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...
Facebook is a privately-owned company, and they have as much right to bar anyone from using their service as do other owners and operators of privately-owned companies.

Like bakers.

If you don't like the standards that private business owners hold for their companies, search for another company or start your own.

Vote with your wallet: it's capitalism in action.
 
Well now here is my opinion on this issue.

As long as they are not calling for violent and/or terrorist action, Facebook should allow white nationalists and white separatists on their platform, like any other group.

"White nationalist" and "white separatist" is not necessarily the same as "white supremacist".

Until we figure out how we deal with multinational social media and Tech giants, Facebook will be allowed to do what it is doing for the time being.
 
Last edited:
Testaclese Maximus said:
If so, then I seem to recall a couple times white people committed crimes against black people too.
Click to expand...
Ah, but those got widespread media outrage and mass spread over nationwide news. These black on white, barely a fart in their locality. Everyone knows Mike brown, but who knows Autumn Pascale? If the races were switched, would we ever have had the zimmerman trial as a sensation? It's all about media hypocrisy, and very selective bias to cover up a brutal reality. Same reason the blacks are agitating for body cameras to be taken off the cops now, it reveals what happened prior to the shooting, and most of that is crazy monkeyshines.
To be fair it also catches a lot of bad cops too, like these ones.
 
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
I don't care if what you posted was directed to me or what. Facebook said facebook won't ban black supremicists, and lots of people in this thread seem to agree with that.
Click to expand...
Superman93 said:
9. Muddy the waters and ignore nuance.
Click to expand...
I made that agenda out of pure amusement but damn.
"Understanding why a social media platform doesn't want to associate with a socially-reprehensible group of speds is the same as wanting another socially-reprehensible group of speds to stay on the platform" - an exceptional indivdual :story:
 
Mewtwo_Rain said:
Not having them around on a platform won't actually stop them from ceasing to exist. So you haven't actually removed them or hidden them at all, all you'll do is make them either become more clever and start using coded languages and hide in plain site, or just create the solution when you will have just made them more fanatical and possibly given them the inclination they are justified in their beliefs hence the need for censorship.
Click to expand...

Why should I care? They are cringey, dull, and embarrasing. Good riddance.

By definition it is. What you consider is not really relative to reality. I could stop people from commenting on one of the forums I moderate from posting progressive nonsense because they are idiots, but I couldn't argue with a grain of honesty or reality that it isn't censorship by refusing them the ability to comment or speak at all. You can argue for justifications of banning White supremacist, and I'd be willing to listen but so far I see people dancing around those justifications of not pushing a blanket ban.

Normally people who make assumptions of others and push the idea they are hiding an agenda are hiding an agenda themselves. Projection is pretty obvious and apparent when you try to make assumptions of others, don't be surprised when they sense blood in the waters from your own claims. I'm not even from Gamergate so I'm not sure what relevance that brings to the table but it sounds like instead of addressing my questions you'd prefer to throw wild accusations and throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.

"I hate them so much that I will allow them to speak to me so I can discount their arguments." Lol. Your argument lacks self reflection and broadly doesn't make any logical or rational sense. Make whatever broad claim you want, it's certainly proven you have a disconnect from reality just like everyone else you claim has as well.
Click to expand...

Here is the funny thing. I am not on a forum made for stalking exceptional idiots arguing about the dangers of censorship and trying to defend the indefensible. You are. I have been asking you repeatedly to tell me what you are really scared of and you dodge the question and point it back at me. Let me repeat it, "I AM NOT THE PERSON DEFENDING WHITE SUPREMACISTS AFTER A HORRIFIC SHOOTING SO THEY CAN POST ON A BOOMER PLATFORM RIDDLED WITH DATA MINING SCANDALS, YOU ARE."

I am just on this forum saying my crazy opinions and watching as you and others anger rate me for my own amusement. A lot of the people you are arguing with are asking the exact same question and just haven't been as honest as I am right now.

You want to fight for free speech, why make this the dumbass fucking hill do die on unless you have something else you are fighting for? There are plenty of things you can do to preserve the 1st Amendment, why fight for this?

How much more do I have to simplify this for you?
 
SunLightStreak said:
You want to fight for free speech, why make this the dumbass fucking hill do die on unless you have something else you are fighting for? There are plenty of things you can do to preserve the 1st Amendment, why fight for this?
Click to expand...
In my opinion it's obvious that facebook is going to abuse this policy by expanding the definition of "white nationalism" to the wrongthink of the week they want shut down. It absolutely will, given enough time, get to the point of expressing positive feelings towards politicians they don't like will be called "a dogwhistle for white nationalist sentiment, and therefore white nationalism."

Personally I think that makes this hill fairly important territory even if those who try to hold it will surely be killed.
 
710746
 
not william stenchever said:
In my opinion it's obvious that facebook is going to abuse this policy by expanding the definition of "white nationalism" to the wrongthink of the week they want shut down. It absolutely will, given enough time, get to the point of expressing positive feelings towards politicians they don't like will be called "a dogwhistle for white nationalist sentiment, and therefore white nationalism."

Personally I think that makes this hill fairly important territory even if those who try to hold it will surely be killed.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you are concerned that Facebook will clamp down on you for showing support for Donald Trump?

Personally, I don't think much of Trump, but I see why people support him. Liberals have a lot of failed promises and hypocrisy to answer for and he pisses them off. It is a win win for Trump Supporters, I get that. That concern is nothing to be ashamed of.

At the moment the closest politician to the White Supremacist movement be at least a few clumsy dot connections and a whole shit ton of assumption is Steve King of Iowa. That would probably be the hill to die on to protect supporting Donald Trump. This current cause seems like a bad idea that will only embarrass those involved.
 
I'll just ask a few questions considering the drama here:

1. If there's white nationalism posts on Facebook which do encourage violence, do you think these posts needed to be removed and the users who posted them should be banned?

2. From what I read, Facebook runs on advertisements. If you are in charge of Facebook, would you let the white nationalism posts to stay on Facebook with the risk of having advertisers to stop advertising on your platform and thus losing a lot of revenue (See: Gab), if these advertisers actually ask you to pull them off because they don't want to associate with your platform?
 
SunLightStreak said:
Why should I care? They are cringey, dull, and embarrasing. Good riddance.



Here is the funny thing. I am not on a forum made for stalking exceptional idiots arguing about the dangers of censorship and trying to defend the indefensible. You are. I have been asking you repeatedly to tell me what you are really scared of and you dodge the question and point it back at me. Let me repeat it, "I AM NOT THE PERSON DEFENDING WHITE SUPREMACISTS AFTER A HORRIFIC SHOOTING SO THEY CAN POST ON A BOOMER PLATFORM RIDDLED WITH DATA MINING SCANDALS, YOU ARE."

I am just on this forum saying my crazy opinions and watching as you and others anger rate me for my own amusement. A lot of the people you are arguing with are asking the exact same question and just haven't been as honest as I am right now.

You want to fight for free speech, why make this the dumbass fucking hill do die on unless you have something else you are fighting for? There are plenty of things you can do to preserve the 1st Amendment, why fight for this?

How much more do I have to simplify this for you?
Click to expand...
Sorry I was gone for a few hours.

What should you care, was your complaint not about extremist especially of the White supremacist nature becoming more extreme? Why shouldn't people care that it could lead to more extreme actions from said group? That such censorship will embolden them?

Onto your other part:

Ah I see, so you're going to continue playing the crab walker game where you project the same accusations you are actually committing. I'm not surprised. Where did I say White supremacist were defensible? I said they weren't. I said all extremist should be censored or none of them should be. My point which flew over your head was that most common people are fine with a blanket ban of all extremist. You ignore that point because it destroys your narrative.

You're being honest? Not really. All I'm seeing is circular logic from a guy trying to sidestep the full honest argument. Why shouldn't we have a blanket ban, you keep going "Well White supremacist are cringey." Ok. All supremacist are, so now should we ban all of them or not? If you're saying we should only ban one, then you are basically defending said group. IF you are saying ban all, at least I can get behind your consistency of logic then.

I can fight for whichever hill I wish too, the bigger question is why are you fighting to die on a hill of protecting other extremist instead of punishing all of them unless you have an ulterior motive? I can make accusations of motives too, but at least I'm logically consistent about my beliefs and don't have to resort to circular logic to dance around the questions being presented.

Also, no once you compromise freedom of speech you can't uncompromise it. If we as a society are going to compromise it then I expect a solid stance on blanket bannings/censorship or no censorship at all. The "This is nuance" crowd arguments aren't going to work here and for good reason.

You didn't simply anything. You're talking in circles or talking past what I said or ignoring what I originally pointed out in regards to censorship, I'm not sure which, or it could be you're just purposely being disingenuous.

You can't even face the truth that you are calling for censorship and hide behind the fact the people you wish to censor are extremist. Look at what you said earlier "This honestly isn't censorship to me." Then why play this mental gymnastics game, it is clearly censorship, yet you lack the convictions to honestly proclaim you want censorship. Is it because you realize the majority of rational people might not agree or in the same vain think YOU are an extremist in the same concept that you say others shouldn't be allowed to speak if there was a blanket ban of extremist? Make up your mind.

Don't hide behind disingenuous premises especially ones so transparent.
 
Testaclese Maximus said:
So the best way to hurt them is to give them more platforms?
Click to expand...
You do know that's what censorship does, right?

When you say "X is bad and should be banned" people are going to look into that media, ideology, group, instead of just looking at it from a black and white narrative. Also who's giving them more platforms, no one is saying create MORE for them, what people are saying is either hold extremist in a blanket banning or hold no one to any such censorship.

If I allow progressives to speak on a forum I moderate, that doesn't mean I'm giving them MORE platofrms, because I didn't create the forum to give them a voice. At the same time if I were to ban them or overtly moderate them I'm sure other groups would be need to be held to the same standard on the same side of the coin or in relevance to similar aspects.

So then I have to ask, do I censor or don't I. If people want the censorship then let them have it, but if they want exceptions, I'm sorry, but I'm going to hold similar ilk just as accountable as the ones they wanted banned in the first place. None of this picking and choosing nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom