Facebook megathread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/30/18203551/apple-facebook-blocked-internal-ios-apps
Apple has shut down Facebook’s ability to distribute internal iOS apps, from early releases of the Facebook app to basic tools like a lunch menu. A person familiar with the situation tells The Verge that early versions of Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and other pre-release “dogfood” (beta) apps have stopped working, as have other employee apps, like one for transportation. Facebook is treating this as a critical problem internally, we’re told, as the affected apps simply don’t launch on employees’ phones anymore.

The shutdown comes in response to news that Facebook has been using Apple’s program for internal app distribution to track teenage customers with a “research” app.

That app, revealed yesterday by TechCrunch, was distributed outside of the App Store using Apple’s enterprise program, which allows developers to use special certificates to install more powerful apps onto iPhones. Those apps are only supposed to be used by a company’s employees, however, and Facebook had been distributing its tracking app to customers. Facebook later said it would shut down the app.

This poses a huge issue for Facebook. While Apple provides other tools a company can use to install apps internally, Apple’s enterprise program is the main solution for widely distributing internal apps and services. In an email, a Facebook spokesperson said “I can confirm that this affects our internal apps.”

In a statement given to Recode, Apple said that Facebook was in “clear breach of their agreement with Apple.” Any developer that breaches that agreement, Apple said, has their distribution certificates revoked, “which is what we did in this case to protect our users and their data.” Apple declined to comment on shutting down all of Facebook’s internal apps in an email to The Verge.

Revoking a certificate not only stops apps from being distributed on iOS, but it also stops apps from working. And because internal apps by the same organization or developer may be connected to a single certificate, it can lead to immense headaches like the one Facebook now finds itself in where a multitude of internal apps have been shut down.

Apple and Facebook have already been bickering over privacy, but this is the first instance of Apple taking an action that directly shuts down some of Facebook’s activities. Last March, Apple CEO Tim Cook criticized Facebook’s handling of the Cambridge Analytica data sharing scandal, saying, “I wouldn’t be in this situation” if he were running the company. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later said the comments were “extremely glib” and spoke of Apple as a company that “work hard to charge you more.”
Click to expand...
 
Click to expand...
-Banning white nationalism and separatism
-Says nothing about stopping live streaming snuff videos.
It's alright guys, facebook will still remain the premium snuff streaming site.
 
Prompt Critical said:
Can you provide an example of this happening? I was not able to find any with a search before posting, although I didn't spend a huge amount of time on it.
Click to expand...
If you look at the rules for groups like that (or GSA or whatever), they usually state outright that they're welcoming to people of all races.

Edit: Example: https://rockchalkcentral.ku.edu/organization/BSU

You probably can't show up to a Black Student Union meeting and start sperging about all lives matter or something, but they have to at least let you attend.

It's a similar principle behind why Berkeley College Republicans are guaranteed the right to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak and the college has to permit it.

If it's connected to a state school, the rules apply and they must apply to everyone.
Prompt Critical said:
Haha, no. This is not just wrong, it's outlandishly wrong. Look, to provide a single example, let's consult the US Department of Labor on the subject. Also worth noting that affirmative action and quotas are just an example of positive discrimination.
Click to expand...
No, quotas are illegal. Real affirmative action is illegal. (That is, a white man and a black man show up for a job, the white man is more qualified but the black man is bumped up because he's a minority; that's very illegal.)

Read that page more carefully. "Outreach" isn't what normal people mean by affirmative action. Outreach is maybe sending someone from HR to a job fair at a HBCU once in awhile. Training programs are offered on a race-neutral basis, they just enable downtrodden people to get into the work force easier.

That affirmative action is legal in the US (as the term is popularly conceived) is a strangely persistent myth. That has never been the case. Other countries have it, like the UK, but the US system, as usual, has been mostly rock solid in this area.

Hooters, for fucks sake, has been sued by men for not hiring enough men.
Prompt Critical said:
US law is also rife with areas where de-facto affirmative action exists by way of banning negative discrimination, e.g. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, discrimination in general is illegal. Whether it's requiring a high school diploma for some bullshit job or Harvard using "personality tests" to edge out Asians.
 
Last edited:
Cosmos said:
Facebook is a private company, if they don’t want to host chucklefucks like Richard Spencer they don’t have to.
Click to expand...

True.

There’s also a big difference between not hating yourself for being white and hating non-whites to the point where you want them all ejected from your country. Again, I don’t blame Facebook for not wanting literal white supremacists on their platform.
Click to expand...

True... except the part where you get shitbaned for being proud to be white. To be unrepentant white. Even if you don't think you're superior. Just being proud of your heritage, ancestry, upbringing, etc is considered white nationalism by people who now get to decide what the definition of the word "context" is on their platforms.
 
Freddy Freaker said:
Oh please, saying you don't want open borders is enough to get you labeled a white nationalist now
Click to expand...

"Stop #BackersOfHate"

They are redefining "hate" and "white supremacy" to serve their purposes. You can laugh AOC off as some inept idiot (she is) but you have to realize that she could easily be one of these people FB consulted:

“We’ve had conversations with more than 20 members of civil society, academics, in some cases these were civil rights organizations, experts in race relations from around the world,” Brian Fishman, policy director of counterterrorism at Facebook, told us in a phone call.
Click to expand...

Anyone with the slightest iota of foresight can see them using these decisions to punish political enemies and shape public discourse.

“We decided that the overlap between white nationalism, [white] separatism, and white supremacy is so extensive we really can’t make a meaningful distinction between them. And that’s because the language and the rhetoric that is used and the ideology that it represents overlaps to a degree that it is not a meaningful distinction.”
Click to expand...

If you can't imagine the above quote turning into the following, then you haven't been paying attention for a few years...

“We decided that the overlap between white supremacists, border advocates, and Trump supporters is so extensive we really can’t make a meaningful distinction between them. And that’s because the language and the rhetoric that is used and the ideology that it represents overlaps to a degree that it is not a meaningful distinction.”
 
CatParty said:
Phrases such as “I am a proud white nationalist” and “Immigration is tearing this country apart; white separatism is the only answer” will now be banned
Click to expand...

The fact that they can't see how easily this can be changed later to ban “I am proud to be white” and “Immigration is tearing this country apart” is astonishing. Or rather, it would be if I wasn't already jaded by how things are going lately.

EDIT: It's not even about the white thing, it's just that the slope of what's acceptable and whatnot looks particularly slippery in this case and everyone will pay for it, sooner or later.

CatParty said:
content relating to Black separatist movements and the Basque separatist movement, for example, will still be allowed.
Click to expand...

I can physically hear the cognitive dissonance going on in their brain from over the ocean.

I think this is the beginning of the "big push" to completely deplatform wrong-think from the mainstream Internet for good. We'll see in the next couple of years how that'll go and what the next goalpost will be after that.
 
Last edited:
Belligerent Monk said:
proud to be white.
Click to expand...

CatParty said:
lmao
Click to expand...

Whatever. Every other skin tone, ethnicity, religion, and made up sexuality on earth get to be proud of who and what they are.
I'm proud to be white. I don't think I'm superior to non-whites unless they're also furries or some shit.

But the greater point I made still stands. These companies get to decide what the definition of the word "context" is on their platforms. And since these platforms are basically their own little countries with their own laws and such that definition will change to suit their needs. Expect "context" to mean something different every 4 months or so.
 
I'd never have a problem with this if it weren't for the fact that my mainstream liberal beliefs get me labeled a white supremacist on a regular basis. If it weren't for the fact my feelings on immigration match up with what Barack Obama said during his 2008 campaign and everyone called him a progressive hero then. It's clear none of these people have a reasonable and permanent definition of what kind of belief is and is not okay and worse, they actively lie and dissemble about their intentions and plans constantly.
 
MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:
It should not be any site owner's responsibility to police the opinions of their patrons.
Click to expand...

that's the difference between a platform and a publisher. When you start shaping the message by excluding some and not others, you in fact promote specific opinions.


Just to reiterate on "it's private company!" How many times we have seen squables between feds and tech cos about providing backdoors, channels to gather info, records retention, "cooperation"? It's not just in US, the same non-sense applies to Russia and Germany (that I know of). Most of the time the squables are not even over the idea of it, they are over financial compensation for burden on company resources. It's the same delusion that US is a pure capitalist economy without onerous .gov regulation, subsidies and bailouts.

Did IRS not go after conservacucks? Why some companies got bailed and some were let to die? Those threats of investigation, bailouts, approval of mergers are all mechanisms how federal and state goverment makes private companies an extension of itself, promoting certain political opinions and suppressing the others. This is like saying that snitches/CIs get law applied to them in court, in the same way as to any other crooks.

If "private" companies had no benefit to employ senators/congresscritters and their family, to put them on the board of directors, pay them as "consultants" then I'd belive it. But it simply not true in the US.
 
Alec Benson Leary said:
I'd never have a problem with this if it weren't for the fact that my mainstream liberal beliefs get me labeled a white supremacist on a regular basis. If it weren't for the fact my feelings on immigration match up with what Barack Obama said during his 2008 campaign and everyone called him a progressive hero then. It's clear none of these people have a reasonable and permanent definition of what kind of belief is and is not okay and worse, they actively lie and dissemble about their intentions and plans constantly.
Click to expand...
Welcome to reality where disingenuous people will change what it means to be a bad person to cast a wider net so as to catch more bad people.
 
Freddy Freaker said:
Oh please, saying you don't want open borders is enough to get you labeled a white nationalist now
Click to expand...
Show me one person who got banned from facebook just for saying they didn’t want open borders, without ever saying anything derogatory about mexicans or other minorities before or after, and I’ll concede the point.
 
CatParty said:
nazis are lolcows
Click to expand...
20181017_184307_20190328204347757.jpg
 
Testaclese Maximus said:
Show me one person who got banned from facebook just for saying they didn’t want open borders, without ever saying anything derogatory about mexicans or other minorities before or after, and I’ll concede the point.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone willingly want to crawl through facebook to prove or disprove your point though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom