Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

That sounds like a descent approach, but they have millions of users. There's going to be a lot of false alarms and/or people getting banned
for no good reason.

Which is exactly what we saw. If they had a good algorythm or good filter people, they could have been much more selective and we probably wouldn't have caught on as quickly. As it was, they just "rubber stamped" everything that the filter found and as more people complained, the awareness was raised and people saw the censorship.

Yup. Zuck knows that the Elitists aren't going to be protecting him anymore.

I just doubt that he would care.

He cares to not go to prison for election interference - which is what he did.

He also cares to keep his platform bringing him millions in revenue instead of going the way of MySpace.

I don't know how stuff is in your neighborhood, but I don't see regular people suing big companies. They can break me like a toothpick (in
court.)

If you can get someone with deep pockets behind you, it will work. A class action lawsuit will also get lots of attention.

I've seen many people sue the big guys and win - but they had help, plus a very air-tight case.


... "I'd like all your $20 bills in this bag", "To go".
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

I sometimes receive links via Messenger to FB posts that Messenger is not
able to open.

I don't know the laws, so I don't understand how the use of Facebook (or a computer basically) can't be regarded the same way as the telephone and/or postal service. If using Facebook to communicate things that the left don't like is out of the question, then I guess we can at least fall back on email.

While I agree the use of Messenger for a conversation between two people might should be considered like a telephone call, posting on Facebook is
different. It is a public forum where anyone can see it, so nothing should
be considred private.

To look at it another way, it is not against the law to yell "Fire" during
a private phone call, but it is in a public theatre (unless there is a
fire). That all has to do with the level of reaction, and therefore
potential danger to the public, that the action could cause.


* SLMR 2.1a * Do I straddle the fence on issues? Well, yes and no....
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I don't trust it. They will still "Fact check," but just not about
certain topics.

Right. They are just doing the same, only more subtly.

Meta is panicing because they are losing creators to X by the droves.

They try to justify it with "what if someone posts a threat of
violence?" But that is nonsense because the same thing can happen
during a phonecall, and we don't see Verizon censoring phone
conversations (yet.)

Remember that the Elitists hate free speech and that we still have many free speech haters in our society.


... Life is not fair...it IS, however, quite a circus.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Mike Powell <=-

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk
to other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the
postal workers who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains
blueprints for crime?

Both the USPS and phone companies are covered under "common carrier" laws that have been around for many decades.

Basically, if a company like that could not feasably check all communications, it was absolved of responsibility for those communications and the responsibility was placed on the caller/reciever parties.

And let's face it, how many people would use those services if they knew that all their communication faced a high level of scrutiny?

Now technology changed and platforms like Facebook **can** feasably check all communications. So Section 230 was created. The real problem with things is that the Social Media companies wanted to police all communications and not be held responsible for the content.

The fact that they weren't held to Section 230 a long time ago shows how long the gov't has been colluding with the Social Media companies.

A thought popped into my head relating to another discussion:
If Google can monitor the communications on my phone for the purpose of sending me ads, then they cannot be protected under Section 230 either.


... Want to confuse people? Quote from the wrong message!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

But I don't believe that a busy social media site can effectively do
that either. It's too much information to analyze. And what kind of
skills would such an employee need to make those decisions?

You start with a simple program that scans new messages for "bad" words. It flags them and makes someone have to vet the message before it gets posted. So you've filtered millions of messages to thousands.

Then you have a bunch of purple haired wokies at their home computers in their PJs vet the message. All they have to do is push a button: good or bad.

Then you have another simple program that sees if you've posted too much "bad" stuff and if you did, puts you in Facebook Jail for 30 days. Now you have people censoring themselves so that they don't get put in Jail. The number of "bad" messages just dropped.

Top that with permanent bans on those who keep getting put in jail.

You now have an effective way of censoring. You don't have to block 100% of the "bad" stuff. Just enough to keep it from being wide-spread.

I'm starting to see their side of it. Their best bet is to censor as
much as possible, so that there's less to be responsible for.

But most of what they censored during the scamdemic was not "bad". It was simply bad for the Elitist Narrative.

There's a big difference between posting an article about how drug xxx works against yyy and you should talk to your doctor, and posting a threat against someone's life.

That's probably the explanation for Zuckerberg kissing Trump's butt all
of a sudden.

Yup. Zuck knows that the Elitists aren't going to be protecting him anymore.

My guess is that it would be difficult to prove that they did it to solicit ads, and that they could defend it as "we did it for safety reasons."

They can try. But most states have some pretty strong wiretapping laws and something like this can fall into that.


... If you want her to show emotion, cut up her credit cards.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

that either. It's too much information to analyze. And what kind of skills would such an employee need to make those decisions?

You start with a simple program that scans new messages for "bad" words. It flags them and makes someone have to vet the message before it gets posted. So you've filtered millions of messages to thousands.

That sounds like a descent approach, but they have millions of users. There's going to be a lot of false alarms and/or people getting banned for no good reason.

There's a big difference between posting an article about how drug xxx works against yyy and you should talk to your doctor, and posting a
threat against someone's life.

What about metaphors? "<Person's name> made me really mad. I'm gonna kill <Person's name> if he/she does that again tomorrow at 4pm at the mall." (lol)

I've had several instances with hispanic people taking me seriously when I said stuff like that. I think they don't talk that way in their language, so they think I'm serious even when I say stuff like that (and of course I don't mean it literally when I say stuff like that.)

Yup. Zuck knows that the Elitists aren't going to be protecting him anymore.

I just doubt that he would care.

My guess is that it would be difficult to prove that they did it to solicit ads, and that they could defend it as "we did it for safety reasons."

They can try. But most states have some pretty strong wiretapping laws and something like this can fall into that.

I don't know how stuff is in your neighborhood, but I don't see regular people suing big companies. They can break me like a toothpick (in court.)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

I understand, but what about phone companies who "allow" people to talk other people on the phone about illegal plans? Or how about the postal workers
who "allow" mail to be exchanged, that contains blueprints for crime?

Neither of those are public conversations. IIRC, both of them are also covered by laws that would make it illegal to evesdrop on them without a court order, so I think that keeps them covered -- since they cannot legally listen/read, they cannot be liable.

During the Pandemic's peak, Facebook was censoring 1 on 1 chat between me and a friend. He was trying to give me links to some "conspiracy" stuff, and the links wouldn't make it to my phone. Instead, I got messages that said "The message wasn't delivered because it conflicts with our community standards," or something like that. It was creepy! But my point is, that was supposed to be a private conversation.. but it wasn't very private with 'Markie' hovering over our conversation.

I think of Zuck that way, too, but as of late he has been pretty open about the administration meddling in their affairs and a few other
things. He may be doing it in part because he anticipates what the new administration will do, but I also think he is fed up with it.

That or he's putting on a good presentation. Notice he hasn't explained the need for an underground bunker on his Hawaii property.

If the majority of voters aren't stupid, that means that the majority of socia
media users probably aren't stupid either, and that lack of stupidity is threat to his ad revenue.

I don't have the same faith in social media users when it comes to not being stupid. IMHO, the smartest Americans are not on social media and therefore comparing voters to social media users is apples to oranges.

I never thought about it like that, but I'm not sure if most voters are the smartest Americans.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

While I agree the use of Messenger for a conversation between two people might should be considered like a telephone call, posting on Facebook is different. It is a public forum where anyone can see it, so nothing should be considred private.

I've been kicked off Facebook for so long that I don't remember how it works.

Aren't status updates shared just among friends only? Or can any Facebook user view a person's status updates? (Or are they no longer called "status updates?")

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)

While I agree the use of Messenger for a conversation between two people might should be considered like a telephone call, posting on Facebook is different. It is a public forum where anyone can see it, so nothing should be considred private.

I've been kicked off Facebook for so long that I don't remember how it works.

Aren't status updates shared just among friends only? Or can any Facebook user
view a person's status updates? (Or are they no longer called "status updates?")

You can set them to be public (everyone), only friends, only certain friends, or private (only you) last I checked. If you few friends, I guess you
might think of the conversation as being mostly private, but I'd not count
on that.

Not being familiar with how their moderation works, I also wonder how
strict they were on posts that are only shared among certain friends vs.
public posts.


* SLMR 2.1a * Basic programmers never die, they gosub and don't return
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Aren't status updates shared just among friends only? Or can any Faceboo user
view a person's status updates? (Or are they no longer called "status updates?")

You can set them to be public (everyone), only friends, only certain friends, or private (only you) last I checked. If you few friends, I guess you might think of the conversation as being mostly private, but
I'd not count on that.

That sounds familiar. Thanks for the refresher. Now I remember back in 2009 when I thought my posts would be for friends only and I inadvertently gave my ex wife all kinds of stuff to whine about.

But now days we know for a fact that the Facebook moderators will examine the posts no matter what your configuration is. And if they don't like what you post, then it's just like having an ex wife look at your posts. :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/202)