FB: Locked. Government Photo ID

[Bootstrap]

i have 1 FB friend, my daughter. i see family pics there. no politics. or current events.
she barely uses FB, very private. she has a few hundred friends.
her daughter is not allowed.

I think that's a great way to use FB. You can prioritize your feed so that you see the people you want to hear from first. I have it set so I hear from my family and people I really care about. You can pick up to 30 people.

i “follow” a few pages. i have “unfollowed” a few.
some are quite interesting. i’ve thot of sharing them here. mostly ancient history sites.
some are Christian-centered, like, Scroll Publishing.
a couple are MN members’ business pages. i enjoy those.

Me too. I avoid following political pages. I am on pages related to Christianity, scholarly study of the Bible, hiking, Bushcraft, etc.

i see “news feed” posts .. some topics from around the world i would not otherwise think about.
some sources are new to me. i enjoy reading comments from people from all over.
when it’s something of interest, i go to their websites, or google for more info.

Just be aware that (1) every click and every like generates information on how you think so advertisers know how to target you better, (2) this is especially true if you take personality profiles linked to FaceBook, and (3) these advertisers use this information to target you and your friends by identifying clusters of people who may be receptive to what they want to promote.

So I think customizing your feed to prioritize human contact rather than politics is usually wise. And even then, take a good look at your privacy settings, don't allow apps, etc.

FB stocks plunged (Robert’s note that FB is a temporary entity might be on the conservative side:)
March 2018 / “Facebook User Engagement Falls After Data Scandal”
https://money.usnews.com/investing/stoc ... c-fb-stock

They plunged precisely because of fears that people might care about their privacy and how FB has fueled polarization in politics. The FB business model relies on selling your data to others, and that gets used way beyond Facebook. Changing their business model may affect their profits.

[Josh]

Doesn't society have a place to regulate this, though? That's what Europe is doing with the GDPR.

historically, U.S. prevailing wisdom has been to let the market determine outcomes.
i generally agree.

that does not mean consumers have no voice other than their wallets.
customer complaints, customer requests, are fair play, too.

I think that's part true and part myth - America has also had regulated markets. When monopolies formed, we passed laws to break up trusts. That's why we don't have Standard Oil anymore. Markets aren't very good at dealing with monopolies.

AT&T eventually had a monopoly where they could control a great deal of long distance communication in the U.S. There are other, small phone companies, but AT&T had effective control. Things like Facebook (and their subsidiaries, like WhatsApp) give them a near-monopoly on how people communicate. The government broke up this monopoly in the 1980s, and I would not be surprised to see the same happen to an entity like Facebook.

[temporal1]

Doesn't society have a place to regulate this, though? That's what Europe is doing with the GDPR.

historically, U.S. prevailing wisdom has been to let the market determine outcomes.
i generally agree.

that does not mean consumers have no voice other than their wallets.
customer complaints, customer requests, are fair play, too.

I think that's part true and part myth - America has also had regulated markets. When monopolies formed, we passed laws to break up trusts. That's why we don't have Standard Oil anymore. Markets aren't very good at dealing with monopolies.

AT&T eventually had a monopoly where they could control a great deal of long distance communication in the U.S. There are other, small phone companies, but AT&T had effective control. Things like Facebook (and their subsidiaries, like WhatsApp) give them a near-monopoly on how people communicate. The government broke up this monopoly in the 1980s, and I would not be surprised to see the same happen to an entity like Facebook.

it will be interesting to see what kinds of deals MZ is/was able to cut with lawmakers today .. before facing Congress. if details are forthcoming.

as far as allowing the market to decide ..
does this even happen anymore? with so much government interference, including subsidies, tax credits and incentives, etc., AND, wealthy organized activists and lobbies controlling outcomes - what sort of market is left to determine anything! everything is potentially tampered with.

one example that pops into my head now+then is .. i have read, early on, Planned Parenthood was about to fail on its own. then, it picked up government funding, it then grew into what we see today. i seriously doubt there is a financial need for gov funding for PP. but, with that funding comes along legal viability and protection to exist. i believe the latter is what PP fights so doggedly to maintain.

these are my perceptions from things i’ve read about PP over years.

my point here is, government can and does fund entities that would otherwise fail.
that’s important in limited ways that serve the greater public good.
it’s terrible when it’s misused in ways that harm. special interest activists+lobbies have too much power. i’m not even sure that’s a question anymore. what to do about it is the question.

[temporal1]

Possibly, Diamond and Silk will be granted FB grace:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/04/09/ ... rance.html

FB had better try and stay on the right side of Mark Robinson.
now, he could cause a ruckus for them.

[RZehr]

Seems to me if bakerys are compelled to be non discriminatory, then Facebook and YouTube should have the same requirements.

Why are they free to abide and operate by their values and bakers are not? Plus they are publicly owned, not private.

[Bootstrap]

A publicly traded company does not belong to the general public, that doesn't make much of a difference in the law.

But so far, social media companies have lived in this weird legal area where they claim to be tech companies, taking no legal responsibility for the content, and not being completely transparent about the data they gather on you and how they use it to make money. The apps you install on your phone also have significant privacy issues - and even if you say an app should not access something when you install it, that doesn't mean it doesn't. People are gathering information on us and our social networks, using things like online personality tests, group membership, online activity associated with your email address, etc. to find out as much as they can about you and target you - mostly to try to sell you things or to stroke your fears and grievances in order to make you receptive to political messages.

Most of this cuts across political boundaries. And it's especially important given the power social media has in our politics. For instance, can a politician say things in social media that would get most users blocked, but avoid the consequences? Can a politician use social media as a public platform, allow anyone who agrees with him to respond, and block people who disagree with him from responding?  Can foreign powers create bots with accounts that look like they are run by human beings and use them to promote candidates in elections, using all this nicely harvested data about each of us?

Right now, the law is nowhere near clear enough.

[MaxPC]

Seems to me if bakerys are compelled to be non discriminatory, then Facebook and YouTube should have the same requirements.

Why are they free to abide and operate by their values and bakers are not? Plus they are publicly owned, not private.

You're question is the core of the matter, RZehr.

[Josh]

I think European GDPR moves in the right direction and companies are required to comply with it when EU citizens are abroad.

[RZehr]

A publicly traded company does not belong to the general public, that doesn't make much of a difference in the law.

Maybe it should. Private companies are not held to the level of accountability that publicly owned companies are.
On one side it shouldn't make a difference on how the public is protected.
But on the other hand a privately owned company, especially a sole proprietor, should have a high level of leeway and credibility to operate according to his values. He is directly and solely accountable for the business. A publicly owned companies values can be there, but they have additional responsibilities to their shareholders, who may or may not share values.

But so far, social media companies have lived in this weird legal area where they claim to be tech companies, taking no legal responsibility for the content, and not being completely transparent about the data they gather on you and how they use it to make money.

It's fine if they aren't responsible for the content. But they are discriminating against people based on conflicting values. The baker arguably isn't responsible for what is ordered either, but yet apparently they must serve the customer.

The apps you install on your phone also have significant privacy issues - and even if you say an app should not access something when you install it, that doesn't mean it doesn't. People are gathering information on us and our social networks, using things like online personality tests, group membership, online activity associated with your email address, etc. to find out as much as they can about you and target you - mostly to try to sell you things or to stroke your fears and grievances in order to make you receptive to political messages.

This isn't my gripe today.

Most of this cuts across political boundaries. And it's especially important given the power social media has in our politics.

Then maybe we ought to back out of politics a wee bit, eh?

For instance, can a politician say things in social media that would get most users blocked, but avoid the consequences? Can a politician use social media as a public platform, allow anyone who agrees with him to respond, and block people who disagree with him from responding?

Seems like non politicians should be treated the same as politicians.

Can foreign powers create bots with accounts that look like they are run by human beings and use them to promote candidates in elections, using all this nicely harvested data about each of us?

Apparently they can.

Right now, the law is nowhere near clear enough.

Probably a work in regress.

[Bootstrap]

For instance, can a politician say things in social media that would get most users blocked, but avoid the consequences? Can a politician use social media as a public platform, allow anyone who agrees with him to respond, and block people who disagree with him from responding?

Seems like non politicians should be treated the same as politicians.

Here's the current legal status on these two questions. In response to some tweets that clearly violated Twitter's policies and would get most people banned, Twitter announced that World Leaders don't have to play by the normal rules.

Twitter is here to serve and help advance the global, public conversation. Elected world leaders play a critical role in that conversation because of their outsized impact on our society.

Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.

Oh, that "necessary discussion" they mention? The world leader can block people from responding to their tweets if they don't like what they are saying. There's a lawsuit about that.

And a lot of that discussion has sometimes been generated by bots rather than people. Also, people who express disagreement have often received death threats and been the subject of internet bullying. Twitter has also been used to organize that kind of campaign against people, especially journalists.

Facebook, Twitter, and other companies are have been complicit in a lot of this. I suspect there will be new regulations, we will clarify what we think these companies are (media company? public square? pure technology company?), etc.