It seems to be more of an problem with fame and celebrity that had existed for many years than a massive issue with social media (not saying that Facebook is anywhere near as innocent in this).
One of those claims is much closer to reality than the other 2. He did say that about some refugees, just not all
We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country, you wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals.
Facebook actively enabling bullying and toxic behaviour? I’m sure we’re all shocked once again.
Except that it would have been “simpler” (from a tech perspective) not to have built in all these XChecks and whitelists and such to shield VIPs.
It’s less “simple” from a PR point of view, of course, because Facebook doesn’t want some influencer getting his panties in a twist over “censorship” and turning all his followers off Facebook. Also Zuckerberg wants to rub shoulders with the rich and famous, and generally wants to kowtow to them (and that’s closer to the pre-existing problem you identified).
Rich powerful people get special treatment and the normal rules don’t apply to them? That can’t be right. This is America. /s
People don’t seem to be saying this so much these days:
I feel this is more of an “extra scrutiny” mishandled than a “policy” for celebrities to get away with things.
I can see that you don’t want to hit celebrities with insta-lock or insta-ban, but looks like it was mishandled and turned into a “hot potato” that nobody wants to touch lest they were made into a scapegoat should something backfires.
I can’t; I’ve never had a Facebook account! As Robert Heinlein wrote: TANSTAAFL (there’s ain’t no such thing as a free lunch). I know, I’m just a bitter old cynic.
Goes perfect with unethical and immoral human experimentation, and overthrowing elections.
If something a celebrity posts breaks TOS in a way that the automated tools would kill a normie’s account, then they should get theirs killed too.
This isn’t about reporting. This is turning off the automated tools that check the content of a user’s posts. That they can’t be banned for breaking the rules they agreed to is ridiculous, regardless of how fancy they think their pants are.
IMHO, it’s more of the following:
A: Oh, no, (insert celeb here) is posting **** again. What do we do?
A: What do you mean nothing? Isn’t that our job? To review stuff?
B: If (celeb) complains to The Zuck, and demands a head, or wants to sue us, whose job do you think is on the line?
A: … I sorta see your point. But isn’t that legal department’s problem?
B: Their job is to cover the company’s butt, not your job or mine.
A: So you’ll let it slide.
B: Do you really want to bother the supe for this? You know s/he will kick it right back to us and told us to “handle” it, then blame us if something goes wrong.
A: So it’s "damned if we do, damned if we don’t "
B: Way above our pay grade.
Yeah, I’d just enforce the rule and get fired. Jobs aren’t worth my integrity.
Um, you might want to be careful quoting Heinlein in a sentence about what’s wrong with Facebook. He was pretty darned faschy and the worst kind of libertarian bro.
I’m quite aware of Heinlein’s failings; he was even kidded and mocked by his peers for his limited experience with the real world and unrealistic worldview. TANSTAAFL is still an excellent cautionary acronym, though.
Obligs, once again:
The real war, the one that’s already being fought, isn’t a war between countries, or “liberal” vs “conservative.”
No, that stuff is a way to keep us from seeing the forest and the trees, as they are burning down all around us.
The real war is between wealth and accountability, and it’s been going on since civilization began.
Once again, more scheißberg than zuckerberg
I love that. What’s it from?