Forums vs. Facebook

Big Ed said:
Ok, I'll be the contrary guy. Facebook has improved my life by enriching my human connections. Through it, I am in contact with all the members of my far flung extended family. Dozens of Cousins. Hey, that rhymes. Am also in touch with friends from high school, college, and military service. Without Zuckerberg, none of that happens. Maybe I get a clunky family update email at Christmas. Cousin Bobby had cancer, but he's all better now. Too late to send cards.

Example: I graduated from West Point. Interesting trivia point: so did the commanders of both sides in 55 of the 60 major battles of the US Civil War. Which means that all those Confederate generals with US military bases named after them are fellow alumni. So we have been having a vigorous debate amongst classmates on the merits of renaming those bases to names more consistent with Army values. Before Facebook none of us bothered to keep in touch, much less engage meaningfully on issues of importance to our institution.

People have been citing the public good to control information since the “Ordinance for correcting and regulating the Abuses of the Press” in 1683, and well before that.

But it's not the best technical tool for everything. This forum is excellent.
Click to expand...
Your stated case for social media has some validity but Facebook heavily redacts content, uses algorithms to edit what I get to see, etc.
Most annoying is the shocking amount of data collected about my every button click, every pause when scrolling, every link followed even when you're not on Facebook, all the way down to the reaction of your pupils to an image.
If anything is "free" then you are the product. I would be stoked if someone came out with a form of social media that was the simple gathering place that was what Facebook pretends it is.
It won't happen because you can't become a billionaire with that business model.

Me, I'm finding I have even less in common with those high school people than I thought. I'm fine with people having a different opinion about pretty much everything, but damn. Posting 25 memes about one's political views will not change mine. I've blocked a whole lot of people I used to enjoy hearing from.
Friends and family already have my email and phone number.
 
I don’t think HuffPo is the only source - white supremacists can be problematic, just like any other extremist group -right or left.
 
We'll try to avoid a diversion into politics and all that that might do to kill the vibe here but, if you want to talk about sourcing, there is a pretty fair site where you can put in websites or printed sources and they have a rating for left/right bias as well as how factual their information is. That site is MediaBiasFactCheck.com. I encourage everyone to try it and see how their usual sources are rated both for left/right bias and the degree to which they are reporting facts or just promoting spin.

Huffington Post is well left of center (did any of you know Andrew Breitbart was a co-founder? :unsure: ), not the highest quality reporting, I could have done better but here's another article that demonstrates what shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, that white nationalists are using social media to organize and promote their agenda.

www.theguardian.com

White nationalists are openly operating on Facebook. The company won't act

Guardian analysis finds VDare and Red Ice TV among several outlets that are still on the platform despite Facebook’s promised ban
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

Here is an excerpt from FBI Assistant Director McGarrity's testimony to the House of Reps.;
"Violent extremists are increasingly using social media for the distribution of propaganda, recruitment, target selection, and incitement to violence. Through the Internet, violent extremists around the world have access to our local communities to target and recruit like-minded individuals and spread their messages of hate on a global scale. The recent attack at the Chabad of Poway Synagogue in Poway, California, not only highlights the enduring threat of violence posed by domestic terrorists, but also demonstrates the danger presented by the propagation of these violent acts on the Internet."
Click to expand...

Confronting White Supremacy — FBI

Statement by Assistant Director Michael C. McGarrity, Counterterrorism Division, and Deputy Assistant Director Calvin A. Shivers, Criminal Investigative Division, before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
www.fbi.gov www.fbi.gov

And more
www.independent.co.uk

FBI raises neo-Nazi threat level to same as Isis

Director Christopher Wray says far-right and racially motivated terror attacks are 'national threat priority'
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

The point was that the big social media platforms are doing our country a disservice by allowing these groups to thrive on them. If anyone feels their white nationalist sensitivities have been offended, shoot me a message and I'll delete your account. It's not welcome here.

As for social media in general, it's a great resource like @Big Ed said. I've got similar family stories with us connecting to our distant relatives in Italy but, also like Ed said, we're the product for people that are very greedy and very disinterested in our privacy issues. You don't get that here. In fact, every time I think I should add some advertising to bring in a few bucks to spend on developing the site I bristle and figure it's just fine being what it is.

This facebook vs. forums thread wasn't meant to be a political soapbox for me or anyone else, it was meant to bring attention to very toxic structural issues within the Facebook platform that make it inferior to a well run forums based community. Most of those issues were originally seen as privacy and data exploitation issues. Let's see where this goes but, I'm dead serious, I have zero patience for any defense of white nationalism/supremacy.

full disclosure, I'm a registered Republican but, for how much longer, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
Token liberal here - usually odd man out in pilot groups. I have used that media bias site to advantage.
You plug the name of your source in, and it tells you where on a scale of left to right, but better, it tells you where, on a scale of truthiness, you are.
And that's really what you want - is your source prevaricating?
I have very little time for extremists, of either stripe. Religious extremists are banished from my hangar.
 
I'm probably another token liberal, in terms of being a social liberal. However, I'm an old school Republican in the Eisenhower mold, with a good balance of social programs and policies that allow the federal government to do the things the feds should do (general welfare, common defense, etc), along with fiscal conservatism and balanced budget before tax cuts (particularly for the rich). I was a registered Republican (albeit a left leaning moderate one by the standards of the day) from 1983 until the Republican party started going hard right in the early 2000s, and then doubled down after 2008.

Interestingly when I was stationed in South Dakota, I was considered to be a flaming liberal, and when I transferred to DC, I was suddenly regarded as "conservative".

My major beef with Facebook is that it is so incredibly open to letting people and organizations manipulate other Facebook users. Many people aren't critical thinkers (we seem to have stopped teaching that in schools) and worse, seek comfort in finding "news" articles that just confirm their existing or preferred feel good biases. The greater the problems we face, the more likely they are to turn inward and tune out any fact or expert opinion that disagrees with their preferred world view. And this isn't a right wing issues, it happens across the spectrum.

Facebook's algorithms exacerbate that problem by observing what they seek/watch and then feed them more of it.
 
LOL, that escalated quickly; straight to Godwin's Law.

Once upon a time, being "liberal" meant being strongly in favor of freedom of speech and thought. Freedom of speech does not have much value if it only applies to ideas we find acceptable. The true test of our commitment to freedom of speech is whether we are willing to extend it to points of view we find abhorrent. The Supreme Court did so when they ruled in Nazis vs Skokie in 1977. A majority liberal decision, BTW.

I don't want Mark Zuckerberg deciding whether my viewpoints are appropriate. It stands to reason that I shouldn't want him deciding whether others' viewpoints are appropriate either.

I'm a never-Trump Republican, if it matters.
 
Avid first amendment pinko here. But social media has special problems. I don't know what the solution is.

There are a lot of problems we do not have solutions for. One of them is inner city schools. Education is the key to society, but we are failing in places like Detroit and Kansas City. I have studied and taught the various federal lawsuits involving those two, and no solutions spring to mind.
 
Freedom of speech was supposed to be a virtue for people whose intentions were to question and debate the status quo with the benefit being ours in the form of vigorous debate and better governance. Sure, there have always been the whackos that had their own ideas of perfection and they've had the benefit of protection under our Constitution but they've been mostly harmless. What's different today is not only the use of social media to manipulate people, but the willingness by which people allow themselves to be manipulated! And, when used in combination with sites like YouTube and fringe "news" sites, there are elements amongst us that are using our free speech against us. How else to describe significant numbers of people that think gargling with bleach is actually good for you somehow? And that's just one example!

Anyway, Facebook facilitates this modern phenomenon and Mark Zuckerberg has placed the financial interests of Mark Zuckerberg above the patriotic interests of Americans which really pisses me off. So far, we've been powerless to reprioritize America over Mark Zuckerberg. I'm sick of all of these websites with their vast influence without conscience. Be liberal or be conservative but be honest in what your agenda is and we'll be good. :)
 
you know, we're doing ok here and maybe the facebook reference thread isn't needed anymore. i might delete it but let me know if you care one way or another
 
Agreed. Facebook concerns are *not* about the First Amendment and what should or should not be allowed. Rather the concerns with Facebook are about the users of Facebook who have largely missed the point that any and all rights we have come with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly and wisely. If people do not wield their rights responsibly there are negative consequences.

Our rights are not "God given", they are granted by people and can be taken away by people if they are abused. In short, there are limits to rights. You cannot for example yell "fire" in a crowded theater just because you feel like yelling "fire". The first Amendment doesn't protect that as "free speech".

Even within those court imposed limits, members in a civil society have to understand and accept that their rights end at the point the rights of another innocent party are infringed. Rights must be balanced with tolerance, empathy, and a degree of wisdom, or at least a commitment to trying to do the right thing in the context of the larger community. Unfortunately, many Americas are totally self centered in exercising their rights just because they can, regardless of the cost, and then justify it with a statement that starts with "but muh rights...". America has degenerated to the point where it is seriously lacking in tolerance, civility and any sense of obligation to the greater good and that has led to a very divided nation, and as a result a much weaker nation. In a word way too many Americans have become selfish, short sighted, and uncivil to anyone who is in any way different from themselves. It's why we can't have nice things.
 
No, I value this kind of discussion, and value diverging viewpoints. Don't delete it - put it in a "Rants and Raves" section, where diverging viewpoints can freely be exchanged. Invite politeness and respect.

As an aside, so far we are all agreeing - and that is our great common ground - freedom of expression and respect for others. Education, so we can withstand Gucifer, etc.
 
I guess my point, way back when, is that I prefer forums because I can search them and find old posts about stuff which I'm interested in. Nothing to do with any political nonsense-- most of my Facebook feed is cars and airplanes, anyway!
 
donv said:
I guess my point, way back when, is that I prefer forums because I can search them and find old posts about stuff which I'm interested in. Nothing to do with any political nonsense-- most of my Facebook feed is cars and airplanes, anyway!
Click to expand...

I totally agree; old school forum software like this is technically superior for this type of usage.
 
BB57 said:
Agreed. Facebook concerns are *not* about the First Amendment and what should or should not be allowed. Rather the concerns with Facebook are about the users of Facebook who have largely missed the point that any and all rights we have come with a commensurate obligation to wield that right responsibly and wisely.
Click to expand...

Responsibility and wisdom are the main arguments that China uses to justify widespread internet censorship. It is irresponsible to criticize the benevolent Party leaders as they work for the good of all. It is unwise to question Hong Kong's unity with the mainland.

I trust the users of Facebook, and Americans in general, to form their own judgement about the information they consume and disseminate on social media.
 
Big Ed said:
Responsibility and wisdom are the main arguments that China uses to justify widespread internet censorship. It is irresponsible to criticize the benevolent Party leaders as they work for the good of all. It is unwise to question Hong Kong's unity with the mainland.

I trust the users of Facebook, and Americans in general, to form their own judgement about the information they consume and disseminate on social media.
Click to expand...
I believe the Chinese government’s argument for censorship, according to a document prepared by the Chinese gov, was an acknowledgment that the internet was “a crystallization of human wisdom” and that they specifically want to deny their citizens access to that wisdom. We have the access and yet?
 
Big Ed said:
Responsibility and wisdom are the main arguments that China uses to justify widespread internet censorship. It is irresponsible to criticize the benevolent Party leaders as they work for the good of all. It is unwise to question Hong Kong's unity with the mainland.

I trust the users of Facebook, and Americans in general, to form their own judgement about the information they consume and disseminate on social media.
Click to expand...

I never said a thing about censorship. I'm talking about getting back to where we both value and teach critical thinking. The end goal is creating an expectation that people think about what they read, rather than just cherry pick based on what conforms to their world view obtained through some form of authoritarian learning.
 
Sorry. All this common sense stuff is gone from here forward. The main stream media such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, PBS etc. all have narratives and rely on a certain amount of sheep to fall in line. I don't own a TV anymore. I get what news I read on the interworld and its depressing. We can all have political differences but most of us know right from wrong and we're all getting a dose of wrong. Kowtowing to special interest groups will not make anything better as the special interest groups cannot be satisfied. I'm old and retired but my wife is 50 and still working. She is a teacher at a foster home in Louisville and if you watch the news then you know we have violence ongoing. The Mayor of Louisville has the same spine as the Mayor of Portland and Seattle. I take her to work and pick her up. I hope I never have to get in a confrontation with a "peaceful" protester. I'm one of those old "get off my lawn" boomers but to me Facebook, Twitter, instagram and similar social media outlets are more harm than good. The first person that needs to stay off social media is the POTUS.
 
Kevin 7AC said:
Sorry. All this common sense stuff is gone from here forward. The main stream media such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, PBS etc. all have narratives and rely on a certain amount of sheep to fall in line. I don't own a TV anymore. I get what news I read on the interworld and its depressing. We can all have political differences but most of us know right from wrong and we're all getting a dose of wrong. Kowtowing to special interest groups will not make anything better as the special interest groups cannot be satisfied.
Click to expand...

I grew up with people like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, and later experienced news anchors like Barbara Walters, Harry Reasoner, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw. Cronkite was the king of credibility, but the news in general in that era was credible. However, with the demise of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the rise of Fox news in 1996, and the political polarization of "news" that has occurred since, it's no longer "news" as there is no fair and balanced reporting. Instead, it's at best "entertainment" and at worst out and out propaganda. I hear people refer to "news" they got watching Tucker Carlson, and I just sigh, as what he pushes is political commentary and propaganda and I'm disheartened that any thinking person can mistake that for "news".

If you look at the timing between the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise in political polarization with both parties going to extremes on the left and right, the connection is pretty obvious. Worse, that same political polarization can be seen in the decrease in across the aisle voting from common to almost never. The fact is that this sad state of affairs benefits both parties and the special interest groups who fund the campaigns. Each party can finger point and blame the other for failed campaign promises and lack of action. It's effectively removed any accountability to the voter and leaves are elected Representative and Senators free to noisily debate issues for public distraction while passing laws that benefit their funders - and ensure future campaign funding - largely out of the eye of public scrutiny. Our modern "news" networks are an essential partner in that dissembling process.

More of us need to just say "no thanks", and that starts with more of us understanding the need to think critically and make our own conclusions based on credible sources and actual facts. Sadly most of us don't know how to determine if a source is credible, if a fact is indeed a fact, and if so what the parameters and qualifiers are for that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top