, and in parts of the world (India they say) it is the Internet .

I have no opinion on the hegamony status of it but I just heard today that the EU do and are are thinking about breaking it up. It's a US company..how can they do that ?

Dunno, more than one way to skin a cat?

 

[JohnC6]

3.5 billion accounts, and in parts of the world (India they say) it is the Internet .

Dunno, more than one way to skin a cat?

So..are TP and my railway forums classes as 'social media' as most perceive socvialk media ?. Seems a bit different to me..apart from the two OOF sections but its raison d'etre is photography. If they are classed as social media then I can't carry on maintaining that I don't indulge in it

 

[sphexx]

So..are TP and my railway forums classes as 'social media' as most perceive socvialk media ?. Seems a bit different to me..apart from the two OOF sections but its raison d'etre is photography. If they are classed as social media then I can't carry on maintaining that I don't indulge in it

I think TP possibly is, at least in the OOF & HT sections, not sure about the others. Actually O don’t know what the definition of social media is, I guess there has to be some interaction between people but then that must be very marginal with people who have gazillions of “followers” and that is classed as social.

Edit to add:

Social media is a computer-based technology that facilitates the sharing of ideas, thoughts, and information through the building of virtual networks and communities. By design, social media is Internet-based and gives users quick electronic communication of content. Content includes personal information, documents, videos, and photos. Users engage with social media via a computer, tablet, or smartphone via web-based software or applications.


While social media is ubiquitous in America and Europe, Asian countries like Indonesia lead the list of social media usage.1 More than 3.8 billion people use social media.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/social-media.aspll

One definition anyway, and it would include the whole of TP,

 

[RedRobin]

Social media is a computer-based technology that facilitates the sharing of ideas, thoughts, and information through the building of virtual networks and communities. By design, social media is Internet-based and gives users quick electronic communication of content. Content includes personal information, documents, videos, and photos. Users engage with social media via a computer, tablet, or smartphone via web-based software or applications.

One definition anyway, and it would include the whole of TP,

.... Yep, TP definitely meets the 'social media' definition without any doubt.

It's just that different online social mediums can have different characters and forms of presentation. For example, like the differences between Facebook and Instagram and t***ter (Although I think that t***ter, as I like to call it, is more of a hyped up information highway network than being social).

 

[sirch]

TP is an internet forum, internet forums pre-date social media and even the world wide web. Whilst this forum does have some social-like features such as the ability to follow an individual I doubt that many people do that. You can't form closed groups on here and there is no concept of friends-of-friends so there is no way to build social networks. We don't use any relationships on here to suggest people or topics in which you might be interested.

Forums are good for longer running discussions and keeping a linear history of discussions over a long period of time, also the whole forum is indexed by search engines so non-members can access all the valuable (and not so) information that is stored here.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I don't think these threads on TP can be considered even slightly like social media, which merely preach to the converted. I love OOF and HTs as they are a wonderful place to bounce ideas off, and receive opinions from, like-minded and more importantly perhaps, non-like-minded folk, who are eminently capable of putting forward cogent arguments for and against any given subject. I have learned a lot here, not only about subjects but about the people and their, often contrary, and welcome, opinions. I know there were (are) people who would have Hot Topics removed but I feel it is a generally good place for debate and adds to the forum rather than detracting from it. Also, one actually has to actively ask to access Hot Topics so it's not something people of a sensitive nature can stumble across. Long may it continue.

 

[Mr Bump]

I use WhatsApp video calling/messaging all the time but FaceTime is better quality (mostly Apple stuff only) and would use other apps (Signal, Spike Email, etc) if I could persuade stick-in-the-mud folk like you to branch out .

It doesn’t blind me to FB faults!

Stick in the Mud like me, get a life.

 

[JohnC6]

.... Sounds like a witch hunt by extremists. It will be interesting to see what the outcome is.

I posted a 'wow' to that comment,Robin and only because the wasn't available in the reply emojis.

A witch hunt by extremists ? You also said in post #90 (yesterday)....FFS sake why all the hate ?

To take the last comment first.

Facebook is a purveyor of hate.

From the CCDH...The Center for Countering Digital Hatred .. said it reported more than 700 posts on major social media platforms that contained "anti-Jewish hatred", which had collectively been viewed 7.3 million times. It said that those it tagged as Holocaust denial remained online 80% of the time, while for neo-Nazi content it was 71%. They also said that FB was the worst offender failing to act on 89% of posts. They acted on 14 out of 129 posts (10.9%) and Instagram acted on 52 of 277 (18.8%)

On Friday June 25th 2020 , Unilever, one of the world’s largest advertisers, suddenly announced it was pulling all adverts from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in the US.
The company made this statement. 'Given the “polarised atmosphere in the US and the significant work left to be done in the areas of divisiveness and hate speech continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society” Within 2 hours Mark Zuckerberg responded with a series of new policies, including a ban on hateful content that targets immigrants and further restrictions on posts making false claims about voting.

In the protests prompted by George Floyd’s death, Trump posted on Facebook and Twitter ... “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”.
Twitter, realising the the racist history of the phrase [In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase..he had a long history of bigotry against the black community," Some say he possibly borrowed it from Eugene "Bull" Connor, who in the 1960's had been the notorious public safety commissioner in Birmingham, Alabam and was a segregationist who directed the use of police dogs and fire hoses against black demonstrators. Trump denied any knowledge of these men. So, Twitter interpreting it as a potential call for violence, enforced a policy it already had in place for such postings and the company restricted the tweet, preventing it from being replied to or liked declaring that the tweet broke its rules. But it left it up, citing the inherent newsworthiness of a statement by an elected official with millions of followers. On Facebook, however, the post was left untouched and FB was heavily criticised and some of their own staff walked out. Even scientists funded by Zuckerberg’s personal charity, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, spoke out, calling Trump’s post “a clear statement of inciting violence”.

There's a group called Stop Hate for Profit in the US .In June, last year ,more than 400 companies signed up to boycott advertising their products on FB. The likes of North Face..Addidas..Ben & Gerrys..Coca-Cola..Ford..Honda..VW..Microsoft..Starbucks..and many more. It caused the share price to fall 8%.

You mentioned using WhatsApp in the forests of Finland whilst photographing bears. In April last year WhatsApp was hosting posts about a conspiracy theory in relation the rollout of 5G, which had originated long before Covid-19 had appeared but was then claiming that mobile phone masts were responsible for the pandemic. Across the UK, people began setting fire to 5G masts, with 20 arson attacks over one weekend alone. As you probably know WhatsApp is end to end encryption. The Conservative party’s pro-Brexit European Research Group was said to be chiefly sustained in the form of a WhatsApp group, whose membership was never public. Secretive co-ordination does not engender confidence in democracy. I actually recall a TV interview..Channel4, I'm sure, in which Suella Braverman MP persistently refused to name any members of the ERG group. I've found it. I was right.. Channel4.

Car crash Suella Braverman interview resurfaces after she was made attorney general

Brexiteer Suella Braverman has been appointed to Boris Johnson's cabinet after his unprecedented reshuffle which saw major names like Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Sajid Javid leave. Braverman is now the new attorney general, replacing Geoffrey Cox, and has already made headlines after she...

www.indy100.com

By the way..re encryption, which, as mentioned, means all manner of groups can remain anonymous to the outside world, it looks like it's being compromised . Here are the new T&Cs.

“As part of the Facebook family of companies, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information with, this family of companies. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market our Services and their offerings.”

The above has actually addressed the statement you made that it's extremists that are behind the campaign against FB. That clearly isn't the case.

 

[sphexx]

By the way..re encryption,

I think if you back up WhatsApp Chats to iCloud then it is stored decrypted

 

[JohnC6]

I think if you back up WhatsApp Chats to iCloud then it is stored decrypted

I wouldn't know ,Richard. There's usually a way round things isn't there.

 

[RedRobin]

I posted a 'wow' to that comment,Robin and only because the wasn't available in the reply emojis.

A witch hunt by extremists ? You also said in post #90 (yesterday)....FFS sake why all the hate ?

To take the last comment first.

Facebook is a purveyor of hate.

From the CCDH...The Center for Countering Digital Hatred .. said it reported more than 700 posts on major social media platforms that contained "anti-Jewish hatred", which had collectively been viewed 7.3 million times. It said that those it tagged as Holocaust denial remained online 80% of the time, while for neo-Nazi content it was 71%. They also said that FB was the worst offender failing to act on 89% of posts. They acted on 14 out of 129 posts (10.9%) and Instagram acted on 52 of 277 (18.8%)

On Friday June 25th 2020 , Unilever, one of the world’s largest advertisers, suddenly announced it was pulling all adverts from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in the US.
The company made this statement. 'Given the “polarised atmosphere in the US and the significant work left to be done in the areas of divisiveness and hate speech continuing to advertise on these platforms at this time would not add value to people and society” Within 2 hours Mark Zuckerberg responded with a series of new policies, including a ban on hateful content that targets immigrants and further restrictions on posts making false claims about voting.

In the protests prompted by George Floyd’s death, Trump posted on Facebook and Twitter ... “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”.
Twitter, realising the the racist history of the phrase [In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase..he had a long history of bigotry against the black community," Some say he possibly borrowed it from Eugene "Bull" Connor, who in the 1960's had been the notorious public safety commissioner in Birmingham, Alabam and was a segregationist who directed the use of police dogs and fire hoses against black demonstrators. Trump denied any knowledge of these men. So, Twitter interpreting it as a potential call for violence, enforced a policy it already had in place for such postings and the company restricted the tweet, preventing it from being replied to or liked declaring that the tweet broke its rules. But it left it up, citing the inherent newsworthiness of a statement by an elected official with millions of followers. On Facebook, however, the post was left untouched and FB was heavily criticised and some of their own staff walked out. Even scientists funded by Zuckerberg’s personal charity, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, spoke out, calling Trump’s post “a clear statement of inciting violence”.

There's a group called Stop Hate for Profit in the US .In June, last year ,more than 400 companies signed up to boycott advertising their products. The likes of North Face..Addidas..Ben & Gerrys..Coca-Cola..Ford..Honda..VW..Microsoft..Starbucks..and many more. It caused the share price to fall 8%.

You mentioned using WhatsApp in the forests of Finland whilst photographing bears. In April last year WhatsApp was hosting posts about a conspiracy theory in relation the rollout of 5G, which had originated long before Covid-19 had appeared but was then claiming that mobile phone masts were responsible for the pandemic. Across the UK, people began setting fire to 5G masts, with 20 arson attacks over one weekend alone. As you probably know WhatsApp is end to end encryption. The Conservative party’s pro-Brexit European Research Group was said to be chiefly sustained in the form of a WhatsApp group, whose membership was never public. Secretive co-ordination does not engender confidence in democracy. I actually recall a TV interview..Channel4, I'm sure, in which Suella Braverman MP persistently refused to name any members of the ERG group. I've found it. I was right.. Channel4.

Car crash Suella Braverman interview resurfaces after she was made attorney general

Brexiteer Suella Braverman has been appointed to Boris Johnson's cabinet after his unprecedented reshuffle which saw major names like Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Sajid Javid leave. Braverman is now the new attorney general, replacing Geoffrey Cox, and has already made headlines after she...

www.indy100.com

By the way..re encryption, which, as mentioned, means all manner of groups can remain anonymous to the outside world, it looks like is being compromised . Here are the new T&Cs.

“As part of the Facebook family of companies, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information with, this family of companies. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customise, support, and market our Services and their offerings.”

The above has actually addressed the statement you made that it's extremists that are behind the campaign against FB. That clearly isn't the case.

.... Do you expect me to read all that, John? And then answer it point by point perhaps? Sorry but I am both amoral and apathetic when it comes to all this. Besides, I need to catch up with my Messages from Facebook friends and check (partly via Facebook) where and when surf is being forecast for some photography tomorrow.

However, my quick scan over it did spot a reference to Bears in Finland and my use of WhatsApp. What are you saying? That WhatsApp is such a conduit for wrong doing that I shouldn't use it? Well, you do what you think is right and I'll just do what suits me and my friends.

 

[RedRobin]

I wouldn't know ,Richard. There's usually a way round things isn't there.

.... ALWAYS!! There is always a way around an obstacle or problem and it is satisfying when you find it.

 

[Krisstiffer]

 

[JohnC6]

.... Do you expect me to read all that, John? And then answer it point by point perhaps? Sorry but I am both amoral and apathetic when it comes to all this. Besides, I need to catch up with my Messages from Facebook friends and check (partly via Facebook) where and when surf is being forecast for some photography tomorrow.

However, my quick scan over it did spot a reference to Bears in Finland and my use of WhatsApp. What are you saying? That WhatsApp is such a conduit for wrong doing that I shouldn't use it? Well, you do what you think is right and I'll just do what suits me and my friends.

Well, I read all of a lot of your posts,Robin.I wasn't expecting a reply point by point or even a reply tbh but appreciate you gave one. At least you skim-read it and would have a fair idea of the content. The purpose of the post was to highlight the irony of the 'FFS why the hate" comment and it also countered the belief it's extremists involved in a witch hunt. No more nor less than that. A counter post if you will. I did think you were keenly engaged in the thread although I note that you say you're "apathetic to all this". It's just that you've made 21 posts.

Re the bears in Finland..which,btw, was on my 'to do' list .Hopefully, (re Covid) next year. There or Romania .I'm a bear fan.

I actually wondered if you'd respond to that bit in the way you have so I blame myself for not adding that I wasn't suggesting you don't use WhatsApp. I mentioned it because it's part of the group owned by FB and is also prone to adverse usage. You've actually done what cymruchris did in the rainbow police car thread. Suggest I'm thinking something (which I wasn't) in order to criticise it. I'd actually clarify first what someone meant before giving a response. On the same note. I think FB just needs sorting out ,it could be solely a force for good but it won't be until MZ changes his mindset.

 

[Cobra]

I know there were (are) people who would have Hot Topics removed but I feel it is a generally good place for debate

Its life is always in the balance, hanging by a thread ..
The only positive thing(s) about it, is that it keeps all the crap in one place, and is not crawled by google. (Heaven forbid. )

The problem is there are far too many people that never leave HT.
IIRC this is a photography site.

Some even form little groups to shout down anyone with a different opinion.
Thankfully its not quite so bad as it was a couple or so years ago, since that some members that are permanently banned from HT. Some actually asked to be permanently excluded, some took the offer of a HT ( or even an OoF) ban or a total forum ban.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

Its life is always in the balance, hanging by a thread ..
The only positive thing(s) about it, is that it keeps all the crap in one place, and is not crawled by google. (Heaven forbid. )

I truly believe that not all is crap here and that some good discussions are to be had so long as folk don't resort to name-calling and personal attacks

The problem is there are far too many people that never leave HT.

This is probably a problem

IIRC this is a photography site.

YRC

Some even form little groups to shout down anyone with a different opinion.

Wouldn't knowingly be me, I'm no team player

Some actually asked to be permanently excluded, some took the offer of a HT ( or even an OoF) ban or a total forum ban.

How odd.

 

[sphexx]

Its life is always in the balance, hanging by a thread ..
The only positive thing(s) about it, is that it keeps all the crap in one place, and is not crawled by google. (Heaven forbid. )

The problem is there are far too many people that never leave HT.
IIRC this is a photography site.

Some even form little groups to shout down anyone with a different opinion.
Thankfully its not quite so bad as it was a couple or so years ago, since that some members that are permanently banned from HT. Some actually asked to be permanently excluded, some took the offer of a HT ( or even an OoF) ban or a total forum ban.

Theres a danger of becoming Big Brother, Chris, if you spend too much time tracking where people are on TP .

I have found the non-photo sections to be very informative during COVID and our various lockdowns and the “Funnies” a good light relief so I tend to think those sections do little harm and some good, possibly also allowing people to let off steam. And although I have an interest in the main photo sections I have no interest in posting photos there generally.

One of the many problems of being “management” is that you always feel you should be doing things to improve whatever activity it is, which on the whole is a good thing, but sometimes can lead one into unnecessary ‘improvements’ where none is needed — been there, done that ,

 

[Cobra]

I truly believe that not all is crap here and that some good discussions are to be had so long as folk don't resort to name-calling and personal attacks

And that is the tricky part that some can't seem to grasp.

YRC

I am cute? cheers

Wouldn't knowingly be me, I'm no team player

Nope not you ...

How odd.

Which would you choose,
if you became such a pain, that you were on the verge of a total ban?

 

[Cobra]

Theres a danger of becoming Big Brother, Chris, if you spend too much time tracking where people are on TP .

Its a well known fact among staff, who those are, that never post anywhere else,
And no I don't waste time tracking people..
When it was shut for Christmas ( there I've used that word, in October / 30 lashes ..) it was curious to note the "usual's" were logging in, and yet hardly anyone posted anything anywhere.
Advanced notice it will be closed again for the 12 days of you know what.

I have found the non-photo sections to be very informative

There is absolutely nothing wrong with joining in any of the photography talk sections,
learning and helping out others.

I have no interest in posting photos there generally.

Strange, I never understood the logic of joining a photography site and never posting an image.

One of the many problems of being “management” is that you always feel you should be doing things to improve whatever activity it is,

If you are referring to shutting HT, it has for many many years, been a thorn in the side of the moderation team.
You have no idea how many times Marcel came close to shutting it, over the years ...
And TBH I've lost count.

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I am cute? cheers

Oh dear, is that what YRC means, I was just saying you are correct, you know, YRC following on from IIRC. Better that I leave the acronyms to the young.

 

[Cobra]

is that what YRC means,

Yep or so it seems

 

[RedRobin]

Well, I read all of a lot of your posts,Robin.I wasn't expecting a reply point by point or even a reply tbh but appreciate you gave one. At least you skim-read it and would have a fair idea of the content. The purpose of the post was to highlight the irony of the 'FFS why the hate" comment and it also countered the belief it's extremists involved in a witch hunt. No more nor less than that. A counter post if you will. I did think you were keenly engaged in the thread although I note that you say you're "apathetic to all this". It's just that you've made 21 posts.

Re the bears in Finland..which,btw, was on my 'to do' list .Hopefully, (re Covid) next year. There or Romania .I'm a bear fan.

I actually wondered if you'd respond to that bit in the way you have so I blame myself for not adding that I wasn't suggesting you don't use WhatsApp. I mentioned it because it's part of the group owned by FB and is also prone to adverse usage. You've actually done what cymruchris did in the rainbow police car thread. Suggest I'm thinking something (which I wasn't) in order to criticise it. I'd actually clarify first what someone meant before giving a response. On the same note. I think FB just needs sorting out ,it could be solely a force for good but it won't be until MZ changes his mindset.

.... Re the witch hunt bit, what I meant was it sounds as if it is a witch hunt judging by the comments of the senators(?) in the hearing. I didn't make myself clear enough - I'm often in too much of hurry when I dip into here and just dash it out on the keyboard.

Re someone suggesting they are thinking something in order to criticise it, I really wasn't setting out with the intention to form a criticism but was just responding to how I interpreted (or misinterpreted) what I read. Unfortunately, this is too often done in Hot Topic discussions in order to try to win an argument/debate by scoring points.

You absolutely must go and see wild Bears! Such calm but strong creatures that can teach us a lot.

FINLAND

Explore this photo album by Robin Procter on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Deleted member 68495]

I think I'll stick to seeing my wild bears on TV and in pictures, they look cute, they aren't.

 

[LCPete]

I think I'll stick to seeing my wild bears on TV and in pictures, they look cute, they aren't.

It’s perfectly safe where Robin means in Finland to see the bears you watch them from hides and you are escorted to and from the hides by the company running the trip
I looked into going but ended up going to Spain to see the Lynx

Edit I do see what you’re getting at , I wouldn’t wander about at random on my own with somewhere that had dangerous animals but on an organised trip guided by experts the risk is minimal