Asked about the delisting, a Facebook spokesperson said that “a number of the studies have been archived, but they’re still available at the individual links.” Asked why the “Government and Politics” section had been removed entirely, the spokesperson did not reply.
I’ll just bet they didn’t. “We’re covering our ass like it’s on fire” is probably a bad PR, move, but it’s painfully obvious that’s what’s happening. The funny thing is they’re hurting themselves even more with half-baked apologies. They’re going back to the playbook they’ve used for the last dozen scandals, but this is different.
Facebook the company might survive this, but Facebook the social network is going to die.
This time, it feels flipped. My Silicon Valley circles repeat that this will blow over in a week. Outside that bubble, wheels are turning for the first time (to my recollection).
On that note, the Facebook stock is marked as a definite "buy". If you see the stock price movement, it's been a boon since 2013. Depending how you see this FB fiasco, it is both a PR disaster, and a great opportunity to "BUY" Facebook stock.
I believe that Zuckerberg will patch-up this mess (for now) and the investors just managed to buy something for 10% cheaper. There is a rule in forex trading: most events' results last 4 days. Perhaps for FB it will last a bit more. But when it comes to stock that's a different game. FB can make the comeback of this 10% in a couple months (tops) and continue being profitable.
Check stock price since 2013. FB stock definitely to continue performing similarly.
Yeah, the blue tribe has realized the red tribe has learned how to do big data too, so now using big data for electoral purposes is a huge scandal, and the solution for it - as is solution for literally everything - is more government regulation. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
no one cares sorry.
everyone knew what they were getting. you cant blame social media at all really. the internet in general is partisan. ppl flock to platforms that appeal to them. sorry its no highschool. you are no longer forced to hear views you oppose, that is the reality when your an adult. its a huge shame you all dont let it do. advertising in general is to appeal to people.
Apathy? A lot of smart people were active supporters of the National Socialists, at least before they started losing the war.
The Ominous Parallels[1] explores this, and the parallels with current American politics:
The Nazis did not gain power against the country’s wishes…The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast ballots of millions of German voters, including men on every social, economic, and educational level. In the national election of July 1932, the Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in the Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the country’s legal and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Five weeks later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian period, the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total…
In 1933, when Hitler did establish the system he had promised, he did not find it necessary to forbid foreign travel. Until World War II, those Germans who wished to flee the country could do so. The overwhelming majority did not. They were satisfied to remain…
What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of changes at the beginning.
I simply can't understand all these Nazi analogies all around, as if people had no idea what the Weimar Republic was and all their knowledge of the interwar period is based on some Hollywood movies.
It wasn't just anger. It was also forged by fear of the rising communists by the upper and middle class, and the political chaos of the times. The far right and far left would regularly be in street brawls. Regular people wanted peace and prosperity.
The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.
I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy.
No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote.
But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy.
As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.
> But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings
Why right now there aren't mass protests against free speech restrictions on university campuses? Because a) a lot of people agree with them and b) people that don't agree with them and want to protest get intimidated and scared into silence (ironically, often by being called "nazis") by threats ranging from being stalked, boycotted, forced out of the job, bullied online to the direct physical violence. See how "free speech week" in Berkeley worked out.
You say "oh, that's different - now it's for the right cause!". Surely, the Germans thought exactly the same. Their cause was stability, economic prosperity, security and restoration of the pride and the glory of German nation. Why wouldn't one - without the knowledge of what followed - disagree with it? They weren't ignorant of the freedoms they are sacrificing - they thought the goal is worth it. Hopefully, now we know better.
> all the targeting of jews in the 30s
Louis Farrakhan is ranting about "the Jews" right now, all the time, has been doing the shtick for years. Still on Twitter and even has the blue checkmark, interviewed, hand-shaked, etc. People still go and take photo with him (yes, including Obama, in 2005). DC city council member just days ago ranted about "Jews controlling the weather". Still DC council member, and his half-hearted apology was shrugged off by his supporters as "we all talk about in private, why can't we talk about it in public?" Why there are no mass protests? Because people think nothing will come out of it, it's just some crackpots bullshitting. German people thought the same. They weren't politically apathetic, they just didn't see the threat and thought the good things Nazis promised (security, stability, order, etc.) are much more important than occasional crackpot mouthing off. They were very wrong, obviously, but they didn't know it back then.
no, that is not really what happened in 30s germany. You had a country in deep economical crisis, and huge political fight for power. Smart people were far from passive, on the contrary they took sides.
No, if you actually read about what actually happened in 1930s in Germany, the government disfunction led to people demanding more powers will be given to the government, to fix things finally and to end the instability and the economic woes. And the careful stoking of hostility between political tribes and fear of each other made people to seek the government as the ultimate arbiter and protector. Which proved to be spectacularly bad idea when it turned out the guy who ended up being appointed as the head of the government, in charge of fixing things, was Hitler, and instead used them to consolidate the power in his own and his party's hands and end the Weimar republic. People weren't passive or avoiding the politics. They just thought the right politics is to elect the right people to the government and give them all the powers. Which has a very spectacularly awful failure mode if after the powers were given turns out those people are not exactly right, but you can't take the powers back anymore.
Now, in your favor, they have not cared, despite the majority of this info being old, known.
Context matters.
This last election was very highly controversial. I get downvotes for more commentary, and I know why too.
It's OK, but it does make this discussion a bit harder.
Let's just say people have seen more about the ugly parts of politics than usual. The choices they had and why are troublesome too.
The parties both want to avoid accounting for their abuses, and or just working realities, when known are not popular, too.
Given things like this in play, and strong incentives for many "to put blame anywhere else", or onto "those other people", the conditions needed for this information to matter are ripe!
Should be no real surprise.
Many, in my circles, have only casual understanding of the data issues. They appreciate the good, and as long as they get a lot of value out of the products, they will push cares away.
Most are asking great questions, and they are weighing the info they get, trying to understand.
It's more than I have ever seen, despite my own efforts to inform earlier.
What is most disturbing, to me, isn't the interest. That discussion should have happened years ago. "You are the product" means a lot more than many know, and it's not all bad too.
Many will evaluate all of this and make different choices. FB won't be the same for them. FB won't die either, but like the kids did, people will move on, seek alternatives and more agency as to what happens.
Good.
The disturbing thing is alphas, influencers linking all of this to every bad, deep state, nefarious actor, prediction of doom they can.
It's all fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Every institution is under attacked. Traditional media, entertainment, scientists, police, democratic representatives, intelligence agencies... now our digitally-dependent society is realizing we can't trust the wires. America is becoming schizophrenic.
They definitely do, even if you dismiss the ongoing media shitstorm (and you shouldn’t), people have been getting tired of Facebook for a while now. Young people think it’s for graybeards; as soon as nana got on the platform it stopped being cool. Everyone also has the very concrete event of Trump’s election to hold onto, which led to a lot of coverage and understanding of how social media really operates. This is something that’s been pressurized for a while, and now the lid is coming off. Zuckerberg’s non-apologies aren’t going over well either, and the scandals keep coming.
If you disagree, that’s ok, but please actually make an argument or don’t bother replying.
Some people don't believe folks are let off the hook because they are "just following orders." Other people believe that following orders lets people off the hook.
We see this over and over again in every discussion about corporate malfeasance (not to mention war).
It appears you're of the latter mindset while the parent is of the former. Consider not down voting what amounts to a legitimate philosophical difference.
If they don't follow orders, than there's no statement as opposed to no reply on that issue. The spokesperson's job is to tell the public what they're told to, they likely don't have the information to answer that question if they wanted to.
I’ll just bet they didn’t. “We’re covering our ass like it’s on fire” is probably a bad PR, move, but it’s painfully obvious that’s what’s happening. The funny thing is they’re hurting themselves even more with half-baked apologies. They’re going back to the playbook they’ve used for the last dozen scandals, but this is different.
Facebook the company might survive this, but Facebook the social network is going to die.