Charlie does not let Lisa near those scary ultra loud crinkly biodegradeable Sun Chips bags.

Stories
 
Facebook Vows To Restrict Users if US Election Descends Into Chaos
from the up-next dept.
Facebook has said it will take aggressive and exceptional measures to "restrict the circulation of content" on its platform if November's presidential election descends into chaos or violent civic unrest [the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. From a report:
In an interview with the Financial Times, Nick Clegg, the company's head of global affairs, said it had drawn up plans for how to handle a range of outcomes, including widespread civic unrest or "the political dilemmas" of having in-person votes counted more rapidly than mail-in ballots, which will play a larger role in this election due to the coronavirus pandemic. "There are some break-glass options available to us if there really is an extremely chaotic and, worse still, violent set of circumstances," Mr Clegg said, though he stopped short of elaborating further on what measures were on the table. The proposed actions, which would probably go further than any previously taken by a US platform, come as the social media group is under increasing pressure to lay out how it plans to combat election-related misinformation, voter suppression and the incitement of violence on the November 3 election day and during the post-election period.
Posted by msmash 10 hours ago
facebook politics social usa us
Close Ad

103 Comments
Help
All
Outstanding
Funny
Yeah... (+1)
Malays2 bowman a few seconds ago
"Oh Gosh darn, Trump won but Facebook won't let me communicate. I'll just stay home and knit a very angry sweater"
And to FB's 'logic', I reply
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
(though really, they just want to keep their
hands clean of all of the violence that may
happen regardless of FB's actions.)
Reply  Share
 Flag
Good call, Facebook (-1)
theJavaMan 10 hours ago
Now the agitators will move to private encrypted chat networks, and the honest people will be in the dark until the chaos is on their doorstep. It will keep everyone on edge and ultimately be counterproductive.
Sunlight disinfects, and protects.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+3, Funny)
fahrbot-bot 9 hours ago
Now the agitators will move to private encrypted chat networks, ...

I initially read that as "alligators" ... I think I either need way more or way less coffee.

[ and now I want to see alligators using Facebook ]
Reply  Share
 Flag
Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+2)
raymorris 9 hours ago
I think you had a good idea with less coffee.
We've had enough drama for 2020. Let's all have way less coffee and chill the heck out. Let's all agree - let's not have chaos and violence just because some politician didn't win, alright? No matter who wins the election, it's gonna be a stinkin politician either way.
How about we all be grown-ups about it, whichever way it goes?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+3, Funny)
fahrbot-bot 9 hours ago
I think you had a good idea with less coffee.
We've had enough drama for 2020. Let's all have way less coffee and chill the heck out. Let's all agree - let's not have chaos and violence just because some politician didn't win, alright? No matter who wins the election, it's gonna be a stinkin politician either way.
How about we all be grown-ups about it, whichever way it goes?

Okay, but what about the alligators? :-)
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
LynnwoodRooster 9 hours ago
Some of us live on saltwater and deal with crocodiles, you insensitive clod!
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
cayenne8 6 hours ago
How about we all be grown-ups about it, whichever way it goes?

That would be the dream, but we pretty much saw that go out the window about 4+ years ago.

By the way, when did the "tags" you could add to stories disappear from the Slashdot home page?

This one was screaming for a "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag....
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
raymorris 5 hours ago
I've watched it go down hill since Bork, mostly (not that everything was rosy before that, but the people who did that knew they were starting a lasting war, and acknowledged that fact internally).
Be that as it may, I'm going to do my part to help keep the discourse civil and remember we're all in this together, and we all want what's best for America. Those who want different policies than I do want those policies because they genuinely believe they are best for the country, not because they are evil bastards. Also, their policy ideas DO have their benefits, which I will benefit from, even if they also have disadvantages and I would choose differently.
Whichever politicians win this November (and they are all politicians), let's try to work together.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
slycyberguy 4 hours ago
How about we all be grown-ups about it, whichever way it goes?
Easy for you to say since, with COVID out of the news and mail-in voting being questioned, your guy will win.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
raymorris 4 hours ago
I rather doubt my guy will win, since my guy isn't running.
Between the teo that are running? I'm not too excited about either Tweedledee or Tweedledum, so no, nobody I like is going to win.
Polls suggest a Biden landslide is entirely possible, but that's certainly not guaranteed.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
Anonymouse Cowtard 4 hours ago
It'll come down to voter turnout. If Trump can suppress the vote enough he can win. If he loses, but it's close, they could well end up in court for a long time.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
Mixmaster Bri 3 hours ago
Can we all be grown-ups before and during the election too? That would solve all of the issues.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Let's all have less coffee and chill out (+1)
Joce640k 2 hours ago
 it's gonna be a stinkin politician either way.
Yeah, but one of them might be Donald Trump.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+2)
Osprey808 7 hours ago
So to be clear, you endorse the idea of political censorship and forcing "unpopular" viewpoints off the mainstream internet? Do you support every single domain name registrar refusing to host the Daily Stormer? Is Tor a sufficient enough forum for the political dissident?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
nomadic 7 hours ago
Can't speak for them, but I sure do.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
cayenne8 6 hours ago
Unpopular speech often is the speech that needs to be protected the most.

That has proven true since the start of the US.

You never know what speech will become "unpopular" in the future.....and it has changed since the beginning of our country.

And yes, not only does it need to be kept on the govt level, but also on the private level. The "public square" has moved in large part online, and we need to bring that notion of the public square along with that move.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Making it as easy as possible to incite violence (+1)
shanen 7 hours ago
Quite an incoherent FP. Your Subject is obviously ironic, but your body vaguely waves at two of the real issues. The actual discussion seems to be all over the place. So as usual, I'm left in a vacuum trying to clarify my own thoughts. I do see some linkage from one my thoughts to something in that FP, but it's a stretch... Not really blaming you, because that's how Slashdot 2020 works. There's a race condition on FP that favors such comments. My not-quite-initial thoughts (after a few searches in the discussion):
(1) Encouraging violence and making threats is illegal. Assault and battery are separate crimes.
(2) If Facebook supports assault, then it should be regarded as an accessory to the crime of assault. The convenience of the tool for committing assault on a larger scale is a secondary issue, but if you're talking to idiots, then the convenience can become crucial. (Which is the link to the FP. The people the "agitators" want to reach are not so smart and would find it difficult to use sophisticated tools, whereas any moron can read Facebook and Facebook even provides tools to reach out and find more morons. (Ditto Twitter, TikTok and some other channels.))
(3) Facebook doesn't care if your engagement is positive or negative, as long as it is marketable. (I personally addressed that problem by disengaging from Facebook. Not completely, but I'm quite close to zero Facebook now.)
(4) Telling with people with guns to get ready to shoot other people is bad. Unless you sell guns, in which case you're loving it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+4, Insightful)
nomadic 7 hours ago
"Sunlight disinfects, and protects."
The past four years and the growth of insane conspiracy theorizing among 30% of the U.S. population proves that is absolutely and utterly untrue.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
Anonyrnous 6 hours ago
The insane ones are created to distract you away from the real ones.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
infolation 4 hours ago
Plus, don't mention Disinfectant, Sunlight, or anything Bleach / UV-related in connection with the Presidential Election. 

Covid's dangerous enough already.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
Anonymouse Cowtard 4 hours ago
Don't forget the people who died after drinking fish tank cleaner (chloroquine phosphate).
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook 
Berkyjay 6 hours ago
As if his knuckle dragging followers would even know how to access such networks.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Lacking definitions (+4, Insightful)
Mr. Dollar Ton 10 hours ago
Without a good idea of what "Facebook" understands as "extreme cirumstances", "chaos", "civil unrest", it is quite hard to fathom what they'll do.
One thing is certain, though, anything that harms their bottom line they will avoid, and everything that brings more revenue they will try to implement, and abstractions like "democracy", "human and civil rights", "freedom of expression" and the like will be among the least important factors determining what they actually do.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+2, Insightful)
BeerFartMoron 9 hours ago
To Facebook, "chaos" in the election would be defined as every eligible voter casting a ballot for the candidate of their choice.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
fleeped 9 hours ago
Very well said. Applies to many more actors than facebook though.
Reply  Share
 Flag
FB candidate loses - Passes FB chaos threshold (+1)
will4 6 hours ago
How realistic is it when company X says "If measure Y, then I'm going to do Z" when Y cannot be measured and Z is not defined?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
Rob Y. 9 hours ago
You'd think with all the false flag operations - as well as the 'legitimate' use of Facebook's platform to quietly target lies to specific groups of voters, that they'd realize chaos has already descended. To say nothing of their admitted ineffective measures to block QAnon conspiracies. If they can't identify rantings about baby sex rings and cannibalism, they're probably not doing so well with subtler stuff...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
Anonyrnous 6 hours ago
Yeah, we obviously need to block people talk about child sex rings. As if that's a thing.
https://www.canberratimes.com.... 
https://www.usatoday.com/story... 
https://www.news.com.au/nation... 
https://www.fox23.com/news/tre... 
https://www.perthnow.com.au/ne... 
https://www.azfamily.com/news/...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+2)
i'm probably drunk 8 hours ago
Anything other than "Biden winning" probably fits the definition
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions 
reg 8 hours ago
Funny, I only see Facebook doing things to support Trump... They certainly worked very hard for him in 2016.
Reply  Share
 Flag
See the overall issue. 
Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago
Lest We Forget the Horrors: A Catalog of Trump's Worst Cruelties, Collusions, Corruptions, and Crimes.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+2)
Lord Kano 7 hours ago
Funny, I only see Facebook doing things to support Trump... They certainly worked very hard for him in 2016.
Right leaning pages have been and are being purged at a surprising pace.
On a political page that I run, articles about the previous behavior of Biden and Harris have been flagged for being old. Well, of course they're old. How in the fuck else are we supposed to make reference to their activities in the past?
LK
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+2)
guruevi 7 hours ago
Facebook was fairly biased in the previous election as well, they blocked plenty of right-wing content. It only worked for Trump because Trump was better than Hillary at the social media game. Clinton didn't even have a dedicated social media team in her campaign, whereas Trump did.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
rmdingler 2 hours ago
Comment On point:
 Look at a thousand of the millions of Facebook ads Donald Trump has run, and it’s hard to believe that they represent a winning strategy. They recycle the same imagery and themes, over and over: Trump, photoshopped in front of a flag, points a finger. Trump claps before an audience. Trump gives a thumbs-up, or smiles at a microphone. Each image is washed in patriotic red or blue. The text almost always issues a call to action: Buy this hat, sign this petition, RSVP to this rally.

They are notable only in their banality, and in their sheer volume. During the 2016 election cycle, Trump’s team ran 5.9 million ads on Facebook, spending $44 million from June to November alone. Hillary Clinton’s campaign ran only 66,000.
Someone in the President's camp properly estimated the importance of the Facebook in reaching the target number of voters much better than the managers of Hillary's campaign. Interesting article in the Atlantic.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
incredibale an hour ago
It's kinda disturbing that so many people, like you, can say things like that in an apparent lack of self-awareness.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
Mr. Dollar Ton 7 hours ago
Why? Trump works very hard for Cuckerberg.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
Osprey808 7 hours ago
It's not hard to fathom what they'll do at all. They'll censor the right and become an mouthpiece for the Democrat party. They might as well put out a press statement volunteering to be the the Democrats Pravda.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions 
guruevi 7 hours ago
Well, we see civil unrest now, but Facebook isn't blocking the agitators. So it must mean that if Biden steals the election and Trump supporters protest THEN Facebook will step in and block only those people.
In the mean time, Antifa is using the platform to recruit and propagandize for its own terrorist agenda right now and Facebook isn't doing squat.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
demonlapin 6 hours ago
I mean, Biden might steal the election, but I doubt he's that competent. Maybe Harris can pull it off, but she's probably too smart to do that now. Wait a few years, run in 2024 on an anti-Trump landslide. It's not even remotely in her interest to trade being the junior senator from California for the shitshow that being a VP is, especially if you're going to be Biden's VP. I'm still surprised that Trump was able to talk Pence into the job; governor of Indiana isn't a job you get by collecting bottle caps.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
AmiMoJo 6 hours ago
After last time they are probably worried about being regulated or even shut down. If your platform becomes a threat to democracy and part of an armed coup it tends not to do your stock price much good.
Reply  Share
 Flag
trump can use the EAS system & maybe force the (+1)
Joe_Dragon 10 hours ago
trump can use the EAS system & maybe force the fcc to have an on line EAS.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Turn off the popularity contest. (+2)
Fly Swatter 10 hours ago
And by that I mean likes and dislikes. Also hide friending and unfriending from public view. Let everyone have their say on their own face page. 

What's that? It breaks your revenue model? Oh well. 

Do the same to twitter, but I guess that shuts down twitter - what a loss.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Turn off the popularity contest. (+1)
shanen 7 hours ago
Mod parent up? Or maybe not, because you forgot the magic word "engagement". However it does remind me of that joke genre that is still failing to catch on...
"All your base are belong to us." -- Zero Wing
"All your attentions is belong to us." -- Google
"All your engagement are belong to us." -- Facebook
"All your shoppings is belong to us." -- Amazon
"All your sexy toys is belong to us." -- Apple
"All your sex toy are belong to us." -- Pornhub
"All your computer are belong to us." -- Microsoft
"All your... Uh, what was the question again?" -- IBM
It's supposed to be a joke genre about the special foci of various corporate cancers. Obviously I better not give up my day job to write more jokes. Oh, wait...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Facebook doesn't want to fix the problem (+3, Insightful)
RobinH 10 hours ago
The thing is Facebook profits from the problem, so they have no interest in fixing the root cause. I watched the new documentary called "The Social Dilemma" on Netflix, and while there's nothing too surprising in it that someone on Slashdot wouldn't already know, it did make me think about the economics around false information. When Facebook or Youtube shows someone the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole, such as anti-vaxxer, pizza-gate, QAnon content, etc., it's a very clear signal that these users are very easily influenced by any information regardless of credibility. Many political organizations, including foreign ones, and even some advertisers pay top dollar to access these users because they're the easiest to influence. A lot of the content that are then pushed on these users are also fake, but Facebook and Google make lots of money from it. So they claim they're doing things to stop it, but they only want to appear to be doing something. Actually stopping it is counter to their financial interest. It's no different than a casino telling us they should be trusted to reduce the number of slot machines.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Restrict internet communications in case of unrest (+1)
halaloszt0 10 hours ago
Where did we see this pattern? China? Belarus?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr (+2)
Powercntrl 9 hours ago
False equivalence - this isn't the government shutting down free speech. This is like a hotel telling a furry convention to GTFO because their behavior became too disruptive. (And yeah, that's actually happened)
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr (+1)
halaloszt0 8 hours ago
How you know it is not the government?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr 
Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago
How do you know it is?
Reply  Share
 Flag
We're already there (+1)
Powercntrl 9 hours ago
At a polling location in Virginia, Trump supporters were allegedly intimidating voters. Source.
This election looks to be very messy, so press that button, Zuck...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+4, Insightful)
smooth wombat 9 hours ago
It's called voter intimidation and it's illegal. But that won't stop the con artist from encouraging it or encouraging his supporters to vote twice, which also happens to be illegal. But since when did being a criminal ever stop the con artist?
Reply  Share
 Flag
They're already doing voter intimidation (+1)
rsilvergun 9 hours ago
See here. The cops (very slowly) made them move. They're still out there making threats. My understanding is that it's much worse in the South.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+4, Informative)
michaelwigle 9 hours ago
From your article:

"At least two dozen supporters of the US president held “Trump - Pence” placards and waved American flags, about 100 feet from the entrance to the polling location."

Note the distance. That is standard protocol. Every election there are people for and against candidates at the prescribed distance from polling stations to make their last stand. That's why the article was full of "qualifying" words like "appeared" to be blocking. If people are "afraid" of seeing support for a different candidate than their own then they need to grow up. I walk past Democrats doing the same thing all the time because I'm in a heavy Democratic area. But I don't go asking to be escorted despite the fact that Democratic officials have actually publicly encouraged harassment of those who disagree with them. It's a non-story.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1, Informative)
Powercntrl 9 hours ago
If people are "afraid" of seeing support for a different candidate than their own then they need to grow up.
Trump ejects folks from his rallies who attempt to hold up signs that criticize him. Perhaps he needs to grow up, too?
Maybe we have stricter laws in my neck of the woods, because I've never seen loud obnoxious supporters that close to a polling location. They'll usually be on a street corner on a road leading up to the place - but the entire parking area and the building itself is completely off-limits to any form of political speech.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
LynnwoodRooster 9 hours ago
There's a bit of a difference between being inside a rally and being 100 feet from the entrance of a polling location...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
michaelwigle 7 hours ago
Not to mention Democrats expel Republicans from their rallies too. None of this is one-sided.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+2)
Powercntrl 6 hours ago
Actually, this is how Obama handled it. If you can't stand to watch a video with Obama, the short of it is he tells the crowd to chill and respect the Trump supporter's right to free speech.
Imagine that.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+2)
michaelwigle 5 hours ago
I have no more trouble watching Obama than I do Trump. They're both politicians who say they are great and their opponent is awful. Obama is just slicker in his presentation.
So, a single old white guy with a Trump sign managed to garner enough attention in a huge auditorium that it caused Obama to stop and deal with the matter? That seemed a bit strange to me. Then I found a Times article about the incident which mentions:
"But on Friday, instead of calling for the man’s removal or heckling him back as he’s done in the past, the Obama told the crowd he deserved their respect and urged them to vote instead of boo."
https://time.com/4559072/barac...
Call me a tin foil hatter but that looks like a staged incident to me.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there 
Anonymous Coward 27 minutes ago
Yes, you sound EXACTLY like a tin foil hatter.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
Powercntrl 7 hours ago
There's functionally not much difference. Someone sitting in the nosebleeds quietly holding up a sign isn't impeding the rally in any form, other than by upsetting folks who don't want to see an opposing viewpoint.
Perhaps you're suggesting that the proper location for such forms of protest should be outside the rally, completely out of view? I absolutely agree - and the loud obnoxious supporters at the polling location should be held to the same standard. Shout and hold up signs somewhere else.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
fenrif 7 hours ago
What is wrong with that?
Does the opposition allow people into it's rallies who are solely their to disrupt and harangue the speaker?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Look a little further into it (+2)
rsilvergun 9 hours ago
and you'll find there weren't the "standard distance" until the cops showed up and made them. They were blocking people in places.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Look a little further into it 
Anonymous Coward 7 hours ago
"A county election official, Gary Scott, said that the protest was about 100 feet from the building entrance where voters cast their ballot early. Contrary to some initial reports, the protesters had not blocked access to the polling station, he said."
https://www.businessinsider.com/virginia-trump-supporters-intimidated-voters-disrupt-early-voting-2020-9
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Look a little further into it (+1)
michaelwigle 7 hours ago
Actually, I can't find any trace of that claim anywhere. All I see is chanting 4 more years from a distance. Now, the line may very well have gone past the perimeter required by that State. But even at that there's nobody saying there was actual confrontation or blocking. Just support of their candidate.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (-1)
Anonymous Coward 7 hours ago
Yeah but the Biden voters were all terrified.
I mean they've all allready died once!
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there 
Anonymous Coward 6 hours ago
It's not a non-story, America likes to push democracy around the globe, and yet it has one of the most unhealthy democracies on the planet.
Countries with healthy democracies don't allow any campaigning on polling day, whether 100ft from the polling station or not, it's just not allowed - the only thing that's typically allowed is encouraging people to go out and vote, but not for any specific candidate.
This sort of thing along with things like removing the ability to issue dictats without consent of elected houses, removing political appointments to the judiciary, improving proportionality of representation are all desperately needed in the US to help halt this continuous slide towards greater partisanship and authoritarianism where the public vote falls by the wayside.
Everyone in America knows this, they just turn a blind eye to it when it's their guys that are taking advantage of it, meanwhile the health of America's democracy continues to slide into a pool of shit.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there 
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago
Yeah, someone needs to arrest those "rioters" and "looters".
Hey, swords cut both ways fuckers.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
guruevi 7 hours ago
They sure should, except these Trump supporters did nothing wrong. Later news of that event notes that there was no wrong doing.
In the mean time, leftists ACTUALLY attack and kill Trump supporters and are celebrated for it
https://fox17.com/news/local/1...
https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
guruevi 7 hours ago
At polling locations elsewhere, Democrats ACTUALLY attack people: https://fox17.com/news/local/1...
In the mean time, Democrats in Portland ACTUALLY killed a Trump supporter
Reply  Share
 Flag
If you're getting election info from Facebook.. (+1)
Rick Schumann 9 hours ago
..then you're fucking up.
Too bad we can't get that through peoples' heads.
In many ways Facebook has become the new AOL. Did you know that, apparently, AOL is still around? I had no idea. There are (very old, apparently) people who believe that if AOL disappeared, they wouldn't have any access to the Internet anymore! Amazing, isn't it? But, functionally-speaking, it appears that Facebook has taken on the role AOL used to play: people seem to get their news and information from Facebook; wouldn't put it past some people on Facebook to believe, like the legacy of AOL users who still apparently exist, that without Facebook they would be lost.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: If you're getting election info from Facebook.. (+1)
CaptAubrey 9 hours ago
OMG, you hit the nail on the head. Who the hell cares what Zuck does? Facebook is a parasite on the world and just needs to be ignored. If FB plans for the election cause you heartburn or an elevated blood pressure, you have really got to rethink how you are engaging in civil society. It's a website, that's all; it's not some oracle of info or some omnipotent source of power.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: If you're getting election info from Facebook.. (+1)
CaptnCrud 8 hours ago
Spot on. The people your talking about are basically smartphone users (they probably rarely use their computer...if they even have one), these people don't use the web, they use "apps".
The people haven't changed, these are the same lazy people that get their info from glances at print headlines without reading the articles...or word of mouth from peers, and that was good enough for them. Nothing has changed except the medium, if they didn't have facebook it would be something else.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: If you're getting election info from Facebook.. (+1)
Rick Schumann 4 hours ago
Remember a user here who went by the handle 'sexconker'? He'd humorously post anonymously about 'apps' and the people using them being 'cattle', essentially. Turns out he wasn't wrong, stet?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Except... (+1)
dark.nebulae 9 hours ago
Aren't we pretty much there already?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Not Far Fetched (-1)
quantaman 9 hours ago
Consider the following scenarios:
1) Trump is up on election night (in person votes) but falls behind when all the mail in ballots are counted and refuses to concede.
2) Trump wins outright, but it quickly emerges that a disproportionate (and decisive) number of ballots from Democratic areas never got counted for various reasons.
Neither is unlikely, add what looks like the GOPs insistence on filling RBG's seat as they're booted out of power and there's a fairly high likelihood of violence.
The problem is they've forgotten the point of Democracy, it's not about choosing who's in charge, it's about creating a set of rules that everyone agrees to.
Remember 2000? Al Gore not only won the US Popular Vote, but he was preferred by:
- Most Floridians (including disenfranchised felons)
- By most Floridians who should have been allowed to vote (black Floridians who were wrongly disenfranchised by an administration run by Bush's brother),
- By most Floridians who did vote (a poorly designed ballot caused thousands to vote for Buchanan instead of Gore by mistake).
The only way that Gore lost Florida and the Presidency is by a strict application of the rules set out beforehand giving him Bush the move valid ballots in Florida, and so Gore conceded.
As he should have, because maintaining that set of rules was more important than winning power.
Now the GOP is embracing a strategy of changing the rules on the fly. The problem with fixing the rules of the game is that people eventually stop playing the game. Applied to politics that means Trump and the GOP are literally putting your country at risk of a civil war.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched 
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago
...literally...
Go back to twitterland.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
quantaman 7 hours ago
...literally...
Go back to twitterland.
Do you think your constitution has some kind of magical powers that prevent a major conflict?
I'd say the chance of a serious wave or unrest is at least 50%, almost certain if one of those "fuzzy" outcomes occurs on Nov. 4th.
An actual civil war? 10% is too high, though 1% is probably too low. People were warning of the risks of pandemics for years and that was crazy talk until January. Even in early March where all the information was there people still didn't clue in until things hit the fan.
The unimaginable can and regularly does happen. Your country is in an extremely risky place.
Reply  Share
 Flag
The cost of prevention? (+1)
shanen 7 hours ago
Only mention of "prevent" in the discussion and no visible mention of "prevention".
So is Facebook going to pay for the pound of cure?
I didn't think so. But I'm beginning to understand why China and Europe are getting so hostile towards Facebook.
However, I think the actual criminals are the people encouraging the violence, not just the people who get around to performing the violence on behalf of those criminals. Making threats used to be illegal? Aren't the threats alone sufficient cause to investigate them and justify blocking their access to the tools they want to use to encourage violence?
Or am I being stupid to ignore the threats and vote anyway? And why hasn't my ballot arrived yet? It was supposed to have been mailed to me on the 18th.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched 
Anonymous Coward 9 hours ago
Russian subversion's goal is to undermine elections and all public institutions so nothing is trusted; including your neighbors. Such a society no longer functions as a society and is weak.
Trump's lifelong tactics which he mastered from his mentor, the evil Roy Cohan (the man behind McCarthy's witch hunt, killing the Rosenbergs who were scapegoats, the wife later was admitted to not be guilty but Roy stuck with never being wrong.... just like trump with the central park 5. )
Trump's the perfect Russian asset. fact. They don't even need to handle him, just promote him from the sides; not that a wife with communist party ties who is fluent in Russian hurts any... Or tons of business connections with your actual Russian agents... like Trumps lawyer's partners or his criminally guilty advisors... Or the fact that during almost 0% interest loans following the housing collapse, Trump corp broke from real-estate industry religion and payed in cash! (excuse was they didn't want to bother and had so much $ coming in... which any sane person would use to get bigger loans.) True, Trump couldn't get loans from anybody due to him being a massive failure, but Deutsche Bank would still give him loans so he could have done even more business. BTW, Deutsche Bank was caught many years later laundering massive amounts of Russian money. Oh, also of interest is that 1 exec in charge of such things (but of course no execs get jailed) was the son of a Justice on the SC who surprised people by retiring earlier than expected...
The shit goes deeper... but blatant obstruction, organized crime, and likely a government are all involved in making it only look like a swamp on the surface.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1, Insightful)
CoolDiscoRex 9 hours ago
 As he should have, because maintaining that set of rules was more important than winning power.
I don’t care for either candidate that has a chance of winning, so this is a sincere, honest question from someone without a personal axe to grind.
Would the Democrats have cared about “Russian collusion” had Clinton won? Would there have been an investigation and all that? I don’t know many people who think it would have been an issue.
Even as a non-Trump supporter, I remember Hilary clutching her pearls when Trump insinuated that he might challenge the legitimacy of the election, then the Democrats spent more or less four years doing exactly that .
I think you’re right that Gore did the stand-up thing, but that was what, 20 years ago? Just speaking honestly, and from my own perspective (which due to cognitive dissonance induction will nonetheless make me a troll to some), but this “concern for the process” seems to be at the whims of both parties.
Also, wasn’t the integrity of our elections pretty much trashed when Democrats spent 4 years in anger because the unwashed plebes learned what was in Clinton’s emails? I mean, the content of the emails weren’t a problem, our knowledge about them was the problem. That was the position.
The emails could have just as easily helped her, and honestly, should have. It wasn’t our fault, or Russia’s fault, that they didn’t.
In essence, our position is that “Russia” ruined our election by providing transparency into a public officials communications on the job.
That’s pretty bad, no? That doesn’t really do much to legitimize our elections, does it?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago
a sincere, honest question from someone without a personal axe to grind. 

But with plenty of right-wing talking points at hand, eh?

Would the Democrats have cared about “Russian collusion” had Clinton won? Would there have been an investigation and all that? 

Yes- there are NGO's, think-tanks, etc. super-interested in this issue still. By what logic would they possibly have shrugged and ignored it? Particularly given a central accusation is that the Russians cracked the servers of who would be the actual sitting President? If anything, the investigations would have been much more about election security and integrity, without all the Trumpists having to make-believe all that crap in the way so their guy didn't look so bad.

Also, wasn’t the integrity of our elections pretty much trashed when Democrats spent 4 years in anger because the unwashed plebes learned what was in Clinton’s emails? 

Yes. It couldn't possibly be about the corrupt, fascistic, misogynist, racist (or at least eugenicist), idiotic President. I have no idea why that would make anybody angry, for I have been living under a rock, with my eyes closed and no Presidential twitter, for the last 4 years.

Anyway, nice try on the "no axe" but you're at least drinking their Kool-aid even if you think you've mixed it yourself.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched 
CaptAubrey 8 hours ago
Why post as an AC?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched 
Anonymous Coward 8 hours ago
> Would the Democrats have cared about “Russian collusion” had Clinton won? Would there have been an investigation and all that? I don’t know many people who think it would have been an issue.
You're combining multiple scenarios here.
1. Would the Democracts voluntarily submit to investigation if Hillary won and the accusations were that the Russians tried to help Hillary win?
Maybe, maybe not. I think it would largely depend on what they had to hide. Would they go full on Mitch McConnel though? I'm not so sure.
2. Would the Democracts open an investigation if Hillary won and the accusations were that Russians tried to help Donald Trump??
Of course they would and they would try to impale the entirety of the GOP at the same time. They'd be stupid not to.
Now, your whataboutism is all nice and well, but it's been clear since Trump got elected, that the GOP are largely composed of cowards and nutters. And it's clear that Trump and the GOP are trying to keep in power, regardless of how the people vote. This has nothing to do with the Russians anymore.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+2, Insightful)
stabiesoft 8 hours ago
I think you are forgetting trump during 2016 and has already announced for 2020 that he may NOT accept the results of the election. As to Russian interference, well, I think it is a given they did interfere. Every investigation has shown they did. As to you being a non-trump supporter, wow, your post screams trump supporter.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
_Sharp'r_ 12 minutes ago
The media asking a GOP politician if he'll "accept the election results" is meant as a gotcha question, not a serious inquiry. If they say yes, then the media accuses them of going back on it if they ever ask for a recount or contest anything, if they say no, then they spin like you've done above.
The only good response is to refuse to accept the premise of the question, but nuance gets lost in the soundbites the media carves them into. It's meant as a no-win question.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+2)
quantaman 8 hours ago
 As he should have, because maintaining that set of rules was more important than winning power.
I don’t care for either candidate that has a chance of winning, so this is a sincere, honest question from someone without a personal axe to grind.
Would the Democrats have cared about “Russian collusion” had Clinton won? Would there have been an investigation and all that?
Yes there would have. The White House had wanted to put out a warning to Russia before the election but they wanted bi-partisan support so it didn't look like an election stunt and McConnell wouldn't get on bound.
Russia attacked your elections, that would have been consequences.
Even as a non-Trump supporter, I remember Hilary clutching her pearls when Trump insinuated that he might challenge the legitimacy of the election,
Of course she did, there was never any reason to think that the election would be "rigged" in favour of the Democrats so he had no reason to doubt the legitimacy.
then the Democrats spent more or less four years doing exactly that
Because Russia DID compromise the legitimacy of the election with an Intelligence operation to expose the dirty laundry of only one side (plus a heavy propaganda campaign). As well, some FBI agents leaked to Giuliani about Anthony Weiner's laptop causing the email investigation to re-open, which caused Comey to break DOJ policy and announce an investigation days before the election.
Also, wasn’t the integrity of our elections pretty much trashed when Democrats spent 4 years in anger because the unwashed plebes learned what was in Clinton’s emails? I mean, the content of the emails weren’t a problem, our knowledge about them was the problem. That was the position.
The emails could have just as easily helped her, and honestly, should have. It wasn’t our fault, or Russia’s fault, that they didn’t.
In essence, our position is that “Russia” ruined our election by providing transparency into a public officials communications on the job.
That’s pretty bad, no? That doesn’t really do much to legitimize our elections, does it?
I'm really not sure what you're talking about here and I suspect you're confusing a few things here.
Clinton broke internal policy by using personal emails, but the big discussion was whether she violated federal law by having classified info on the server.
The fact is she didn't violate the law, those kind of mistakes are pretty common and throwing her in jail for mishandling intel would be like throwing some in jail for Dangerous Driving because they got a speeding ticket.
The other part was Russia hacking DNC and John Podesta's emails and disseminating them through Wikileaks. The contents of those emails were pretty banal. The biggest "gotcha" was that a bunch of DNC employees much preferred Clinton to Sanders but didn't really do anything about it, which everyone knew anyway. They only really mattered since they sounded like the Clinton email scandal.
As for "transparency" you need to apply it to both sides equally for it to be fair.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
Ichijo 6 hours ago
Would the Democrats have cared about "Russian collusion" had Clinton won?
It's interesting how you choose to look to the Democrats to decide what's ethical. WWDD?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
AmiMoJo 6 hours ago
Trump doubted the legitimacy of the election even when he won. He started an investigation into millions of illegal votes but it didn't find anything.
Losing the popular vote really bruised his ego.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
wolf12886 3 hours ago
Well said.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
Lije Baley 7 hours ago
I can't imagine who, in any actually significant numbers, would fight in this civil war that some people fear is coming. The protestors of this summer were only visible through the magnifying glass of desperate media, and many of their tiny numbers were coming from relatively comfortable middle class homes. The conservatives who bought into the sensationalism of the protests only turned out in similarly small numbers. They would rather be home, fortifying their property.
If Trump wins, there will be plenty of noise, and a little, hugely media-amplified violence, but nothing that could seriously be defined as a civil war, even from the luxurious perspective of most Americans.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
Anonyrnous 5 hours ago
When the CIA started the civil war in Syria, they didn't need to incite 50% of the population to rise up in violence. They just trained and armed about 10,000 assholes. That's all it takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: Not Far Fetched (+1)
Local ID10T 4 hours ago
If Trump wins, there will be plenty of noise, and a little, hugely media-amplified violence, but nothing that could seriously be defined as a civil war, even from the luxurious perspective of most Americans.
Sure... But what if Trump doesn't win?
Will he cry foul, and encourage people to "stand up for their rights", like he did with the armed people protesting face-mask requirements and business closures to reduce spread of covid?
What happens when these armed patriots show up to protest the democrats stealing the election?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Going to be interesting to see (+1, Interesting)
oldgraybeard 9 hours ago
who Facebook sends it's cancel culture mob against.
I guess this means the good guys are the ones Facebook sets up as strawman and bans.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Do it preemptively! (+1)
Edward Nardella 9 hours ago
Having a plan to not make things worse in the event that you make things terrible is much worse than having a plan to not make things terrible.
Reply  Share
 Flag
I know everyone "has their own truth" (+1)
argStyopa 9 hours ago
...and that claiming the high ground in the election is PART OF THE POLITICAL BATTLE, but does nobody else have *massive* qualms about some privately owned, for-profit company essentially deciding what's allowable as political discourse?
Really?
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: I know everyone "has their own truth" (+1)
inode_buddha 8 hours ago
Newspapers have been doing this for decades. What's the problem all of a sudden?
I remember in 2016, WaPo published more than a dozen hip pieces on Sanders in a 24-hr period. Guess who owns WaPo? Guess what their editorial policy is?
Same for the NYT. Neither "paper" is fit to use for bird cage liner, worm bedding, or anything else.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: I know everyone "has their own truth" (+1)
sound+vision 7 hours ago
They're deciding? Why's that? They don't decide anything for me. "Sounds like a personal problem."
Reply  Share
 Flag
If? (+1)
tsa 9 hours ago
NT
Reply  Share
 Flag
"if" the U.S. election descends into chaos? (+1)
DontBeAMoran 7 hours ago
First of all it's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when".
Second, pulling the plug once chaos has started is like stopping making holes at the bottom of your boat after water started flooding in after the first hole. It's too late.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Re: "if" the U.S. election descends into chaos? (+1)
noshellswill 2 hours ago
Indeed, the Nov election will devolve into chaos. Then the white yeomanry, jealous for their liberties  will butcher-out  Bloomberg-funded BLM rioters, ANTIFA  Trotsky-sluts and simpering butt-plugged Portland-villes  and ... life returns to normal.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Is this a box you need to check (+1)
RightwingNutjob 6 hours ago
to apply for Chinese citizenship, Zuck?

Here's how to read whatever the MSM equivalent of Pravda is on any given day, boys and girls:
"Trump is cozying up to dictators" --> Democrat-aligned Corporate America is conspicuously mimicking dictators' tactics in support of the same exact objective: "harmony" and "civil order"
Reply  Share
 Flag
The most Facebookiest of Facebook responses 
Anonymous Coward 5 hours ago
Promising to crack down on problematic posts once it's too late to make a difference really sums up Facebook's approach to everything, doesn't it.
Reply  Share
 Flag
Load More
by TaboolaSponsored LinksYou May Like
After Starring On The Voice, She Explained What Really Happens Behind The Scenes
Zen Herald
Try Not To Laugh At Why These Kids Are Crying
Dad Patrol
How Actors From "Night Court" Look 28 Years Later
Amomedia
The Most Ridiculous Net Worth's Of Athletes Ever
Gameday News
Submit Terms Privacy Feedback Non-mobile
follow us
 Copyright © 2020 SlashdotMedia.All Rights Reserved.

Slashdot
Lucy Liu, 51, Sends Fans Wild As She Flaunts Age-Defying Figure
MedicareGranny
|
Sponsored
This Discovery Off The Californian Coast Has Left Scientists Terrified
Paws Zilla
|
Sponsored