After Facebook was sued.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) !important; }.d-2878a9b4-21d5-451f-8217-57b42a569993, .lh-2878a9b4-21d5-451f-8217-57b42a569993 { background-color: var(--pubpub-active-discussion-highlight-color, rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5)) }dot?Login to discussCancel for these targeting practices and as part of a settlement early in 2019, Facebook settled five lawsuits and agreed to stop allowing advertisers in key categories to target messages only to people of a certain gender, race or age group.11

nobody told it what to do that's that's the kind of really amazing and frightening thing about these situations when Facebook gave uh the algorithm the uh uh aim of increased user engagement the managers of Facebook did not anticipate that it will do it by spreading hatefield conspiracy theories this is something the algorithm discovered by itself the same with the capture puzzle and this is the big problem we are facing with AI

meta they just rolled out they're like hey if you want to pay a certain subscription we will show your stuff to your followers 00:03:14 on Instagram and Facebook

Choosing names from a list is a lot more user-friendly and less error-prone than asking them to blindly type in an e-mail address and hope that it is correct and matches an existing user (or at least a real e-mail account that can then be sent an invitation to register). In my opinion, this is a big reason why Facebook became so popular — because it let you see your list of friends, and send message to people by their names instead of having to already know/remember/ask for their e-mail address.

Katherine Hayhoe, author of “Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World,” serves as Chief Scientist for the Nature Conservancy and is a distinguished professor at Texas Tech. You might expect that she would be considered a legitimate authority on the subject. p span[style*="font-size"] { line-height: 1.6; } But in the Meta-verse, where it seems virtually impossible to connect with a human being associated with the administration of the platform, rules are rules, and it appears they would prefer to suppress anything that might prove problematic for them. p span[style*="font-size"] { line-height: 1.6; } Hayhoe expressed her personal frustration in a recent post on Facebook. p span[style*="font-size"] { line-height: 1.6; } “Since August 2018, Facebook has limited the visibility of my page,” she writes, “labelling it as ‘political’ because I talk about climate change and clean energy. This change drastically reduced my post views from hundreds to just tens, and the page’s growth has been stagnant ever since.” p span[style*="font-size"] { line-height: 1.6; } The implications of such policies for our democracy are alarming. Why should corporate entities be able to dictate what type of speech or content is acceptable?

Critics say this amounts to users having to pay for their privacy.

Following a policy change by WhatsApp, many people are looking at alternative messaging options. The new WhatsApp policy requires people to share data with Facebook and associated companies.

WhatsApp is doing the exact thing it said it wouldn't do when it was acquired by Facebook seven years ago.

Also just by observing what they’re doing it becomes pretty clear. For example: Facebook recently purchased full-page ads on major newspapers entirely dedicated to “denounce” Apple. Why? Because Apple has built a system-level feature on iPhones that allows users to very easily disable every kind of advertising tracking and profiling. Facebook absolutely relies on being able to track you and profile your interests, so they immediately cooked up some cynical reasons why Apple shouldn’t be allowed to do this.But the truth is: if Facebook is fighting against someone on privacy matters, that someone is probably doing the right thing.

Completely get away from everything Facebook: FB, Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram, Oculus. (Yes, I know it’s hard because people are on these platforms, but it is possible to explain your reasoning to those who care about you and establish contact with them on different apps. I moved a ton of people to Telegram for example.)

I use Messenger but not FaceBook. I think the split was useful.

I share your frustration. This was how I felt when they split off Messenger as a separate mobile app from the main Facebook app. Messaging had been working just fine in the Facebook app, so there seemed to be no discernible reason other than pure greed. No attempt to make anything better or easier for the consumer, no innovation, nothing good for the people using the product. It was really just to inflate their download numbers and somehow make more money off of us. No thank you. I have stopped using Facebook since then.

What they say is this is due to is new EU policies about messenger apps. I'm not in the EU. I reckon it's really because there's a new Messenger desktop client for Windows 10, which does have these features. Downloading the app gives FB access to more data from your machine to sell to companies for personalized advertising purposes.

TOKEN MERGING: YOUR VIT BUT FASTER

What if, early in the morning on Election Day in 2016, Mark Zuckerberg had used Facebook to broadcast “go-out-and-vote” reminders just to supporters of Hillary Clinton? Extrapolating from Facebook’s own published data, that might have given Mrs. Clinton a boost of 450,000 votes or more, with no one but Mr. Zuckerberg and a few cronies knowing about the manipulation.

Que incumplan estas Condiciones, las Normas comunitariasu otras condiciones y políticas que rijan tu

Inhabilitamos anteriormente tu cuenta por haber infringido nuestras Condiciones, las Normas comunitarias u otras condiciones o políticas que se aplican al uso que haces de Facebook. Si inhabilitamos tu cuenta debido a una infracción de nuestras Condiciones, las Normas comunitarias u otras condiciones o políticas, aceptas que no podrás crear otra cuenta sin nuestro permiso. Proporcionamos permiso para crear una nueva cuenta a nuestro exclusivo criterio; esto no significa ni insinúa que la medida disciplinaria fue equivocada o sin motivo.

there’s the famous 2019 paper by Allcott et al. which found that having people deactivate Facebook for a while made them happier, while also making them socialize more and worry less about politics

we remove language that incites or facilitates serious violence

Por ejemplo, podemos mostrar a tus amigos que te interesa un evento promocionado o que has indicado que te gusta una página de Facebook creada por una marca que nos paga para mostrar sus anuncios en Facebook. Este tipo de anuncios y contenido solo se muestra a las personas que tienen tu permiso para ver las acciones que realizas en los Productos de Meta

cierto contenido que compartas o subas, como fotos o videos, esté protegido por leyes de propiedad intelectual. Eres el propietario de los derechos de propiedad intelectual (como derechos de autor o marcas comerciales) de todo el contenido que crees y compartas en Facebook y en los demás Productos de las empresas de Meta que uses. Ninguna disposición en estas Condiciones anula los derechos que tienes sobre tu propio contenido. Puedes compartir libremente tu

La licencia dejará de tener efecto cuando tu contenido se elimine de nuestros sistemas.

Es decir, si, por ejemplo, compartes una foto en Facebook, nos das permiso para almacenarla, copiarla y compartirla con otros

Si se te ha condenado por delitos sexuales.

Si eres menor de 13 años

(sin nuestro permiso).

Usar en tu cuenta el nombre que utilizas en tu vida diaria.

Você pode criar somente duas contas no Gerenciador de Negócios

Criar um Gerenciador de Negócios

Central de Ajuda da Meta para Empresas

In expressing disagreement with the proposed literal interpretation of Article 13(1)(c) GDPR set outin the Preliminary Draft Decision, Facebook submitted that “Facebook Ireland’s interpretation directlytracks the actual wording of the relevant GDPR provision which stipulates only that two items ofinformation be provided about the processing (i.e. purposes and legal bases). It says nothing aboutprocessing operations.”102 Facebook submitted that because, in its view, Article 13(1) GDPR applies “atthe time data is collected”, and therefore refers only to “prospective processing”. It submits that, onthis basis, Article 13(1)(c) GDPR does not relate to ongoing processing operations, but is concernedsolely with information on “intended processing”.103 Facebook’s position is therefore that Article13(1)(c) GDPR is future-gazing or prospective only in its application and that such an interpretation issupported by a literal reading of the GDPR

In light of this confirmation by the data controller that it does not seek to rely on consent in thiscontext, there can be no dispute that, as a matter of fact, Facebook is not relying on consent as thelawful basis for the processing complained of. It has nonetheless been argued on the Complainant’sbehalf that Facebook must rely on consent, and that Facebook led the Complainant to believe thatit was relying on consent

On this basis, the issues that I will address in this Draft Decision are as follows: Issue 1 – Whether clicking on the “accept” button constitutes or must be considered consentfor the purposes of the GDPR Issue 2 – Reliance on Article 6(1)(b) as a lawful basis for personal data processing Issue 3 – Whether Facebook provided the requisite information on the legal basis forprocessing on foot of Article 6(1)(b) GDPR and whether it did so in a transparent manner.

Data Policy and related materialsometimes, on the contrary, demonstrate an oversupply of very high level, generalised information atthe expense of a more concise and meaningful delivery of the essential information necessary for thedata subject to understand the processing being undertaken and to exercise his/her rights in ameaningful way. Furthermore, while Facebook has chosen to provide its transparency information byway of pieces of text, there are other options available, such as the possible incorporation of tables,which might enable Facebook to provide the information required in a clear and concise manner,particularly in the case of an information requirement comprising a number of linked elements. Theimportance of concision cannot be overstated nonetheless. Facebook is entitled to provide additionalinformation to its user above and beyond that required by Article 13 and can provide whateveradditional information it wishes. However, it must first comply with more specific obligations under theGDPR, and then secondly ensure that the additional information does not have the effect of creatinginformation fatigue or otherwise diluting the effective delivery of the statutorily required information.That is simply what the GDPR requires.

3NO SELF PROMOTION, RECRUITING, OR DM SPAMMINGMembers love our group because it's SAFE. We are very strict on banning members who blatantly self promote their product or services in the group OR secretly private message members to recruit them.

2NO POST FROM FAN PAGES / ARTICLES / VIDEO LINKSOur mission is to cultivate the highest quality content inside the group. If we allowed videos, fan page shares, & outside websites, our group would turn into spam fest. Original written content only

1NO POSTING LINKS INSIDE OF POST - FOR ANY REASONWe've seen way too many groups become a glorified classified ad & members don't like that. We don't want the quality of our group negatively impacted because of endless links everywhere. NO LINKS

Using actual fake-news headlines presented as they were seen on Facebook, we show that even a single exposure increases subsequent perceptions of accuracy, both within the same session and after a week. Moreover, this “illusory truth effect” for fake-news headlines occurs despite a low level of overall believability and even when the stories are labeled as contested by fact checkers or are inconsistent with the reader’s political ideology. These results suggest that social media platforms help to incubate belief in blatantly false news stories and that tagging such stories as disputed is not an effective solution to this problem.

On Facebook, we identified 51,269 posts (0.25% of all posts)sharing links to Russian propaganda outlets, generating 5,065,983interactions (0.17% of all interactions); 80,066 posts (0.4% of allposts) sharing links to low-credibility news websites, generating28,334,900 interactions (0.95% of all interactions); and 147,841 postssharing links to high-credibility news websites (0.73% of all posts),generating 63,837,701 interactions (2.13% of all interactions). Asshown in Figure 2, we notice that the number of posts sharingRussian propaganda and low-credibility news exhibits an increas-ing trend (Mann-Kendall 𝑃 < .001), whereas after the invasion ofUkraine both time series yield a significant decreasing trend (moreprominent in the case of Russian propaganda); high-credibilitycontent also exhibits an increasing trend in the Pre-invasion pe-riod (Mann-Kendall 𝑃 < .001), which becomes stable (no trend)in the period afterward. T

We estimated the contribution of veri-fied accounts to sharing and amplifying links to Russian propagandaand low-credibility sources, noticing that they have a dispropor-tionate role. In particular, superspreaders of Russian propagandaare mostly accounts verified by both Facebook and Twitter, likelydue to Russian state-run outlets having associated accounts withverified status. In the case of generic low-credibility sources, a sim-ilar result applies to Facebook but not to Twitter, where we alsonotice a few superspreaders accounts that are not verified by theplatform.

I often think back to MySpace’s downfall. In 2007, I penned a controversial blog post noting a division that was forming as teenagers self-segregated based on race and class in the US, splitting themselves between Facebook and MySpace. A few years later, I noted the role of the news media in this division, highlighting how media coverage about MySpace as scary, dangerous, and full of pedophiles (regardless of empirical evidence) helped make this division possible. The news media played a role in delegitimizing MySpace (aided and abetted by a team at Facebook, which was directly benefiting from this delegitimization work).

hat we want is to be able to leave Facebook and still talk to our friends, instead of having many Facebooks.

Some of the sensitive data collection analyzed by The Markup appears linked to default behaviors of the Meta Pixel, while some appears to arise from customizations made by the tax filing services, someone acting on their behalf, or other software installed on the site. Report Deeply and Fix Things Because it turns out moving fast and breaking things broke some super important things. Give Now For example, Meta Pixel collected health savings account and college expense information from H&R Block’s site because the information appeared in webpage titles and the standard configuration of the Meta Pixel automatically collects the title of a page the user is viewing, along with the web address of the page and other data. It was able to collect income information from Ramsey Solutions because the information appeared in a summary that expanded when clicked. The summary was detected by the pixel as a button, and in its default configuration the pixel collects text from inside a clicked button.  The pixels embedded by TaxSlayer and TaxAct used a feature called “automatic advanced matching.” That feature scans forms looking for fields it thinks contain personally identifiable information like a phone number, first name, last name, or email address, then sends detected information to Meta. On TaxSlayer’s site this feature collected phone numbers and the names of filers and their dependents. On TaxAct it collected the names of dependents.

Trolls, in this context, are humans who hold accounts on social media platforms, more or less for one purpose: To generate comments that argue with people, insult and name-call other users and public figures, try to undermine the credibility of ideas they don’t like, and to intimidate individuals who post those ideas. And they support and advocate for fake news stories that they’re ideologically aligned with. They’re often pretty nasty in their comments. And that gets other, normal users, to be nasty, too.

So, bots are computer algorithms (set of logic steps to complete a specific task) that work in online social network sites to execute tasks autonomously and repetitively. They simulate the behavior of human beings in a social network, interacting with other users, and sharing information and messages [1]–[3]. Because of the algorithms behind bots’ logic, bots can learn from reaction patterns how to respond to certain situations. That is, they possess artificial intelligence (AI). 

Facebook users claim to hate the service, but they keep using it, leading many to describe Facebook as "addictive." But there's a simpler explanation: people keep using Facebook though they hate it because they don't want to lose their connections to the people they love.

The landscape of social media is ever-changing, especially among teens who often are on the leading edge of this space. A new Pew Research Center survey of American teenagers ages 13 to 17 finds TikTok has rocketed in popularity since its North American debut several years ago and now is a top social media platform for teens among the platforms covered in this survey. Some 67% of teens say they ever use TikTok, with 16% of all teens saying they use it almost constantly. Meanwhile, the share of teens who say they use Facebook, a dominant social media platform among teens in the Center’s 2014-15 survey, has plummeted from 71% then to 32% today.

Recommendation media is the new standard for content distribution. Here’s why friend graphs can‘t compete in an algorithmic world.

Mark last week as the end of the social networking era, which began with the rise of Friendster in 2003, shaped two decades of internet growth, and now closes with Facebook's rollout of a sweeping TikTok-like redesign.

What's become clear is that our relationships are experiencing a profound reset. Across generations, having faced a stark new reality, a decades-long trend1 reversed as people are now shifting their energy away from maintaining a wide array of casual connections to cultivating a smaller circle of the people who matter most.

72% of respondents said that the pandemic caused them to reprioritize their closest friends
Young people are most open to using more immersive tech to foster connections (including augmented and virtual reality), though all users indicated that tech will play a bigger role in enhancing personal connections moving forward
37% of people surveyed globally reported reassessing their life priorities as a result of the pandemic

And when corporations start to dominate the Internet, they became de-facto governments. Slowly but surely, the tech companies began to act like old power. They use the magic of tech to consolidate their own power, using money to increase their influence, blocking the redistribution of power from the entrenched elites to ordinary people.

We believe that Facebook is also actively encouraging people to use tools like Buffer Publish for their business or organization, rather than personal use. They are continuing to support the use of Facebook Pages, rather than personal Profiles, for things like scheduling and analytics.

Zugsystem ausklügelt, das dieOpfer möglichst schnell und reibungslos nach Auschwitz bringt, darübervergißt, was in Auschwitz mit ihnen geschieht.

Content moderation takes place within this ecosystem.

dentical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;

Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in particular Article 15(1), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a court of a Member State from:–        ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is identical to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, irrespective of who requested the storage of that information;–        ordering a host provider to remove information which it stores, the content of which is equivalent to the content of information which was previously declared to be unlawful, or to block access to that information, provided that the monitoring of and search for the information concerned by such an injunction are limited to information conveying a message the content of which remains essentially unchanged compared with the content which gave rise to the finding of illegality and containing the elements specified in the injunction, and provided that the differences in the wording of that equivalent content, compared with the wording characterising the information which was previously declared to be illegal, are not such as to require the host provider to carry out an independent assessment of that content, and–        ordering a host provider to remove information covered by the injunction or to block access to that information worldwide within the framework of the relevant international law.

First is that it actually lowers paid acquisition costs. It lowers them because the Facebook Ads algorithm rewards engaging advertisements with lower CPMs and lots of distribution. Facebook does this because engaging advertisements are just like engaging posts: they keep people on Facebook. 

She thinks the companies themselves are behind this, trying to manipulate their users into having certain opinions and points of view.

Only 10 percent say Facebook has a positive impact on society, while 56 percent say it has a negative impact and 33 percent say its impact is neither positive nor negative. Even among those who use Facebook daily, more than three times as many say the social network has a negative rather than a positive impact.

Source: De Agostini Picture Library / Getty

When the most powerful company in the world possesses an instrument for manipulating billions of people—an instrument that only it can control, and that its own employees say is badly broken and dangerous—we should take notice.

Facebook could say that its platform is not for everyone. It could sound an alarm for those who wander into the most dangerous corners of Facebook, and those who encounter disproportionately high levels of harmful content. It could hold its employees accountable for preventing users from finding these too-harmful versions of the platform, thereby preventing those versions from existing.

Facebook could shift the burden of proof toward people and communities to demonstrate that they’re good actors—and treat reach as a privilege, not a right.

“While we have other systems that demote content that might violate our specific policies, like hate speech or nudity, this intervention reduces all content with equal strength. Because it is so blunt, and reduces positive and completely benign speech alongside potentially inflammatory or violent rhetoric, we use it sparingly.”)

Facebook wants people to believe that the public must choose between Facebook as it is, on the one hand, and free speech, on the other. This is a false choice.

One example is a program that amounts to a whitelist for VIPs on Facebook, allowing some of the users most likely to spread misinformation to break Facebook’s rules without facing consequences.

“I am worried that Mark’s continuing pattern of answering a different question than the question that was asked is a symptom of some larger problem,” wrote one Facebook employee in an internal post in June 2020, referring to Zuckerberg. “I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I’m still hopeful for progress. But I also fully understand my colleagues who have given up on this company, and I can’t blame them for leaving. Facebook is not neutral, and working here isn’t either.”

An internal message characterizing Zuckerberg’s reasoning says he wanted to avoid new features that would get in the way of “meaningful social interactions.” But according to Facebook’s definition, its employees say, engagement is considered “meaningful” even when it entails bullying, hate speech, and reshares of harmful content.

At the time, Facebook was already weighting the reactions other than “like” more heavily in its algorithm—meaning posts that got an “angry” reaction were more likely to show up in users’ News Feeds than posts that simply got a “like.” Anger-inducing content didn’t spread just because people were more likely to share things that made them angry; the algorithm gave anger-inducing content an edge. Facebook’s Integrity workers—employees tasked with tackling problems such as misinformation and espionage on the platform—concluded that they had good reason to believe targeting posts that induced anger would help stop the spread of harmful content.

Facebook offers a collection of one-tap emoji reactions. Today, they include “like,” “love,” “care,” “haha,” “wow,” “sad,” and “angry.” Company researchers had found that the posts dominated by “angry” reactions were substantially more likely to go against community standards, including prohibitions on various types of misinformation, according to internal documents.

that many of Facebook’s employees believe their company operates without a moral compass.

Facebook has dismissed the concerns of its employees in manifold ways. One of its cleverer tactics is to argue that staffers who have raised the alarm about the damage done by their employer are simply enjoying Facebook’s “very open culture,” in which people are encouraged to share their opinions, a spokesperson told me.

A Whirlwind Week of Whistleblowing

From a six hour service outage to a senate whistleblower hearing, the PR disasters keep mounting for Facebook.