I'm 100% okay with never seeing a paid political ad on Twitter regardless of the views of the ad. I was already mentally preparing for the shitshow that's coming for 2020.
Facebook makes shadow profiles of people who don't sign up. They have zero interest in consent. Zuckerberg would grab your wallet and write everything down if he could.
Facebook makes shadow profiles of people who don't sign up. They have zero interest in consent. Zuckerberg would grab your wallet and write everything down if he could.
Remember, Zuckerberg stole the pictures of female Harvard students he used in his original HotOrNot clone. Consent has never been part of his vocabulary.
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Presumably they have all of our real names then, what does it matter what you call yourself? Can't they just market based on the information they have?
I'm 100% okay with never seeing a paid political ad on Twitter regardless of the views of the ad. I was already mentally preparing for the shitshow that's coming for 2020.
Yeah sure
The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see the ads, it’s the coming shitshow of “enforcement” that will get someone in trouble for advertising a creek clean up event in their town but do nothing about the white nationalists harassing someone
This quickly went from “interesting concept” to “of course twitter went the path of least work/thought” and is a giant new vector for the fuck bigots to harass and get people banned
Presumably they have all of our real names then, what does it matter what you call yourself? Can't they just market based on the information they have?
Remember that on top of the whole "you are the product" thing, Zuckerberg is explicitly opposed to the concept of privacy in pretty much any context. He does not want the concept to exist anymore, and has said so publicly on many, many occasions.
The real name policy isn't just candy to marketing types; at least part of it is ideological, since he doesn't believe people should be allowed to hide.
Presumably they have all of our real names then, what does it matter what you call yourself? Can't they just market based on the information they have?
Remember that on top of the whole "you are the product" thing, Zuckerberg is explicitly opposed to the concept of privacy in pretty much any context. He does not want the concept to exist anymore, and has said so publicly on many, many occasions.
The real name policy isn't just candy to marketing types; at least part of it is ideological, since he doesn't believe people should be allowed to hide.
No, he believes that we should not be allowed to hide. He, on the other hand, should be afforded privacy - as his purchase of all the land around his home attests.
If there is one trait that defines Zuckerberg, it is hypocrisy.
Presumably they have all of our real names then, what does it matter what you call yourself? Can't they just market based on the information they have?
As I understand it, your shadow profile is based on how others refer to you. They're probably less interested in what's specifically on your birth certificate (if no one uses it) than whether you're using an alias that doesn't connect you to all that second-hand you-data they've been amassing.
Presumably they have all of our real names then, what does it matter what you call yourself? Can't they just market based on the information they have?
Remember that on top of the whole "you are the product" thing, Zuckerberg is explicitly opposed to the concept of privacy in pretty much any context. He does not want the concept to exist anymore, and has said so publicly on many, many occasions.
The real name policy isn't just candy to marketing types; at least part of it is ideological, since he doesn't believe people should be allowed to hide.
No, he believes that we should not be allowed to hide. He, on the other hand, should be afforded privacy - as his purchase of all the land around his home attests.
If there is one trait that defines Zuckerberg, it is hypocrisy.
Yeah, mentally I'm adding to the "If I Become Fuck Off Rich" list the entry of "24 hours drone camera and laser mike surveillance of Zuckerberg."
I'm 100% okay with never seeing a paid political ad on Twitter regardless of the views of the ad. I was already mentally preparing for the shitshow that's coming for 2020.
Yeah sure
The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see the ads, it’s the coming shitshow of “enforcement” that will get someone in trouble for advertising a creek clean up event in their town but do nothing about the white nationalists harassing someone
I'm sorry I'm not following. What are white nationalists doing to a creek clean up event?
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Twitter and Facebook want that sweet corporate ad money. Much like how TV shows are not the product a station produces (it's the content it uses to capture an audience), neither is the content on Facebook its product: we are the product.
Allowed:
"We're Exxon/Bluecross and we're awesome!"
Not Allowed:
"Exxon/Bluecross are killing the planet/the people."
If a company is in the business of causing a major issue as part of its business plan it appears they're good.
Twitter could surprise me and tell Shell they don't want their money anymore but that is something I'll only believe when I see it.
The Oil company ads seem like a bad example. I think you could easily argue that an ad focused on specific harmful business practices of a specific company isn't a political ad.
I think the problem vectors here are going to be "apolitical" ads that pontificate on the virtues ethnic homogeny, and "blatant liberal propaganda" advertising a support hotline for LGBTQ teens.
I'm 100% okay with never seeing a paid political ad on Twitter regardless of the views of the ad. I was already mentally preparing for the shitshow that's coming for 2020.
Yeah sure
The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see the ads, it’s the coming shitshow of “enforcement” that will get someone in trouble for advertising a creek clean up event in their town but do nothing about the white nationalists harassing someone
I'm sorry I'm not following. What are white nationalists doing to a creek clean up event?
Twitter's TOS enforcement generally consists of "bend over backwards to find loopholes for far-right activity, but come down like a nitpicky rain of anvils on anyone else."
Twitter's not as bad about it as Facebook, which has recently started saying explicit threats of murder are okay if they're directed at people left of Reagan, but they've still got the same double standard.
I see. But we're still talking strictly about promoted ads on Twitter. I've honestly never seen anything political show up on it so far... It's mostly shitty games and whatnot. I was worried that 2020 was going to change that. If it ends up working and I never see an ad through all of next year then I'll be happy.
I think we're kind of making things up to get mad about before it's even happened. Let's just wait until it actually goes into effect and something shitty happens before we raise our collective blood pressure.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
"Political message reach should be 'earned'" says the man who controls the algorithms that decide what you get shown
Dorsey and Zuckerberg should take out a joint op-ed entitled "Look, Just Tell Us What We Need to Do to Keep All Our Money but Avoid All Responsibility, Thinking about This Ourselves is Extremely Tiresome"
If you only look at your feed, and only look at latest tweets, there is no algorithm between you and the people you follow.
Yes, if we ignore how social media works, then social media is fine.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Twitter defaults to the algorithm. Showing tweets in chronological order requires clicking a button and then having to frequently click it again because it automatically changes back to the algorithm after a while.
And Twitter has kept on adding more algorithmic stuff that users see automatically like tweets others liked or tweets from people others follow.
The rest is stuff that shows up when you aren't on most recent tweets.
I think Twitter has a lot of problems, but it's engagement algorithms are very easy to turn off and ignore, and was the default setting for much of the services life
The rest is stuff that shows up when you aren't on most recent tweets.
I think Twitter has a lot of problems, but it's engagement algorithms are very easy to turn off and ignore, and was the default setting for much of the services life
They have not stopped doing the top part, I just had to switch it back to chronological today.
The rest is stuff that shows up when you aren't on most recent tweets.
I think Twitter has a lot of problems, but it's engagement algorithms are very easy to turn off and ignore, and was the default setting for much of the services life
I just checked.
Top Tweets are ones you are likely to care about most, and we choose them based on accounts you interact with most, Tweets you engage with, and much more.
They don't even consider seeing then in chronological order as a possible "Home."
As a daily user of Twitter on Android, it does not do that anymore, it used to do it once a month or whatever. But not for a long time now
Edit: after looking at your acreenshot, it seems clear that it doesn't do that to daily users only people that "have been away for a while" since I'm a daily user it didn't effect me, which is why I said that.
Yeah, yeah, some of it is old posts with new comments, but that doesn't always seem to be the case.
It's wishful thinking on FB's part to keep people scrolling. The wishful part is that reasoning which says if you stay longer then they earn more advertising dollars. Problem with this is the multitude of assumptions built into it. Like you don't run an ad blocker. Or that advertisement works on the attention model. Or you don't find a different plug-in that reverses their futzing around with the "timeline" or "newsfeed" or whatever they're calling it this week. The same can be said of how Alphabet/Google handles gmail. Whatever works internally for some of their people is assumed to work for everyone. Which all that does is show you don't understand 1) Who your customers are 2) What those customers want or 3) why people flocked to your product in the first place.
Do you really think that Jack, Zuck, et al, are able to process the idea that their current fortunes exist out of sheer luck? Or that they'd admit that in public? With the way the stockmarket works these days, that'd be a death knell. The market demands that you be a clairvoyant savant who can perfectly predict just how much you're going to make this quarter and if you don't then heaven help your stock price.
All of this explains why the product movements are so haphazard if not seemingly random from the outside. That's because they are. Luck brought these people to the top of the tech world. Greed keeps them there. And the avarice of the market demands that they do anything and everything to keep the cash flowing as much and as fast as possible.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
It's just safer to not use Facebook. I thought it would be hard to suspend my account. "How will people get ahold of me?" I thought.
Turns out that if you actually want them to be a part of your life then you figure it out without Facebook.
This is coming from a guy who has 3 kids and almost 0 family in the immediate area.
I re-enabled my Facebook when I moved from KC to Seattle without knowing anyone out here
"It'll be a good way to connect with new people I meet!"
Then, after continuing to not use it once in my first six months in Seattle, I deleted it.
I've been hesitant to engage in "Facebook" itself. Use Messenger all the time for people I want to communicate with (international texting rates suuuuuck), but tend to avoid the main page stuff (feeds, posts, threads, etc).
I know I'm still adding to their global footprint, but it makes it a lot easier to ignore all the other stuff (like ads, racists, and wankers), and if someone annoys me, I can easily mute them.
I'm kind of stuck on Facebook because of the sheer number of people I keep in contact with through it, including professional contacts. It is rather frustrating.
I've lost networking opportunities by refusing to have a facebook profile, and I am a thorn in the side of my relatives' efforts to organize family gatherings on social media. I have everything to gain if facebook suddenly disappears
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+8
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
This quickly went from “interesting concept” to “of course twitter went the path of least work/thought” and is a giant new vector for the fuck bigots to harass and get people banned
there is no plan that wouldn't lead to a way that twitter could fuck over vulnerable people.
personally I prefer the blanket option (though of course we still have to fight the 'what is politics' battle) to the idea of them parsing what's "true" or like "dangerous" or whatever.
I've lost networking opportunities by refusing to have a facebook profile, and I am a thorn in the side of my relatives' efforts to organize family gatherings on social media. I have everything to gain if facebook suddenly disappears
I don’t see how this would change. Some other platform would fill the void and you’d be right back in the same position (or one close enough to be mostly indistinguishable to it) shortly thereafter.
Unless all social media is blown up and made illegal or something, another group will step up. Oh sure, getting buy in from everyone would be a challenge, but once enough momentum went to one of them, I suspect we’d end up roughly where we are now, though hopefully with less incompetence and greed and whatnot.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
Because they need accurate data to sell.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Because Facebook's business model is based on you using your real name, as that's how they build their social graph.
Remember, Zuckerberg stole the pictures of female Harvard students he used in his original HotOrNot clone. Consent has never been part of his vocabulary.
Yeah sure
The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see the ads, it’s the coming shitshow of “enforcement” that will get someone in trouble for advertising a creek clean up event in their town but do nothing about the white nationalists harassing someone
Remember that on top of the whole "you are the product" thing, Zuckerberg is explicitly opposed to the concept of privacy in pretty much any context. He does not want the concept to exist anymore, and has said so publicly on many, many occasions.
The real name policy isn't just candy to marketing types; at least part of it is ideological, since he doesn't believe people should be allowed to hide.
No, he believes that we should not be allowed to hide. He, on the other hand, should be afforded privacy - as his purchase of all the land around his home attests.
If there is one trait that defines Zuckerberg, it is hypocrisy.
As I understand it, your shadow profile is based on how others refer to you. They're probably less interested in what's specifically on your birth certificate (if no one uses it) than whether you're using an alias that doesn't connect you to all that second-hand you-data they've been amassing.
Yeah, mentally I'm adding to the "If I Become Fuck Off Rich" list the entry of "24 hours drone camera and laser mike surveillance of Zuckerberg."
I'm sorry I'm not following. What are white nationalists doing to a creek clean up event?
"We're Exxon/Bluecross and we're awesome!"
Not Allowed:
"Exxon/Bluecross are killing the planet/the people."
If a company is in the business of causing a major issue as part of its business plan it appears they're good.
Twitter could surprise me and tell Shell they don't want their money anymore but that is something I'll only believe when I see it.
The Oil company ads seem like a bad example. I think you could easily argue that an ad focused on specific harmful business practices of a specific company isn't a political ad.
I think the problem vectors here are going to be "apolitical" ads that pontificate on the virtues ethnic homogeny, and "blatant liberal propaganda" advertising a support hotline for LGBTQ teens.
Twitter's TOS enforcement generally consists of "bend over backwards to find loopholes for far-right activity, but come down like a nitpicky rain of anvils on anyone else."
Twitter's not as bad about it as Facebook, which has recently started saying explicit threats of murder are okay if they're directed at people left of Reagan, but they've still got the same double standard.
I think we're kind of making things up to get mad about before it's even happened. Let's just wait until it actually goes into effect and something shitty happens before we raise our collective blood pressure.
"Political message reach should be 'earned'" says the man who controls the algorithms that decide what you get shown
Dorsey and Zuckerberg should take out a joint op-ed entitled "Look, Just Tell Us What We Need to Do to Keep All Our Money but Avoid All Responsibility, Thinking about This Ourselves is Extremely Tiresome"
Yes, if we ignore how social media works, then social media is fine.
That really isn't Twitter's problem.
And Twitter has kept on adding more algorithmic stuff that users see automatically like tweets others liked or tweets from people others follow.
The same is true of other social media sites.
The rest is stuff that shows up when you aren't on most recent tweets.
I think Twitter has a lot of problems, but it's engagement algorithms are very easy to turn off and ignore, and was the default setting for much of the services life
They have not stopped doing the top part, I just had to switch it back to chronological today.
They don't even consider seeing then in chronological order as a possible "Home."
*Posted 3 hours ago*
*Posted 6 hours ago*
*Posted 1 hour ago*
*Posted 3 days ago*
*Posted 5 minutes ago*
THIS ISN'T HOW CHRONOLOGY WORKS!
Yeah, yeah, some of it is old posts with new comments, but that doesn't always seem to be the case.
As a daily user of Twitter on Android, it does not do that anymore, it used to do it once a month or whatever. But not for a long time now
Edit: after looking at your acreenshot, it seems clear that it doesn't do that to daily users only people that "have been away for a while" since I'm a daily user it didn't effect me, which is why I said that.
Sorry for misleading
There is a browser extension called social fixer that will take care of that and give you a bunch of useful filters to block shit you don't want.
It's wishful thinking on FB's part to keep people scrolling. The wishful part is that reasoning which says if you stay longer then they earn more advertising dollars. Problem with this is the multitude of assumptions built into it. Like you don't run an ad blocker. Or that advertisement works on the attention model. Or you don't find a different plug-in that reverses their futzing around with the "timeline" or "newsfeed" or whatever they're calling it this week. The same can be said of how Alphabet/Google handles gmail. Whatever works internally for some of their people is assumed to work for everyone. Which all that does is show you don't understand 1) Who your customers are 2) What those customers want or 3) why people flocked to your product in the first place.
Do you really think that Jack, Zuck, et al, are able to process the idea that their current fortunes exist out of sheer luck? Or that they'd admit that in public? With the way the stockmarket works these days, that'd be a death knell. The market demands that you be a clairvoyant savant who can perfectly predict just how much you're going to make this quarter and if you don't then heaven help your stock price.
All of this explains why the product movements are so haphazard if not seemingly random from the outside. That's because they are. Luck brought these people to the top of the tech world. Greed keeps them there. And the avarice of the market demands that they do anything and everything to keep the cash flowing as much and as fast as possible.
it seems to require some odd permissions
Turns out that if you actually want them to be a part of your life then you figure it out without Facebook.
This is coming from a guy who has 3 kids and almost 0 family in the immediate area.
I re-enabled my Facebook when I moved from KC to Seattle without knowing anyone out here
"It'll be a good way to connect with new people I meet!"
Then, after continuing to not use it once in my first six months in Seattle, I deleted it.
I've been hesitant to engage in "Facebook" itself. Use Messenger all the time for people I want to communicate with (international texting rates suuuuuck), but tend to avoid the main page stuff (feeds, posts, threads, etc).
I know I'm still adding to their global footprint, but it makes it a lot easier to ignore all the other stuff (like ads, racists, and wankers), and if someone annoys me, I can easily mute them.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
there is no plan that wouldn't lead to a way that twitter could fuck over vulnerable people.
personally I prefer the blanket option (though of course we still have to fight the 'what is politics' battle) to the idea of them parsing what's "true" or like "dangerous" or whatever.
I don’t see how this would change. Some other platform would fill the void and you’d be right back in the same position (or one close enough to be mostly indistinguishable to it) shortly thereafter.
Unless all social media is blown up and made illegal or something, another group will step up. Oh sure, getting buy in from everyone would be a challenge, but once enough momentum went to one of them, I suspect we’d end up roughly where we are now, though hopefully with less incompetence and greed and whatnot.