I only found ads, prostitution services, pages of kids that seemed inappropriate, rumours, fake news, x minute craft videos with medical misinformation, make up videos with toxic products, etc on my 15 minutes of usage.

Live streams of people similar to this: https://ibb.co/0yBqf1n

Facebook groups are full of living ads. Most pages recommended didn't have any activity this year.

Everything is turned on by default on the privacy settings page. It includes facial recognition, content analysis, phone number, birthday information, and whatever you shared on sign up (everything). That data is available for everyone else too by default and there is no way to make a profile completely private or hidden.

Because this reminds me of a comment I read by someone saying that Instagram only showed photos of scantily clad women, followed by noticing his account mostly followed scantily clad women

All those things are against their policy and some of it is illegal so it shouldn't be on it with thousands of likes.

> fb ads are served based on off site web history and cross domain activity right

Good point. There should be more regulation on this.

"Why is my..." "when do we..." "how to ask..." "How do I..." "how to tell if i got" "divorce attorneys <city>"

While this post may seem unsubstantial at best, my point is to never search for anything personal while connected to a shared wifi network - even if you're doing it from the privacy of your own device.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook...

https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/working-to-stop-...

Also:

> Willis: Is it safe to say that anything that cannot be patented has been shut down intentionally because there's no way to profit from it, all these natural remedies that we have had forever?

> Mikovits: Absolutely, that's fair to say.

While obviously there are abuses from time to time (if you want a good example, check out the history of leaded gasoline :-| ), what she's saying is absolutely crazy. You're not going to cure cancer with "natural remedies". You're not going to cure Alzheimers with "natural remedies". That alone is enough to discredit the source.

You don't even need to go too deep into character assassination, it's blatant that she's an untrustworthy source if you actually do some research, instead of going on gut feelings.

I can't believe I'm having this discussion on HN...

It does not sound like she made a claim regarding the efficacy of natural remedies rather questioning the default labeling of non profitable treatments as pseudoscientific junk.

Did you actually watch the video?

As a rational person with a fair understanding of how business, markets and law work, I find it hard to believe that any party would intentionally create, or release the coronavirus for financial or political gain when there are other, easier and less damaging ways to achieve the same goal. The pandemic has ripple effects on pretty much every domain in the market and any short-term gain (let’s say for pharma or PPE) companies would be wiped out by the negative consequences (imagine you were a company producing PPE among other things, your PPE profits would explode but then your “other things” profits would collapse for several years while the expenses of the production line for those other things would still pile up).

When it comes to the idea that it was an act of war from China, they too were affected very badly to a point where I don’t believe it was a worthwhile tradeoff, thus discounting this possibility.

There have indeed been mistakes committed during the response to the pandemic including by the WHO (especially around their advice with regards to face masks), however I believe these were due to incompetence rather than any malicious intent.

As long as I get to decide this, I can ensure that my bias controls the narrative to whatever extent I can

Recently I saw a story alleging mailboxes were being taken away in a conspiracy to manipulate the election. All the facts are true but they can be assembled to fit this kind of conspiratorial narrative, which is weak because tend of thousands of mailboxes are moved all the time.

You could rate this "unproven" if you were being consistent but it doesn't help Democrats so why would you?

As long as people are in charge of these things it's never going to be fair and they'll always have the power to influence swing voters.