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.”

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

There’s certainly more violence associated with white supremacy than black supremacy.

Uhh... not if you count specific kinds of "black supremacy". Certainly not black supremacists killing white people. It's usually some particular subset of black supremacy vs a different subset of black supremacy. I mean, I don't know what else you call murdering everyone of a certain ethnicity, as we've seen... I dunno, a fucking shitload of times in africa?

For example, the tutsi people killed 80,000 to 200,000 hutu people. Has white supremacy come close to that number?

Or is it not fair to lump any given black person's racial supremacy? In that case, are all white supremacists even the same thing? It seems there are a variety of types, some who hate various races, some who just seem to particularly like white people.

 

[RG 448]

Uhh... not if you count specific kinds of "black supremacy".

I count the kind in the US that only exists because of white supremacy in the US.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

Uhh... not if you count specific kinds of "black supremacy". Certainly not black supremacists killing white people. It's usually some particular subset of black supremacy vs a different subset of black supremacy. I mean, I don't know what else you call murdering everyone of a certain ethnicity, as we've seen... I dunno, a fucking shitload of times in africa?

For example, the tutsi people killed 80,000 to 200,000 hutu people. Has white supremacy come close to that number?

Or is it not fair to lump any given black person's racial supremacy? In that case, are all white supremacists even the same thing? It seems there are a variety of types, some who hate various races, some who just seem to particularly like white people.

Nitpick.... It was the Hutu who were the perpetrators, and the numbers are quite a bit higher....

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I count the kind in the US that only exists because of white supremacy in the US.

Oh, so it's only US white nationalists they're going after? So german white nationalists are OK? I mean, if african black supremicists don't count, why do german white supremicists count? Why are crimes committed by german neo-nazis lumped into the same group as crimes committed by american hillbillies?

I guess I do have one question. How long should we allow black supremacists to do their thing, while not allowing white supremacists to do theirs? I don't care if we ban both or allow both (Well I do care, but hypocrisy bothers me more). How long until it's "even"? Do we have to wait until american black supremicists kill a certain amount of people? Or is it just a time thing, like from the start of slavery to the end of jim crow laws?

 

[RG 448]

I don't care if we ban both or allow both

Yeah to be clear, I’m 100% fine with banning both. My point is that they’re not equal when it comes to their US iterations, where one exists because of the other. And yes, the US is what I’m focused on. I’ll let someone from Germany talk about the German equivalent.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Yeah to be clear, I’m 100% fine with banning both. My point is that they’re not equal when it comes to their US iterations, where one exists because of the other. And yes, the US is what I’m focused on. I’ll let someone from Germany talk about the German equivalent.

I don't see why anyone should care about neo-nazis then. Sure, the german nazis did all kinds of awful terrible stuff, but that was in germany. The american neo-nazis never genocided anyone.

I'm going to continue not liking them though, and associating the two. Same with african vs US black supremacy groups.

But hey, we seem to have reached a point we can agree on, so good enough. No racial supremacists on facebook would be a net improvement.

 

[sperginity]

It seems pretty common sense to ban racist shit on a site like fb, but that is exactly why lefties have tried to say that all kinds of not-racist stuff is racism/nazism now (immigration debates, terfism, anti-gay stuff, anti-palestine, etc). If racism is defined clearly like it is in the dictionary then I see no harm in banning it from FB.

 

[AP 297]

Nitpick.... It was the Hutu who were the perpetrators, and the numbers are quite a bit higher....

I am really not going to go out on a limb here and say that war criminals and actual genocidal maniacs of any color should probably not have facebook pages.

I am sure that most who are fleeing for war crimes charges are probably not going to share their current vacation photos on facebook, because I am sure they don't want a special forces team dropping in to join them. The bastards who orchestrated the butchering of millions of people are probably not going to share pictures of their cats, because their location can somehow be triangulated by analysts in developed countries looking to hunt them down any way they can.

Yeah, facebook has probably banned these people and if they haven't it is only because intelligence agencies are using this to hunt people down.

In all seriousness, I am pretty sure that Isis and other organizations that have committed actual killings are actively being scoured from facebook. If they haven't report them. Seriously, the best thing you can do is not complain here, but report the sick fucks. Unfortunately, sites like facebook are enormous and difficult for the operators to control. They rely on feedback from its members to police objectionable content. Racism of any stripe typically falls underneath that umbrella. Black Supremacist Kylie Brooks was banned several times for their racist bullshit. Others can be too.


As for this thread...

This thread is a disaster and I do accept responsibility for a good portion of it. I think now as we head to page 23, we can admit that this was a trap and a lot of people dived in head first. I get that people are scared/angry/annoyed/disgusted of disingenuous SJW's looking to ban everything and turn the world into a snowflake hugbox. A lot of their concerns are sadly not out of the realm of rational concern. At least if you are going to argue about this, try to limit your absolutes.

Absolute anything is almost always a bad idea. Absolute free speech can be just as destructive as absolute hugboxing. Slander, libel, false testimony, fraud, encouraging threats of actual physical violence/property damage, creating an artificial panic, etc are all examples of the excess that absolute free speech can have. Any idea when taken to its extremes and absolutes produces excess. When this thread seemed to dive headfirst into the absolutes was when I started to take an interest in the name of humor.

Really test your own positions. If they are so absolute that they become comical to people, it is a moment to really ask what you are actually fighting for.

 

[RG 448]

it is a moment to really ask what you are actually fighting for.

Legalization of cocaine.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

As for this thread...

This thread is a disaster and I do accept responsibility for a good portion of it. I think now as we head to page 23, we can admit that this was a trap and a lot of people dived in head first. I get that people are scared/angry/annoyed/disgusted of disingenuous SJW's looking to ban everything and turn the world into a snowflake hugbox. A lot of their concerns are sadly not out of the realm of rational concern. At least if you are going to argue about this, try to limit your absolutes.

Absolute anything is almost always a bad idea. Absolute free speech can be just as destructive as absolute hugboxing. Slander, libel, false testimony, fraud, encouraging threats of actual physical violence/property damage, creating an artificial panic, etc are all examples of the excess that absolute free speech can have. Any idea when taken to its extremes and absolutes produces excess. When this thread seemed to dive headfirst into the absolutes was when I started to take an interest in the name of humor.

Really test your own positions. If they are so absolute that they become comical to people, it is a moment to really ask what you are actually fighting for.

Eh, any discussion of this nature is going to be full of conflict because the whole topic of racism has been purposely muddied and confused. When "It's OK to be white" is seen as more offensive than "Kill all white people" you're going to get some strong reactions. Of course people will go to the most extreme examples they can think of, that's part of the whole testing your own positions thing.

On top of that, the topic of "free speech vs private venues right to restrict speech" is very confusing at the moment, as platforms like twitter blend together "Public space" with "Private venue" and are both and neither as necessary to do what they want.

It doesn't make the discussion a "disaster" though. I mean, call me paranoid, but I don't think the "powers that be"(Whoever or whatever that even means) want us talking about this. They want any discussion on these lines to be an unmitigated disaster, a sort of self inflicted censorship. I think just pushing through with good faith does work though.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

But black nationalists are okay? sigh

 

[AP 297]

But black nationalists are okay? sigh

In all seriousness, Black Nationalism falls into the area of violations of Facebook's terms of service.

You are not allowed to actually post anything racist on Facebook period. The site has had problems with uneven enforcement. If you see it report it. Black nationalism isn't as protected as white nationalism. It is only how the algorithms enforce things. Facebook at this point is too big to actually police itself. Just keep reporting it and eventually it will get taken down. We have seen a number of black racist cows get taken down because we.ens reported them for racist content.

 

[дядя Боря]

this thread should be merged with Fucktube thread, because the premises are the same, especially in the light of the recent article about Fucktube putting profits ahead of any moral principals, left or right. Now that they are dominating the marker, they are crying and begging for government to regulate them, which would impact the competition and protect them from lawsuits, since they will be architecting the laws.

I have a suspicion that this is inciting an artificial crisis to ultimately piss off as many people as possible (mostly cuckservatives) without harming FB, and then ushering .gov regulation.

 

[Hux]

this thread still going on like anyone of any value as a human still uses facebook lamo

 

[GS 281]

How long should we allow black supremacists to do their thing, while not allowing white supremacists to do theirs?

Well, "we" aren't really restricting White supremacists, Facebook is.

You seem interested in how long will Facebook allow Black supremacists to do their thing, while not allowing White supremacists to do theirs? To answer that question, we have to sorta consider context.

Right now, Facebook has specifically singled out White supremacists as being in their crosshairs in terms of the content they will not allow on Facebook. I do not believe that all other supremacy groups are getting a free ride, but I will meet you on your canvas and accept that they are. In the context of Facebook, there are precipitating events which pushed Facebook to single out the White supremacists. The Tarrant incident was a pretty extreme incident, and he used Facebook to broadcast his crimes. Before this event, Facebook did appear to have an anti-White supremacy stance, but there is also evidence they wanted to quiet down anti-Zionists and other groups as well, but after it, Facebook's sole focus seems to be on White supremacy.

So how long will it take? I would guess the day after a Black supremacist goes through a Baptist church killing crackers with weapons with Black Power jargon all over them and a manifesto, that would be the day.

 

[Superman93]

Well, "we" aren't really restricting White supremacists, Facebook is.

You seem interested in how long will Facebook allow Black supremacists to do their thing, while not allowing White supremacists to do theirs? To answer that question, we have to sorta consider context.

Right now, Facebook has specifically singled out White supremacists as being in their crosshairs in terms of the content they will not allow on Facebook. I do not believe that all other supremacy groups are getting a free ride, but I will meet you on your canvas and accept that they are. In the context of Facebook, there are precipitating events which pushed Facebook to single out the White supremacists. The Tarrant incident was a pretty extreme incident, and he used Facebook to broadcast his crimes. Before this event, Facebook did appear to have an anti-White supremacy stance, but there is also evidence they wanted to quiet down anti-Zionists and other groups as well, but after it, Facebook's sole focus seems to be on White supremacy.

So how long will it take? I would guess the day after a Black supremacist goes through a Baptist church killing crackers with weapons with Black Power jargon all over them and a manifesto, that would be the day.

I tried to explain this to him but he will either draw to some autistic false equivalence or write you off as someone who supports censorship. Kind of reminds me of the idiots who think Christian extremism has the same output of Muslim extremism. That’s why I just mock him

 

[Prompt Critical]

So how long will it take? I would guess the day after a Black supremacist goes through a Baptist church killing crackers with weapons with Black Power jargon all over them and a manifesto, that would be the day.

...you realize that almost the exact scenario you're describing happened less than two years ago, right? Black supremascist Emanuel Kidega Samson, a man with ties to the New Black Panther Party (currently active on Facebook) and the Nation of Islam (currently active on Facebook) walked into Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Tennessee and started shooting. It was even classified as a hate crime by the fucking SPLC of all people.

A review of Samson’s Facebook account also revealed sympathies, interest and possible ties to black nationalist groups, such as the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam. Samson’s Facebook photo page included a picture of the raised fist featuring the eye of Horus (e.g. Egyptology) which is a well-known black power symbol. Samson also posted images of armed New Black Panther members and the Anonymous hacking group. Most concerning, Samson reposted numerous videos from prominent black nationalists on YouTube such Ankh Ma’at Ra and Sa Neter, both associated with the “House of Konsciousness Movement.” (These videos have since been removed from Samson’s Facebook account). Ra and Neter’s videos promote a broad range of black nationalist and pan-African ideology — some of which is linked to the New Black Panther Party, Black Hebrew Israelites, Moorish Nation, the Nation of Islam and other radical black nationalist groups.

Try again.

 

[GS 281]

...you realize that almost the exact scenario you're describing happened less than two years ago, right? Black supremascist Emanuel Kidega Samson, a man with ties to the New Black Panther Party (currently active on Facebook) and the Nation of Islam (currently active on Facebook) walked into Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Tennessee and started shooting. It was even classified as a hate crime by the fucking SPLC of all people.



Try again.

These two incidents share very little and this incident lacks one key factor: It wasn't livestreamed on Facebook. Him streaming it over their platform is a pretty big piece of the puzzle as to why they would turn up after the incident and single out White supremacists. I don't even understand why that is so difficult to comprehend here.

 

[Superman93]

...you realize that almost the exact scenario you're describing happened less than two years ago, right? Black supremascist Emanuel Kidega Samson, a man with ties to the New Black Panther Party (currently active on Facebook) and the Nation of Islam (currently active on Facebook) walked into Burnette Chapel Church of Christ in Tennessee and started shooting. It was even classified as a hate crime by the fucking SPLC of all people.



Try again.

1 death = 50 deaths plus live footage and obviously ideologically motivated manifesto got it!

 

[Prompt Critical]

Original criteria:

So how long will it take? I would guess the day after a Black supremacist goes through a Baptist church killing crackers with weapons with Black Power jargon all over them and a manifesto, that would be the day.

No mention of use of Facebook platform, no mention of death count necessary (the death count on this one was low because of a combination of retarded gunman accidentally shooting himself and an armed bystander).

Rapid goalpost shifting:

1 death = 50 deaths plus live footage and obviously ideologically motivated manifesto got it!

These two incidents share very little and this incident lacks one key factor: It wasn't livestreamed on Facebook. Him streaming it over their platform is a pretty big piece of the puzzle as to why they would turn up after the incident and single out White supremacists. I don't even understand why that is so difficult to comprehend here.

So the new criteria - not difficult to comprehend - is that the requirement for Facebook to take action include use of the platform in the crime and a large death count. Just to make sure I'm understanding.

Curiously, Facebook had already previously banned white supremacist content - this current article is merely noting that they'd expanded the existing ban to include white nationalism and white separatism. And the event that led to the original white supremacist ban, of course, was the Charlottesville rally, with a death count (as far as I'm aware) of 1 person, and no direct ties to the Facebook service. Weird.