Why Facebook is Bad for Humans and Villages

I do not always agree with Jimmy Dore but I always urge people to find alternatives to Facebook. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzFTAeEzJ8

I have once again tried to do my due diligence and sit through a Jimmy Dore video. I made it through 5 minutes this time before I gave up.

Maybe someone can give me a summary of his startling insights.

and before anyone decides to waste their time, you can read this. I always suspected, but didn't actually know, that he was such a loon.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore

Video title: "Whistleblower Exposes Facebook Censorship Techniques - Mindblowing"

Jimmy thinks that FB is keeping his videos from appearing before more unwilling viewers.

There are good reasons for an alternative to Facebook.  Jimmy Dore's tin-foil hat reason isn't one of them.

sometimes it’s a good idea to pay attention what the guest is saying even if you don’t like the host. Sometimes it’s good to listen to people you don’t even like. I won’t go so far as to suggest anybody do those things tho. It’s so much more fun to simply dismiss!

It is so simple.  I don't do Facebook.  

If/when I want to share something with friends or relatives, I simply contact them directly.  A bit old fashioned perhaps, but it works.

there’s nothing wrong with using Facebook as long as you don’t mind censorship or data whoring. That’s my view. 

Lovesagoodsale said: sometimes it’s a good idea to pay attention what the guest is saying even if you don’t like the host. Sometimes it’s good to listen to people you don’t even like. I won’t go so far as to suggest anybody do those things tho. It’s so much more fun to simply dismiss!

Tell you what, can you briefly summarize the thesis in this video?

yes. It describes methods of censorship. Facebook develops algorithms to censor people and small media platforms more than ever since they signed a deal with Fox News, CNN and ABC. In Facebook, the product is you and you are allowed to participate as long as your opinion does not come up against one of the huge, powerful sponsors of this platform. No rights for the users. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
yes. It describes methods of censorship. Facebook develops algorithms to censor people and small media platforms more than ever since they signed a deal with Fox News, CNN and ABC. In Facebook, the product is you and you are allowed to participate as long as your opinion does not come up against one of the huge, powerful sponsors of this platform. No rights for the users. 

I thought the cable channels compete against each other to the point that they even present different 'facts'.  So Fox News wouldn't want to censor something that might make CNN look bad, they would go out of their way to publish it.    

I encourage freedom of thought!  Go right ahead!

Lovesagoodsale said:
sometimes it’s a good idea to pay attention what the guest is saying even if you don’t like the host. Sometimes it’s good to listen to people you don’t even like. I won’t go so far as to suggest anybody do those things tho. It’s so much more fun to simply dismiss!

 I listened to the guest very carefully. He had nothing to say. He pointed out a couple of things, and then he and Dore went off making assumptions based on nothing but their imaginations.

Lovesagoodsale said:
yes. It describes methods of censorship. Facebook develops algorithms to censor people and small media platforms more than ever since they signed a deal with Fox News, CNN and ABC. In Facebook, the product is you and you are allowed to participate as long as your opinion does not come up against one of the huge, powerful sponsors of this platform. No rights for the users. 

 There is absolutely no proof of this. None. Zilcho.

And I pretty much hate Facebook, but they're faced with a pretty difficult situation. The government is beating on them to clean up their content, and then you have guys like Dore screaming that they're being censored.

You try to clean up the content coming from billions of users. It ain't easy.

drummerboy said:
I have once again tried to do my due diligence and sit through a Jimmy Dore video. I made it through 5 minutes this time before I gave up.

Maybe someone can give me a summary of his startling insights.

 He mispronounced his guest's name twice within the first minute.  I had to stop there.  

“clean up content” hmmmm. 

censorship seeps in. Then you watch people make excuses for it. So be it. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
censorship seeps in. Then you watch people make excuses for it. So be it. 

 If your post suggests that people responding to you here are making excuses for censorship, your perception is lousy.

The internet helps people find everything faster, including trouble.

Well, the problem here I think is talking about censorship in the context of Facebook. They are a company, not a government. They offer a free service which comes with a boatload of conditions. 

Ultimately you are playing in their sandbox. If they ask you to leave the sandbox they have every right to do so. It belongs to them.

In my mind the bigger problem is how much information has been turned over to Facebook. And how much they've created dependency. It's getting harder to live without Facebook, especially with a kid in school. Events are announced and coordinated through Facebook, for instance. 

So it's more like living in a neighborhood where one private house becomes the place where everyone hangs out. If you want to see your neighbors and know what's going on you have to go to that house. To the point where not going there isolates you from your neighbors. If the owner decides they don't like you or your opinions they are within their rights to ask you to mind what you say, or to ask you to leave entirely. 

Billions of people have entered into this arrangement willingly. But calling it censorship misses the point, and complaining about lack of rights misses the point as well.

many politics leaders now use Facebook as the place to go for live-streaming. The corporations lobby the government. The lines are no longer clear. 

if you think there should be no regulation that’s fine. If you think there should be regulations that’s fine. What we give up in terms of data is only known after somebody sues or is asked to appear before Congress. If there is no political component, it’s a truly private platform. When elected officials use it to disseminate info, that morphs. 

I wonder what Martin Niemöller would say. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
many politics leaders now use Facebook as the place to go for live-streaming. The corporations lobby the government. The lines are no longer clear. 

 I'm curious as to what you think the solution is to this problem. What should Facebook do regarding content? Nothing?

Lovesagoodsale said:
I wonder what Martin Niemöller would say. 

 "First they came for Facebook, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not Mark Zuckerberg".

And why this thread is in the Education section I have no idea.

the solution to losing one’s rights is not to give them up voluntarily in the first place. As to why this is in the education section, think about it. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
many politics leaders now use Facebook as the place to go for live-streaming. The corporations lobby the government. The lines are no longer clear. 

 The lines are perfectly clear. But people have no problem crossing them for the sake of convenience. 

At this point I think everyone should assume if you have data online, especially with a free service, it's not private. Facebook has betrayed its users' trust pretty publicly a bunch of times and are still in business. 

What regulations do you desire that would protect Facebook users?

personally, I abhor censorship of any kind outside of expression which explicitly promotes violence. The test of time has shown that censorship of speech can lead to violence. 

what about you mrincredible?  I think a large part of the problem is that there is a big lack of understanding of how this stuff works for those people who did not grow up in a digital world. They may not realize how their data is being used to creat a profile about them that includes what they buy and what they like or don’t like in politics. I imagine if most of these people in the older generations had any idea how this info is used, they would protect themselves against the invasion. It’s almost as if they want to get all our data before we figure out what’s happening. 

In the interview, the guest says they want control of Facebook because it is the platform young people use when young people actually don’t use Facebook anymore because they understand how the algorithms steer them and also collect their data. They are way more savvy than most of the middle-aged folks. 

Protecting your privacy is a good idea just for general reasons. 

drummerboy said:
and before anyone decides to waste their time, you can read this. I always suspected, but didn't actually know, that he was such a loon.



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jimmy_Dore

 That led me to this, which is the term I've been looking for to describe countless posts on this board.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_minority#Second-option_bias