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 11 hours ago
facebook politics social usa us
Close Ad
112 Comments
Help
All
Outstanding
Funny
Good call, Facebook (-1)
theJavaMan 11 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 11 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 11 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 10 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 10 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 8 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 7 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 6 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 5 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 5 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 5 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 3 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 8 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 8 hours ago
Can't speak for them, but I sure do.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
cayenne8 8 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 8 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 8 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 7 hours ago
The insane ones are created to distract you away from the real ones.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
infolation 6 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 5 hours ago
Don't forget the people who died after drinking fish tank cleaner (chloroquine phosphate).
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook
Rockoon an hour ago
The people that died? You mean the Democrat woman who murdered her husband? You still going on about that? You really this dumb?
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
Anonymouse Cowtard an hour ago
I'm talking about the death in Arizona. They both drank it after the Idiot in Chief recommend HCQ. Don't know what you're on about.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook (+1)
onyxruby 30 minutes ago
Parent above you was right, that was a woman who murdered her husband using that as an excuse. Turns out she was a prolific Democrat donor and not such a Trump fan after all. She also had a history of being violent with her husband. He was an intelligent level headed engineer and unlikely to make that kind of mistake.
https://news.yahoo.com/woman-b...
https://freebeacon.com/coronav...
So yeah, just a nutcase blaming a murder on Trump.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Good call, Facebook
Berkyjay 7 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 11 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 11 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 10 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 7 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. 10 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 7 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 10 hours ago
Anything other than "Biden winning" probably fits the definition
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Lacking definitions
reg 9 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 9 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 8 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 8 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 4 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 3 hours 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 9 hours ago
Why? Trump works very hard for Cuckerberg.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Lacking definitions (+1)
Osprey808 8 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 8 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 7 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 7 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 11 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. (+3, Insightful)
Fly Swatter 11 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 8 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 11 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 11 hours ago
Where did we see this pattern? China? Belarus?
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr (+2)
Powercntrl 11 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 10 hours ago
How you know it is not the government?
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr
Anonymous Coward 10 hours ago
How do you know it is?
Reply Share
Flag
Re: Restrict internet communications in case of unr (+1)
Rockoon an hour ago
How do you know it is?
If you dont know either way, dont make arguments that require it to be a specific way. The OP didn't. The reply're did.
Reply Share
Flag
We're already there (+1)
Powercntrl 11 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 11 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 10 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 (+1)
onyxruby 43 minutes ago
Nothing like taking him out of context to make it sound like he said something he didn't. You don't happen to work for the media, do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Lots of attacks and link to a serious crime that Trump hasn't committed or been credibly accused of. I can play that game, let's link to a crime that Biden has been credibly accused of committing by a several women.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
https://www.thecut.com/2020/04...
His running mate spouted believe all women and thought he was guilty. That is, until she was picked as his running mate and changed her mind. /awkward
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
So, believe all women?
Reply Share
Flag
Re: We're already there (+4, Informative)
michaelwigle 11 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 10 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 10 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 8 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 8 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 7 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 2 hours ago
Yes, you sound EXACTLY like a tin foil hatter.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
Powercntrl 8 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 8 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 10 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 7 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 11 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 8 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)
Powercntrl an hour ago
Biden has been running ads strongly condemning violent activism; these folks aren't representative of the Democratic Party. And let's be honest here and call anyone who physically assaults a person (regardless of political views) what they actually are: a domestic terrorist.
Reply Share
Flag
Re: We're already there (+1)
guruevi 8 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 11 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 10 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 9 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 5 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
Re: If you're getting election info from Facebook. (+1)
Malays2 bowman a few seconds ago
"There are (very old, apparently) people who believe that if AOL disappeared, they wouldn't have any access to the Internet anymore"
They might even have dial up access
still kicking around for these folks.
Though AOL actually used 3rd party relay
services so they could have 'local' numbers
all over the country. Likeky, the only direct
modem connection they had was that
creeky 2400 baud 800-number the
software used to download the lists of 'local' numbers. They also had a text mode BBS (IIRC) so you could download the software without waiting for a disk to be mailed to you.
I would be a bit surprised if any of the dialup relay services AOL used are still functional
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.