Facebook megathread

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.”

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

I know that it censors things, which is the whole point.

Which means you're going to draw attention and potential people ot the group. Which defeats the point of removing it.

If you want to kill a group you either ignore it or ridicule it out of existence. Going "CENSOR IT REEEE!"

Only means more people will start showing sympathy, or will start drawing interest in what that group, film, game, etc. has to say.

Did ESRB create an existence of less violent video games? No. It led to MORE violent video games. Did as someone else mentioned Prohibition stop people from having access to alcohol? No. It led to undermining the government to get a hold of it and a larger demand.

You're looking at censorship in a vacuum "See I censor it and then it disappears, that's the whole point." Except, that's not how it works at all. You're more likely to inadvertently draw more attention to the things you censor than on the adverse remove any attention to said things. Which is my point.

 

[RG 448]

Hm, yes, quite. Absolutely does old chap.

You're more likely to inadvertently draw more attention to the things you censor than on the adverse remove any attention to said things.

Yeah and as we all know, the KKK has only grown since racism and segregation became less tolerable to society.

 

[X Prime]

I thought we were in the middle of a panic about how most domestic terrorist attacks in America are supposedly actually caused by racist far-right KKK-adjacent extremists. So, yes, actually.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Yeah and as we all know, the KKK has only grown since racism and segregation became less tolerable to society.

KKK decreased in size because the KKK ran on a open platform of racism and most general people disagreed with their insane premises. They were openly vocal which led them to large amounts of ridicule and their numbers (let alone every other White supremacist group) dropping in large amounts of members in general... So how does that help your point? It does the complete opposite.

 

[Lensherr]

Ethnic nationalism and separatism are like saying the word "nigger": it's only a problem when white people do it.

Sociologist Eric Kaufmann once coined a term that describes this phenomenon in his book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America: "asymmetrical multiculturalism", as he calls it, happens when minority groups within a country are encouraged to openly express pride in their ethnic heritage as well as group solidarity as a means of advancing their groups' interests, whereas the majority culture is discouraged from doing the same, instead being chided into adopting a form of rootless cosmopolitanism divorced from their cultural and ethnic background [1]. This happened in America during the late-1800s and early-1900s, as white Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) began to be discouraged from clinging to their heritage as non-WASP European migrants flooded into the country and were subsequently encouraged to do the opposite.

In his more recent tome Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities, Kaufmann describes how this same phenomenon is occurring with respect to the current demographics of the country: minorities of African, Asian, and Hispanic descent are being encouraged by the progressive intelligensia (the majority, or at least a plurality, of which I should note are white) to "celebrate a politicized version of their identity", whereas the general white European-descended majority "are compelled to be cosmopolitan, urged to supersede their ascribed identity": in other words, the opposite of what the aforementioned minorities are enjoined to do [2][3]

This is essentially the phenomenon on display here by this action taken by Facebook: non-white identity is something benign, something to be celebrated even, whereas white identity is inherently dangerous and supremacist. In the classical, non-bastardized sense of the term, this is racism. What is it about whites that makes their expression of group solidarity and pride in their heritage inherently dangerous, and for non-whites inherently positive? Can the reason be discerned without being caked under a thick layer of academic, sociopolitical jargon that isn't necessarily universal? And if so, does that mean that there is is a fixed, immutable characteristic of white people's nature, in which case, if one were to make the argument, the progressive belief of race as a purely sociological construct begins to fall apart. Either way, this pattern of behavior is emblematic of the hypocrisy and bigotry of progressive ideology: they have no desire to see everybody to play by the same rules or justice for the truly disenfranchised, only to undermine the influence of a group that they see as being the root cause of all the world's societal ills.

Sauces:

1. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674013032
2. https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/024131710X?tag=prhmarketing2552-21
3. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/populism-identity-politics-why-they-rise-in-tandem/

 

[RG 448]

KKK decreased in size because the KKK ran on a open platform of racism and most general people disagreed with their insane premises.

Exactly like what facebook is banning now lol

saying the word "nigger": it's only a problem when white people do it.

That makes logical sense though, white people coined the term to hurt black people, therefore black people have the right to take it and repurpose it, but coming from a white person it retains the same hateful connotation.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Exactly like what facebook is banning now lol

KKK wasn't banned. KKK was actually still able to host talking platforms in states. People ridiculed them (openly as in being able to host talks) and then people distanced themselves from the KKK.

That has absolutely nothing to do with censorship.... >.> I thought I made that pretty clear?

Edit: What do you think I meant they ran on an "Open platform?"

 

[RG 448]

KKK wasn't banned.

Show me their facebook page.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Show me their facebook page.

Are you going to sidestep the fact you were talking about their actual group dropping numbers of members which happened before Facebook's banning of them? Poor attempt to change what we were just talking about. KKK's membership dipped because they had an open platform and were openly mocked for their ideas. Period. That came before this censorship program. So, that wasn't even based on censorship that caused their group to decline.

Edit: To reinforce what I'm saying, their numbers dropped wasn't about them being banned, and in many states they can still talk. So if they had an open platform and it caused their members to dip, how does that prove your thesis that banning them will lower numbers when like prohibition the exact opposite course occurs?

 

[RG 448]

Are you going to sidestep the fact you were talking about their actual group dropping numbers of members which happened before Facebook's banning of them?

Did facebook’s banning of them increase their membership? If not, then your argument suffers. I ain’t sidestepping shit lmao

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Did facebook’s banning of them increase their membership? If not, then your argument suffers. I ain’t sidestepping shit lmao

The news has claimed there is a rise of Right wing "Nationalist" and White supremacist, and since this "White supremacist panic" has happened in recent times where bannings have been proposed. The balls in your court to prove 1. It's not caused by censorship. 2. How would that not constitute as an increase in membership?

 

[RG 448]

The news has claimed there is a rise of Right wing "Nationalist" and White supremacist, and since this "White supremacist panic" has happened in recent times where bannings have been proposed. The balls in your court to prove 1. It's not caused by censrship. 2. How would that not constitute as an increase in membership?

Yeah the news calls shit “white supremacy” that isn’t white supremacy. I don’t believe that shit’s risen at all. I’m talking specifically about the KKK’s membership after the KKK was taken off facebook, assuming they’re off facebook. If they have a presence there it’s not openly advertised.

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

KKK wasn't banned. KKK was actually still able to host talking platforms in states. People ridiculed them (openly as in being able to host talks) and then people distanced themselves from the KKK.

Did you notice a lot of Klan participation on broadcast television panel shows or newspaper op eds over the past 70 years?

 

[RG 448]

Did you notice a lot of Klan participation on broadcast television panel shows or newspaper op eds over the past 70 years?

not outside fox news.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

I’m talking specifically about the KKK’s membership after the KKK was taken off facebook, assuming they’re off facebook. If they have a presence there it’s not openly advertised.

Are you trying to imply somehow that Facebook proposing censorship and the rise of "The alt right" would somehow have a different effect from other platforms also pushing for censorship which has shown to cause a slight surge, would somehow act differently? If you're trying to narrow the argument to only Facebook then there wouldn't be much an arguement form your proclamation either as you can't prove they haven't just moved to code talking and forming groups in secrecy.

Did you notice a lot of Klan participation on broadcast television panel shows or newspaper op eds over the past 70 years?

Maybe not. That can still be attributed to the fact that even if they did push anything on broadcast no one wanted anything to do with them and avoided them, and two even if they did it would only lead to further embarrassment and a slow decline of their group. The point still stands there would be an increase by something recently and by what then? The only thing changing of Whtie supremacist is this moral panic of banning and censoring. Not to instantly say it must be a correlation causation cause, but unless you have an alternative theory, it seems pretty obvious what's leading to a uprising.

Also, if someone were of the Klan, how would i even know if they were on TV (and not talking about White supremacy) Do they have the label tattooed to their forehead always? Maybe a stickey note?

 

[Oh Long Johnson]

not outside fox news.

Don't forget Jerry Springer, where they'd set them up to be attacked by fat women and failed wrestlers.

 

[RG 448]

Are you trying to imply somehow that Facebook proposing censorship and the rise of "The alt right" would somehow have a different effect from other platforms also pushing for censorship which has shown to cause a slight surge, would somehow act differently?

No, I said what I meant, there are no additional implications.

Don't forget Jerry Springer, where they'd set them up to be attacked by fat women and failed wrestlers.

Two elements I’ve always believed Fox News desperately needed.

 

[2138_1255]

Facebook is a private company, if they don’t want to host chucklefucks like Richard Spencer they don’t have to.

"Muh Private Companeeeeeees!"

Yeah: FaCIAbook and DARPAGoogle are about as 'private' as Bayer and Messerschmitt were in 1944.

It's long past time to put an end to the whole "muh free market!" meme. It's becoming a more vacant 'justification' as it intersects with:

1. The Internet being called everything from "a human right" to a public utility.
2. Serial revelations of near-monopolies like ISP/'Content' Chaebols and 'thought-shapers' like Google, Twitter and Facebook forcing "search results" and preferred 'news'.
3. Deleting and/or falsifying user-content, thereby abusing "Safe-Harbor" and acting as publishers.

 

[GS 281]

Show me their facebook page.

 

[X Prime]

Show me their facebook page.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com