Men are scum
https://www.thedailybeast.com/women-...lling-men-scum
Printable View
I can't decide which are scummier, Swedish men or men from Bangladesh.
It's not a competition, both can win. Men are winners.
But "busy roads" are regulated and monitored for public safety, putting child safety first (or any pedestrian). The internet doesn't do that. Try again?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
These internet websites are both regulated and monitored and put child safety first. However accidents still happen on roads and things slip through on these sites.
How are busy roads monitored? I'm not talking about crossing a road with the assistance of eg a lollypop lady, I mean crossing a busy road completely unsupervised. If you wouldn't let your child do that, then don't let them go online unsupervised either.
Fiddling for fake news:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/1...paper&referer=
To be fair to Facebook they have no intention of boosting Fake News with that change ...
... Their sole intention is to force legitimate publishers to pay them more money to boost their profile as otherwise we won't be seen.
I run a business that's got thousands of people "liking" it in the local area on Facebook but the statistics on how many people see it without paying to boost the post are continually going down. While the cost to boost it is continuously going up.
It's the only consequence of this move considering the nature of how fake news spreads, via the methods they are now pushing. Especially since Facebook recently axed the ability to flag fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Facebook wants users to spend more time interacting on their site, and that means pushing what's going to cause the most controversy.
No its a side effect.
The primary consequence which you're disregarding is that legitimate businesses (including news media but not just them) become invisible even to their followers unless they pay to promote themselves. Meaning that more businesses will feel compelled to pay boosting Facebook's profits.
I run a Facebook page. Half the notifications I get now from Facebook aren't interactions from those who like the page like it used to be, its Facebook spamming me with more ways to pay to boost something "to reach more people".
Facebook don't care if something is legitimate or fake, they care about who puts more money into their ecosystem.
Don't believe their spin that Facebook want you to spend more time interacting with their site, that's long not been what Facebook are really about. Facebook's twin purpose is selling adverts and collecting data analytics which they can sell at a premium. Lots of social media companies have come and gone trying to get people to spend more time on their site while not making any money (modern case in point being Twitter). Facebook ruthlessly chases $$$.
Facebook gives some incredibly detailed analytics on who sees and responds to your posts when you're a publisher. Including how many people have seen your post, whether they did so for free or by being boosted, gender and age breakdowns etc and more.
4 years ago when I started regularly posting things to our page on Facebook the average post would be seen by 600-700 people for free or if I boosted it for £7 (eg £1 a day for a week) it would be seen by 2000-3000. Now I'm lucky to get 100-300 see it for free and paying to boost it costs at least a tenner to reach 1000 and £20 for 2000. Every time Facebook has done a change it has both cut free viewers and increased the cost of getting boosted ones.
Moreover the actual Facebook site matters less to them now that it used to. They make a fortune now from their APIs trying to integrate Facebook into everything. Want to play a game in an app, why not log in via Facebook? Want to access Free WiFi at a business, why not log in via Facebook? If someone logs onto my Free Public WiFi they're given the option of doing so via Facebook, Twitter or Email. If they login with Facebook then Facebook is keeping track and getting to know more where people are going when out and about etc ... analytics they can then use down the track. While if the customer ticks the box to opt-in to marketing from me while logging in then Facebook gives me their email address, name, gender, date of birth and relationship status.
Twitter has lost a fortune getting people to interact with their site. Facebook is making a fortune extracting value from their data they can sell and by making it almost invisible and second-nature to be using them even when you don't realise you are. Google are the same.
Both of these require eyes on a page, scrolling, and refreshing. The best way to get that is to stretch that length of stay or repeated visits. Which Facebook does with user interactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes I know how Facebook works, I've talked multiple times about managing the 27+ pages for my library system.
Without fail, the best way to increase reach was to engage users. This or that, favorites, opinions; creating a conversation.
Not everyone can be as cool as Wendy's.
Google is a good example to bring up. Considering how much they have pushed lately to provide search answers directly on their results page, to extend how long you stay on Google without wondering off.
Yes and with this change Facebook are suggesting they will have eyes on the page scrolling and refreshing what their friends have posted or shared, there's no need for that to be Fake News unless your friends are the variety that it is what they share. The most notorious Fake News group in the UK is Britain First but they don't appear on my news page because anyone who shares their hate filled bullshit (like your President sadly) will not appear on my friends list.
Don't get me wrong, this change is bad for me so I would be very happy to see it scrapped. But I think a spike in fake news if that happens will be a side-effect not the reason for what Facebook are doing.
The most influential sources of fake or misleading news in the UK is the British media, esp. when reporting statements by British politicians and pundits. But this particular matter concerns poor, immature democracies, not countries like the UK.
You sound like a Trump supporter saying that.
*shrug* It's accurate. The influence of British media far exceeds that of BF, some of the most widely consumed British media is notorious for false or misleading reporting, and British politicians & pundits are also notorious for making false or misleading statements, which are, of course, reported on extensively by British media. Regardless, the UK wasn't really the focus of that article.
Great article by an industry insider:
https://www.wired.com/story/how-trum...ussian-ads/amp
Rand, you're comparing crossing streets with web sites, as if all "pedestrian traffic" is the same, really?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Look, we already have politicians ignoring that nation-states use nefarious on-line propaganda to influence democratic elections. Please tell me you don't think you have "control" of your kids' entire internet experience because you have installed 'parental controls' on your ISP....
I spoke about supervision I didn't talk "parental controls".Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
My daughter is only allowed online with my wife or I in the same room keeping an eye on things. She's only allowed to cross the road with my wife or I holding her hand while she crosses it. I wouldn't trust her to step onto a road by herself - to do so could be fatal. So although less serious in that it can't be fatal why would I consider her old enough for unsupervised access to the internet?
Rand, at what age do you think your child can cross the road alone? Is that the same age she'll be able to use the internet unsupervised?
I'm not trying to be contentious. Just asking how you consider age in deciding what minors should be able to do without parental consent or supervision, and how that plays out on the internet?
Not to mention what gov't "protections" should be provided for public acts like voting, which are now done on-line
Interesting thread and article:
Twitter Link