The danger of Facebook and (a) social networks

[Christophe]

Nan Macro you're not stupid enough!

Erratum: I should have written "to all idiots ... (even the most idiots in computer terms ...)"

The less stupid idiots could already open it on the internet before the RS: I am living proof !

g03b.gif (18.03 KiB) Viewed 2902 times

[Arnaud M]

Facebook is just what you make of it
For privacy, he only keeps what is given to him. Christophe, go to your profile of this forum, edit all the messages you have made, and you will see that just by talking about your wife, your animals, the hours you post, the purchase of such and such a thing, the testimonials of your neighborhood allowing you to triangulate , evolution during your life, etc. you will also be hallucinated that this source of information can be valuable for information or any dishonest person ...

Personally, I use Facebook as an information aggregator: as the media all belong to a minority of billionaires, citizens have done what they could to reclaim information. There are still honest journalists (therefore unemployed) who continue to analyze reliable information, who read the "unusual" sections of the major economic newspapers or AFP briefs, important but never featured in the front page of the mass media , and gives them the analysis, the highlighting and the explanation that these facts deserve ...

Facebook is that above all: bringing together all the reliable media in one place, as well as forums that interest us, in the same place. No need to go see this forum, then another, to see if there is any news: all the news are pushed into our Facebook or VK wall, more practical than the management of RSS feeds on our mailbox, the start of the content and the images are directly displayed, saving enormous time to gather large amounts of information.

Otherwise we agree, the social network format is zero for storing information, unlike forums, and it is a pity that the RS killed in some way the contents of serious and detailed information. Not to mention the real addiction, as well as the problem of letting a private billionaire decide what to watch and what not to watch, for example by censoring accounts that are harmful to the system, or by not pushing posts revealing too much. It is true that a forum as this one is persona non grata, and even after several years word of mouth only brings in a thousand more readers. To take my example, only 5000 people in 6 years in a group only taking information sourced and analyzed, while bullshift groups sharing anything like information, it quickly buzzes tens of thousands of members.

In short, forum or social network are not ideal tools, but are the only tools that the system has left us to re-inform outside of classic propaganda (media, publishers, school, religion). And given the censorship of Trump and other serious reformers, no doubt the system decided that these tools were still too much.

[Christophe]

"We must prevent social networks, private companies, from becoming the new censors of public debate", according to Jacques Englebert, lawyer and professor at ULB

Yes I totally agree ! But with their "politicized" algos they have already been so for a while !!!

[Christophe]

Yes I totally agree ! But with their "politicized" algos they have already been so for a while !!!

Without forgetting, of course, that I am stupid, the armies of TROLLS ... human or bot ...

If the former are tolerable and moderate as much as possible, the latter should have been violently purged of SR from the start ... but we let this gangrene set in!

[Christophe]

But with their "politicized" algos they have already been so for a while !!!

One more proof ...


Exactly the same idea, one on the fb econology page which is earlier but which is censored by the algos (0 comment 0 sharing ...) and not the other:

[Insomnia]

https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/ ... xie-siecle
Good Sunday !

Donald Trump, the man who bypassed democracy through social networks, is now banned from Facebook and Twitter, Snapchat and others? What remains of state sovereignty in the age of digital neo-capitalism?

January 8: the outgoing president of the United States was banned from Twitter, where he has 88 million subscribers, then from Facebook -35 million subscribers-, and from Instagram because of "risk of new incentives to violence ", and this until the end of the transition of power. Mark Zuckerberg personally announced in a post the decision taken so that Trump can no longer "justify rather than condemn the actions of his supporters on Capitol Hill." In the process, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Microsoft, Youtube and Reddit also suspended their services. Google and Apple, for their part, withdrew from their applications the Talking platform, supposed to serve as an alternative Twitter to the far right, and whose account was also closed by Amazon.

As soon as it was known, the decision of social networks sparked more than alarmist comments. "The regulation of digital giants cannot be done by the digital oligarchy itself" commented Bruno Le Maire on France-Inter, while the European digital commissioner Thierry Breton compared it to "a September 11 of the 'information space'.

For the first time in any case, to preserve democracy, a president in office sees his freedom of expression reduced by social networks. What situation does this create? What perspectives does this open up?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

For once (the only one in my life), I agree with Attali (whom I hate) when he advocates dismantling all this mud.
Instead, listen (from the fourteenth minute:
https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l- ... nvier-2021

[Christophe]

Erratum: Ruffin had reacted to Trump's censorship ... he is the only one or one of the rare French politicians seems done (but we already knew that he had corones) but his message had not been relayed by the shits ...

Trump kicked out of Twitter: "Ruffin, seriously, shut up"

On Saturday, I posted a Tweet pointing to Tweeter, considering it “scandalous” that Donald Trump was ousted from this social network. It raised a wave of indignation, and even among my friends: "You are better than that my dear Francois" (Keyvan), "Not that, Ruffin, not today, not now, not after all that you have done. »(Mr Ianou),« Damn I thought that you at least you were not stupid. I'm ashamed ”(Katia)…
You know, there are times when you doubt, and when these criticisms widen the breach within you, undermine you from within. And other times, when you are solid on your principle, sure of your conviction, and where loneliness, or displeasing, even to its fans, does not bother you too much. This is my case, at the moment, I feel at ease with myself: in twenty years of journalism, and a bunch of trials, I have had time to think about freedom of speech.
I will list here the objections that are made to me - and answer them in more than 240 signs.

1. "Ours first"

Mister: “I regularly see activist accounts censored by Twitter, nothing new. To react on it when it is Trump who jumps is very very bad anyway. "

I have already reacted, published posts, on several occasions, even intervened in the podium of the Assembly, when people close to us were censored: the Alternatiba protesters at the G7 in Biarritz, the yellow vest Eric Drouet, or my own Facebook page which had a few freezing days.
But precisely: with Donald Trump, it is an opportunity, not to defend a person, a group, but to lay down the principle.
What is this principle? If it is considered that a man should be silenced, it is for the people, for their justice, for their representatives to decide. Not to a private firm.

So, Lucie: “You know that freedom of expression is not without limits, reassure me? I know, I accept them, but it's up to the people, the courts, or the representatives, to set these limits. Not to a private firm.
So, Glimmer: "'Our freedom of speech' is the freedom of speech of the Nazis? OK ”, if he puts his country in danger, if he is“ Nazi ”, it is for his people, his courts, his representatives to judge. Not to a private firm.
So, Patrick, whom I see you are from rebellious France: “At some point it has to stop. It also has nuclear buttons. Gafa or not, we are not going to be choosy ”, well yes, I will be choosy: I am not leaving that to a private firm.

I'm a Democrat, really, seriously, I think.
And not a firmocrat. Or plutocrat.
And we can make Trump the worst villain, "Klu Klux Klan", "Hitler" and company, they can call me "jerk", "asshole" and worse, I will not deviate from this principle: freedom of expression, the power of censorship, should not be left in the hands of a private firm. And even the fight against these horrors, this neo-fascism, white supremacist, must be popular, political, and not delegated to a private firm.

2. "It's private, Twitter is the master of his house"

Nicolas Vivant: “You are on Twitter, it's private, they do what they want. This is the most common argument, the most shared, and it signs, in my opinion, an immense resignation, a gigantic submission.

First, we must say the dependence of democracy on these networks. We can regret it, we can deplore it, and I regret it, and I deplore it, but it is a fact: that we cut to an elected representative, to a representative, Twitter and Facebook, and it is his political death . Finished. Kaputt. He's not going to get away with press releases. Despite my love of paper, distributing leaflets to markets will not replace this digital strike force. These firms therefore have great power, which - as Spiderman would say - implies great responsibilities.

“Private spaces”, then, do not mean that the owner can make his law reign there. Even if it is your home, you are not allowed to beat your children, you must file a building permit before an extension, etc. The laws of the Republic apply, even at home.
Consequently, it is a battle to be waged: to refuse "self-regulation" of these firms, and to impose our regulation, our rules, on them before an external body.

Finally, we are confronted here not with “media” but with “networks”, which moreover is almost in a situation of monopoly. Networks, such as water, gas, electricity ... Do you imagine that tomorrow, you will suddenly be cut off from water, gas, electricity, water, and you under the pretext that "It's private", that it's Veolia, Engie, Enedis, you should suffer without reacting? Accept to be deprived of it?

There is no evidence at all: “since it's private, we have to be silent. "

3. "For a long time"

TheCap_Ace notes, and with him many others: “His Twitter account violated Twitter rules dozens of times during his tenure. Anyone would have seen their bank account a long time ago. This is what is scandalous in fact. "

But precisely, then: why is its eviction occurring now? Precisely because he no longer has power, because he becomes an opponent, because he is let go by his people, because he is almost nothing.
When he reigned over the White House, with a few skirmishes, Twitter, Facebook and company left him delirious, even mounting his semi-insurgency. Now that it is finished, the firms are rolling up their sleeves and finding their courage. They who, by the way, elsewhere on the planet, do not close the accounts of any power in place, however authoritarian it may be.

4. “Afraid for you? "

MaryLaFée: “why are you afraid of not being able to criticize anymore !!? "

Yes indeed, I'm afraid, why deny it? I try to express my own thought, sometimes unseemly, unseemly, marginal, and I have undoubtedly more to fear than others, with the conforming thought, these digital purges, without trial, without defense, by a court invisible.
The more so as I see a difference of size between this court and the real ones, that I have attended a little too assiduously for my reports (seven trials, mainly for "defamation", a conviction): the magistrates judge an act, a written, passages from an article or a book. At Twitter, it is the man who is judged, ousted.
While one could imagine moderations, on sensitive accounts: that messages, for example, do not appear immediately, but are quickly subject to legal reading, either by the platform itself, or by an independent body.

***

I'm not crying over Donald Trump.
Of course, I don't care.
But when I woke up, this Saturday morning, and that I heard the journalists announce the news, like that, flatly, banally, “Twitter has decided to close its account”, and that, behind, the guests commented “ ah bah yes that's normal ”, as it goes without saying, without discussion, without question, that worried me.
Because obviously, it is symbolic: if they can, in a few hours, without the slightest debate, without protest, cut the networks of the American president, tomorrow, they will feel even more frank with regard to the common, of you, from me. Of all the opponents. Of all the subservient to the digital lords.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Would Ruffin have authorized Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Franco to continue to crack down on Fessebouc and Touitaire?

[Christophe]

This is the true nature of facebook: a spoiled child with temper ... who has a crisis when he is upset

https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/facebook ... e-20210217