JohnC6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,799
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've thought for a long time that he's caused more damage to societies around the globe than those who we recognise as criminals.
and help to keep the site free for all
Faceberk Down.
- Thread starter Dale.
- Start date
I've thought for a long time that he's caused more damage to societies around the globe than those who we recognise as criminals.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Only the first line and a half of the snapshot are displaying in my browser. Or I have missed the point as I sometimes do?
EDIT : I see it now I have clicked attachment when quoting it in my reply post.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Not sure if this is related but I find that lately the first photo in a posting only displays a top fraction while lower photos display fully. It displays when clicked on. Nobody else (until possibly @RedRobin here) has complained so I assumed it was ‘local’.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... The partial top display usually only happens when a Reply quotes a post which has included images. But it would seem that posting with an image as an attachment rather than fully displayed may sometimes be the culprit. I don't know how consistently this type of partial display happens.
Btw, I was giving feedback to the Admin team in case it was a fault rather than complaining and I couldn't read what the attachment said.
I don't understand what the News Feed fuss is about because a Facebook user can control News Feeds to their device, both mobile and desktop. On Facebook the only News Feeds I see are useful Notifications of responses to my posts < Equivalent to receiving emailed notifications of Replies in a TP Watched thread [Which reminds me that the issue about displaying content in those emails has not been resolved yet].
But I do agree that Mark Z is being far too over zealous in banning the developer in this case. Is it possible that the banned app's software code interferes with advertisements which bring income to Facebook? Better to ban the app rather than ban the developer but journalism being what it is, who knows which in truth has been banned.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I don’t necessarily see “complaint” as a negative/critical thing and didn’t mean to imply that
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... I realised that you probably didn't mean to imply that but, correctly or mistakenly, I interpret the word "complaint" to always imply negative criticism. Even in the medical world the term 'complaint' describes an undesirable ailment or condition - Something which has a negative potential.I don’t necessarily see “complaint” as a negative/critical thing and didn’t mean to imply that
I think that you and I quite often find that our interpretation of a word or term is very different. I venture to say that sometimes you are right and sometimes I am right in the interpretation but either way I try to never take it personally.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
.... I realised that you probably didn't mean to imply that but, correctly or mistakenly, I interpret the word "complaint" to always imply negative criticism. Even in the medical world the term 'complaint' describes an undesirable ailment or condition - Something which has negative potential.
I think that you and I quite often find that our interpretation of a word or term is very different. I venture to say that sometimes you are right and sometimes I am right in the interpretation but either way I try to never take it personally.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Ah yes. Its a forum setting to encourage people to log in and read the rest.
Its the amount of space covered by / open to the quote. If you fully quote someone that has written war and peace as a reply,
you will note that only a portion of that text is displayed too.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Thanks for the info but I am now wondering if Mark Zuckerberg has bought Talk Photography!
I don't think that the convenience of reading and (importantly) digesting some of the content of a notified Reply beforehand should be underestimated.
Some of us have lifestyles which call for our attention and spending time elsewhere - Such as Facebook
and not forgetting Instagram.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
T'other way around.Thanks for the info but I am now wondering if Mark Zuckerberg has bought Talk Photography!
Its the curiosity factor, Hmm I wonder what that says ...
Bums on seats, seo rankings, all encourage advertisers to hang around
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....T'other way around.
So Talk Photography is the power behind the evil (some say) King Zuckerberg!.... Currently with the way TP is structured it's far more often a case of seeing that member so&so has posted and without being able to see a hint of what he/she has written, one thinks it's that predictable and rude so&so person and so I won't bother loading TP in my browser.Its the curiosity factor, Hmm I wonder what that says ...
Bums on seats, seo rankings, all encourage advertisers to hang around
In many cases the curiosity is cancelled out by predictability < In Hot Topics, not elsewhere on TP.
But I do understand the need for rankings, advertisers etc. Although I am glad to say I don't see any advertisers!
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Premature! I don’t think you can celebrate 8 pages until 9 appears and if your celebration tips it over to 9, that’s cheating! Rules is rules.
OP
- Messages
- 13,716
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
D
Deleted member 68495
Guest
Is this page nine?
D
Deleted member 68495
Guest
This?
D
Deleted member 68495
Guest
Oh, I give up.
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Pah! amateur. less than 300 posts
You should have seen me in my hay day 500 was easily achievable
JohnC6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,799
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
....
.... Currently with the way TP is structured it's far more often a case of seeing that member so&so has posted and without being able to see a hint of what he/she has written, one thinks it's that predictable and rude so&so person and so I won't bother loading TP in my browser.
In many cases the curiosity is cancelled out by predictability < In Hot Topics, not elsewhere on TP.
But I do understand the need for rankings, advertisers etc. Although I am glad to say I don't see any advertisers!
Must take issue with you,Robin re.. the "some say the evil King Zuckerberg."
From Forbes:
A poll of 1,000 registered voters nationwide in the US and carried out by Accountable Tech and GQR Research conducted July 15-19 [2020] finds that American voters have turned against Facebook, believing the company does more harm than good and broadly disapproving of Mark Zuckerberg and the power he wields.
They found that 43% of voters view Facebook favorably and 47% view them unfavorably, while only 20% have a favorable view of Zuckerberg specifically and 56% see him unfavorably. They're the lowest of any big tech company or tech CEO.
I think this one is a serious issue.. Facebook’s refusal to fact-check political ads is extremely unpopular, with 92% believing “politicians should be subject to the same fact-checking rules as everyone else.”
Zuckerberg’s favorable rating has dropped by 28% since 2016, and he is viewed unfavorably by both [political] parties. At the same time as this poll was taken Trump was also viewed unfavorably by 56% (favorably by 39%) Zuckerberg is less popular, as he does not have any strong base of support. 69% of respondents believe Facebook has too much power, and 85% believe big tech companies have too much power in general. 57% believe Facebook is “primarily a harm to society” and 71% believe the company prioritises profits, even if it might cause societal harm. Facebook has also come under fire for its handling of race and civil rights, with an internal audit finding Facebook’s policies have
“real world consequences that are serious setbacks for civil rights"
I found this too.
In a congressional hearing about disinformation on March 18th this year Representative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to respond to a claim he once made about his own company: .."that the more likely content posted to Facebook is to violate the company’s community standards, the more engagement it will receive."
That's his business model,it seems.
Taking on board your fair comment that my last response to you was a long and detailed one, too long, which I do acknowledge and will bear in mind for all posts ,I'll call it a day (or rather evening..lol) on this one .
Just a thought. Maybe you just meant it's some members on here who think he's evil. Either way, that poll shows that the sentiment, if not the exact term, you used, does show a deep dissatisfaction with MZ in the way he runs his company and it's not a collective management policy as he's its chairman, chief executive officer and controlling shareholder. He's actually vetoed some important recommendations by the Board. One being to adjust the algorithms so they weren't so intrusive or potent. (my words)
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
BTW
One of the best ones, not mine, someone asked what does MILF stand for.
it was answered in post #2 and yet it ran for 13 pages and over 500 posts.
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
You should have put Facebook in the title so it would turn up in searches!Harsh but fair.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not always.Pah! amateur. less than 300 posts
You should have seen me in my hay day 500 was easily achievable
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Well agreed, there was always someone ready to spoil the fun,Not always.
but 500, plus a couple or so of 300's always were good fun.
OP
- Messages
- 13,716
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Me, I like Facebook.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Those percentages I have highlit in bold each leave resulting percentages which support what I have said: that "some say the evil King Zuckerberg". Some, not all say he is an evil king.
There will always be people who don't like anyone who has power. Popularity among the populus fluctuates in waves just like the value of financial shares does.
I neither like nor dislike Mark Zuckerberg - I don't know him and I know personally several people who the public don't like but I like them. So generally I don't judge people by what others think of them but only how I personally experience them.
I see Facebook as a reflection of society rather than being an active root cause.
But you have made up your mind John and I'll respect that.
JohnC6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,799
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Have to come back on this,Robin It's more the case that the some [ie the 20% which you've highlighted] refer to those with a favourable view of MZ not the 56% that you're claiming as 'some' Obviously, 56% can be described as the majority ,by far, who view him in an unfavourable light..That's a massive 80% difference. No-one said that all, as you've stated, view him as unfavourable or to use your term... ' an evil king' .
I'm not sure why you've put that 43% (the figure for a favourable view) in bold to support your position. 47% view FB unfavourably and it can be seen that when detailed questions were put to participants you see a very different picture. As I've stated..69% believe Facebook has, in general, too much power. 57% believe Facebook is “primarily a harm to society” and 71% believe the company prioritises profits, even if it might cause societal damage. What a damning indictment of a social media company.
Re MZ.I obviously don't know him personally and neither, of course, do the respondents in either camp and the pollsters knew that so it really wasn't about him personally or the answer would have been a resounding "I don't know, I don't know him personally'' So, it's not been based on personal knowledge but how he runs FB which, you could say, reflects what he's about, at least as far as his business goes and how it's run which is a massive talking point at present and wide-raging.
Facebook is a reflection of society, you say.I don't agree. That's in response to the finding that 57% thought FB was 'primarily a harm to society' I'm not on FB so, over time, I've had to read up on it's content and how it ticks. I've listened to a few Five-Live phone-ins on the subject, too. I've come to the conclusion that, contrary to your belief, that it reflects society, it actually influences society. It certainly did so in the 2016 US election and also accused re our Brexit Leave campaign. Like other social media it's an enabler for all sorts, both good and bad. Facebook's sorting process places posts higher in members' newsfeed if they’re from like-minded friends which could well, or more likely, probably, distort their view of the world. This can lead to believing someone believing something even though many of their friends are saying something different because they just won’t see what they've written. FB gives a massive reach for those with minority and often generally unacceptable views which too many take onboard and sometimes, worse, act upon. You've only got to see the consequences of what those pedalling pseudoscience have achieved regarding Covid vaccines . So, FB, because of the way it operates.. ie..volume-driven, has actually allowed the anti-vaxers access to an ever-widening audience. It was feeding upon itself...exponentially and it's why Trump finds FB so useful. I mentioned how FB was used by the army in Myanmar in one of my posts in relation to the persecution of the Rohingya people but here's another example. In 2014 a post circulated on Facebook which falsely accused a Mandalay business owner of raping a female employee. That post lead to the gathering of a mob, which eventually lead to civil unrest .The original accusation in this instance was false but Facebook's massive distribution enabled it to grow quickly beyond the control of authorities. It's also allowed the likes of QAnon conspirators along with Boogaloo ( a far-right anti-government extremist movement originally neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the US)) and anti-climate change groups to post their drivel..dangerous drivel at that ,which gained traction before Facebook took steps to remove them. Actually, the climate change debates have been allowed to continue under the guise of 'opinion'. In each case Facebook had been warned for a long time of the potential for harm but failed to act until there was significant pressure from influential groups/politicians which forced them to do something about it and they eventually removed posts put up by those people. It needs to change from being reactive to becoming proactive.
None of the above is reflecting society, as you maintain, it's manifestly manipulating it.
As you say, Robin, I'm not a supporter and won't be until MZ gets to grip with it's negative aspects .I readily acknowledge that it has really good aspects but imo outweighed by the negative ones .I don't hold out much hope, though as Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the commonalty if that's the right term..I don't think it is.. working with the structures that link them may be a better description.... between WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook giving him one communications network that would reach an estimated 2.7 billion people and all under the ultimate control of one, and this is crucial,unaccountable man ...MZ. As they say, Robin...“What could go wrong?”
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Which he promised not to do when he bought WhatsApp and the reason the WA founder quit and co-founded Signal giving up nearly $1 billion -- I don’t know the details of the contract but it reflects on MZ’s morals and fits with things he did in the early days of FB
JohnC6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,799
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Which he promised not to do when he bought WhatsApp and the reason the WA founder quit and co-founded Signal giving up nearly $1 billion -- I don’t know the details of the contract but it reflects on MZ’s morals and fits with things he did in the early days of FB
Dear me. I think Robin's on a loser with this one
...and anyone else who defends FB.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I can see it’s usefulness but it doesn’t blind me to the problems. I use Amazon a lot, to some extent out of necessity due to COVID but I don’t like it and and I think it does a lot of harm, and of course is a bad employer.Dear me. I think Robin's on a loser with this one
D
Deleted member 68495
Guest
All things in moderation is always a fitting mantra.
Facebook is probably fine for the individual so long as what is on there is taken with a pinch of scepticism because the secret of learning and understanding anything is to look for other opinions, other sources, and not take the first thing you see or read at face-value. There was a guy used to come to the pub with a new 'fact' every weekend. It was most enjoyable pulling apart his every argument because he had not researched it, not read any alternative views, probably not even read the second page of the article but there it was, 'I read it once so it must be true'.
I have actually heard said: "I won't have the COVID jab 'cos this medical worker on Facebook says it hasn't been tested properly and he wouldn't take it in a month of Sundays."
Did this person check to see if this 'medical worker' was anything to do with medicine? I doubt it. This person could have been a transsexual truck driver from Grimsby who's mother died twenty years after having a flu vaccine but because it was on the same day twenty years apart it was probably the cause of her death. It has always to be borne in mind that there are a lot of stupid people on this earth but the problem is, they don't know it. To quote a line from Jethro Tull (the band, not the agricultural inventor):
So you ride yourselves over the fields
And you make all your animal deals
And your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick
Facebook is probably fine for the individual so long as what is on there is taken with a pinch of scepticism because the secret of learning and understanding anything is to look for other opinions, other sources, and not take the first thing you see or read at face-value. There was a guy used to come to the pub with a new 'fact' every weekend. It was most enjoyable pulling apart his every argument because he had not researched it, not read any alternative views, probably not even read the second page of the article but there it was, 'I read it once so it must be true'.
I have actually heard said: "I won't have the COVID jab 'cos this medical worker on Facebook says it hasn't been tested properly and he wouldn't take it in a month of Sundays."
Did this person check to see if this 'medical worker' was anything to do with medicine? I doubt it. This person could have been a transsexual truck driver from Grimsby who's mother died twenty years after having a flu vaccine but because it was on the same day twenty years apart it was probably the cause of her death. It has always to be borne in mind that there are a lot of stupid people on this earth but the problem is, they don't know it. To quote a line from Jethro Tull (the band, not the agricultural inventor):
So you ride yourselves over the fields
And you make all your animal deals
And your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick
- Messages
- 114,434
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Clunk!Dear me. I think Robin's on a loser with this one
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes! I often think some of these conspiracy theorists sound like a loudmouth in a pub spouting his opinions
. Maybe I’m influenced by Farage who always likes to be seen with a glass in his hand .
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dear me. I think Robin's on a loser with this one
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Firstly, I think that what you have posted is an extremely well written and balanced view all about Facebook. It is well reasoned and moderate in its language rather than an emotional rant or post of hate.Have to come back on this,Robin It's more the case that the some [ie the 20% which you've highlighted] refer to those with a favourable view of MZ not the 56% that you're claiming as 'some' Obviously, 56% can be described as the majority ,by far, who view him in an unfavourable light..That's a massive 80% difference. No-one said that all, as you've stated, view him as unfavourable or to use your term... ' an evil king' .
I'm not sure why you've put that 43% (the figure for a favourable view) in bold to support your position. 47% view FB unfavourably and it can be seen that when detailed questions were put to participants you see a very different picture. As I've stated..69% believe Facebook has, in general, too much power. 57% believe Facebook is “primarily a harm to society” and 71% believe the company prioritises profits, even if it might cause societal damage. What a damning indictment of a social media company.
Re MZ.I obviously don't know him personally and neither, of course, do the respondents in either camp and the pollsters knew that so it really wasn't about him personally or the answer would have been a resounding "I don't know, I don't know him personally'' So, it's not been based on personal knowledge but how he runs FB which, you could say, reflects what he's about, at least as far as his business goes and how it's run which is a massive talking point at present and wide-raging.
Facebook is a reflection of society, you say.I don't agree. That's in response to the finding that 57% thought FB was 'primarily a harm to society' I'm not on FB so, over time, I've had to read up on it's content and how it ticks. I've listened to a few Five-Live phone-ins on the subject, too. I've come to the conclusion that, contrary to your belief, that it reflects society, it actually influences society. It certainly did so in the 2016 US election and also accused re our Brexit Leave campaign. Like other social media it's an enabler for all sorts, both good and bad. Facebook's sorting process places posts higher in members' newsfeed if they’re from like-minded friends which could well, or more likely, probably, distort their view of the world. This can lead to believing someone believing something even though many of their friends are saying something different because they just won’t see what they've written. FB gives a massive reach for those with minority and often generally unacceptable views which too many take onboard and sometimes, worse, act upon. You've only got to see the consequences of what those pedalling pseudoscience have achieved regarding Covid vaccines . So, FB, because of the way it operates.. ie..volume-driven, has actually allowed the anti-vaxers access to an ever-widening audience. It was feeding upon itself...exponentially and it's why Trump finds FB so useful. I mentioned how FB was used by the army in Myanmar in one of my posts in relation to the persecution of the Rohingya people but here's another example. In 2014 a post circulated on Facebook which falsely accused a Mandalay business owner of raping a female employee. That post lead to the gathering of a mob, which eventually lead to civil unrest .The original accusation in this instance was false but Facebook's massive distribution enabled it to grow quickly beyond the control of authorities. It's also allowed the likes of QAnon conspirators along with Boogaloo ( a far-right anti-government extremist movement originally neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the US)) and anti-climate change groups to post their drivel..dangerous drivel at that ,which gained traction before Facebook took steps to remove them. Actually, the climate change debates have been allowed to continue under the guise of 'opinion'. In each case Facebook had been warned for a long time of the potential for harm but failed to act until there was significant pressure from influential groups/politicians which forced them to do something about it and they eventually removed posts put up by those people. It needs to change from being reactive to becoming proactive.
None of the above is reflecting society, as you maintain, it's manifestly manipulating it.
As you say, Robin, I'm not a supporter and won't be until MZ gets to grip with it's negative aspects .I readily acknowledge that it has really good aspects but imo outweighed by the negative ones .I don't hold out much hope, though as Mark Zuckerberg is trying to encrypt the commonalty if that's the right term..I don't think it is.. working with the structures that link them may be a better description.... between WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook giving him one communications network that would reach an estimated 2.7 billion people and all under the ultimate control of one, and this is crucial,unaccountable man ...MZ. As they say, Robin...“What could go wrong?”
I still think that Facebook is a reflection of society and at the same time it exploits the way society is. The majority of the human race don't deserve to be on this planet in my opinion. If not via Facebook, people will always find a way to communicate (the mobile phone and other devices are here to stay).
To force Facebook to be more proactive rather than continue being reactive is, in principle, giving it even more power to influence people - Or at least those millions of sheep who are easily influenced. Regardless of the causes or high moral beliefs which you might want FB to be proactive about, it would then dictate.
But as long as someone believes that God is on their side, then it won't matter to them that they dictate.
I am not defending FB absolutely - They are run by humans too and there is inevitably both good and bad.
In judging Facebook I would rather base my opinions on my direct experience of using Facebook (and Instagram) every day and also my many years of experience of personally knowing people from all backgrounds, walks of life, and ages - Rather than media Phone-Ins or public opinion expressed in any media (including Facebook!).
I do understand and I support Facebook allowing the expression of all opinions whatever they are. Everything should be allowed to find its natural balance, as indeed it will in time. I wonder what is next in the news for people to get worked up about. Just like a thread on an internet discussion, it will slip down and get forgotten about as the train rock-n-rolls onwards.
Again, thank you John for taking the time to write such an articulate well reasoned response
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Robin, there’s no disagreement but criticism of Facebook is not about you it’s about the relatively small number of people who can be swayed by mad stories about Hilary Clinton abusing children and drinking their blood — I don’t think you fall into that category.... Firstly, I think that what you have posted is an extremely well written and balanced view all about Facebook. It is well reasoned and moderate in its language rather than an emotional rant or post of hate.
I still think that Facebook is a reflection of society and at the same time it exploits the way society is. The majority of the human race don't deserve to be on this planet in my opinion. If not via Facebook, people will always find a way to communicate (the mobile phone and other devices are here to stay).
To force Facebook to be more proactive rather than continue being reactive is, in principle, giving it even more power to influence people - Or at least those millions of sheep who are easily influenced. Regardless of the causes or high moral beliefs which you might want FB to be proactive about, it would then dictate.
But as long as someone believes that God is on their side, then it won't matter to them that they dictate.
I am not defending FB absolutely - They are run by humans too and there is inevitably both good and bad.
In judging Facebook I would rather base my opinions on my direct experience of using Facebook (and Instagram) every day and also my many years of experience of personally knowing people from all backgrounds, walks of life, and ages - Rather than media Phone-Ins or public opinion expressed in any media (including Facebook!).
I do understand and I support Facebook allowing the expression of all opinions whatever they are. Everything should be allowed to find its natural balance, as indeed it will in time. I wonder what is next in the news for people to get worked up about. Just like a thread on an internet discussion, it will slip down and get forgotten about as the train rock-n-rolls onwards.
Again, thank you John for taking the time to write such an articulate well reasoned response
. Sadly events have proved they can be manipulated and have an effect greater than their numbers would indicate .You use Facebook and find it useful, I use Amazon a lot and find it useful but that doesn’t mean I don‘t think it’s a threat in various ways!
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... Richard, you keep saying that it's not about me and I keep replying that I understand that and that all I am doing, and can do, is to use myself as an example to challenge and question what others are saying and claiming.Robin, there’s no disagreement but criticism of Facebook is not about you it’s about the relatively small number of people who can be swayed by mad stories about Hilary Clinton abusing children and drinking their blood — I don’t think you fall into that category
You use Facebook and find it useful, I use Amazon a lot and find it useful but that doesn’t mean I don‘t think it’s a threat in various ways!
With or without Facebook, people are stupid enough to be swayed by what they read in any media, not just Facebook. It is also the same regards the spoken word between people living in the same neighbourhood. Everything can get amplified and blown out of all proportion simply by the telling.
Everything in life is a threat if you let it be. Living life is fatal.
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
But since it’s not about you how can you use yourself as an example?
I agree with what you say about things that have always happened but I, and apparently some others, can see that Facebook amplifies things in a way that’s seldom happened before — mob hysteria was usually localised. It used to take the power of the state to do these sorts of things nationally, let alone internationally — as with Germany, Russia, China in recent history.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... I am merely describing how I see Facebook in response to the very different and rather opposite way which some/many others see it. I wish you could understand that.
Rightly or wrongly I simply don't see Facebook as the danger to world peace that you and some (or many) others appear to think it is.
Is Mr Zuckerberg the modern Mr Hitler? A Jew being a Nazi? How ironic would that be!
- Messages
- 18,340
- Edit My Images
- No
You think? You haven’t been keeping up with events in the Middle East since 1967 then? I suppose you think apartheid no longer exists either.
- Messages
- 9,425
- Name
- Robin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.... What on earth has that got to do with this discussion about Facebook and its head Mark Zuckerberg?