porlune
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/comments/souuve/dad_mic...
Black Friday Is Causing Toxic Traffic Jams at US Ports and Warehouses
Jetson One
>>>Avoiding mass censorship efforts doesn’t mean we’re powerless to do anything. There are clear changes that can be made to Facebook’s algorithms, design, central mission, and resourcing that would bring it closer to the true public service it claims to be than the nihilistic, profit-making juggernaut it operates like, and none of them would threaten our right to speak freely or mess with our ability to stay in touch with loved ones, organize events, or such platforms’ other useful features.
The author makes a couple of attempts to characterize Facebook as a "utility", and even provides a link [1] to eff.org as proof of that claim as though being a public service is enough to constitute being declared a utility in need of direct regulation.
The author also claims that Facebook is "deliberately designed to be addictive", which I concede is true. I'd like to further point out that HN is also addictive, and seems to have been designed with absolutely no interest in making it addictive. And lastly, I'd like to mention that the US government recently relaxed its laws concerning government funded propaganda[2].
So I have a couple of questions:
1. If government wants a social media utility, then why doesn't it attempt to buy or build one that it can more easily regulate/understand?
2. Is social media itself an addictive element in our lives?
3. Is the level of addiction similar in harm to that of television, YouTube, or news aggregation sites? How would you rate it?
4. How do you justify asking government to offer (potentially) addictive services as public utilities?
5. With respect to the deregulation of propaganda, should Facebook be held to a higher standard than our government?
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/utilities-governed-emp...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization...
Rocket Mail
If you think I'm wrong on a technical level, could you please explain how?
It seems generally less believable that Facebook would censor people without telling them.
Other commenters [0] appear to believe the same as I do, and note that FB typically informs the user that their action/behavior is against the site's terms of use.
When I attempt to navigate to gnews.org the site is very slow, and I wonder if Facebook is having trouble assigning some kind of risk factor to it, then giving up, but ends up sending a "success" response anyway, whereby the front end just assumes the message was sent property and pushes it to your message cache without attempting to fetch it over the network.
edit: since this has been down voted, could you explain why you think I'm wrong?
Not exactly, just because you've replaced those calories doesn't mean that your body didn't gain muscle mass which itself requires calories just for your body to maintain. This leads to a higher basal metabolic rate, which ends up burning calories even while you rest.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/2025+E+Apache+Blvd,+Tempe,...
I don't mind saying "ya'll", but policing the vernacular of an individual based on their sexual organs is fairly concerning.