Here’s the problem with Facebook’s return to “awesome:” everyone on Facebook is a user, not a customer.Ĭustomers receive customer service they have a say in where they take their business. Right now, Facebook is spending millions of dollars to advertise that it’s “returning to what made Facebook great in the first place.” All this comes on the heels of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, where it was exposed that Facebook isn’t really about connecting people, it’s about collecting data, and selling said data. When you censor taste/preference, you’re heading into dangerous territory. This is simply about taste: some people will find it amusing, others will not. This wasn’t an attack on a religion or group this wasn’t anything hateful that then tries to get explained away with the eye-rolling response, “It was just a joke.” If it had been an attack, or at the expense of a race, religion, gender, or orientation, then you cannot explain it away with “Lighten up, it was just a joke.” And, mind you, not a joke at anyone’s expense. They’re all on Facebook, while I was booted for a joke. Likewise white supremacists, and other hate groups. ![]() But is it more objectionable than, say, Alex Jones? He has a Facebook page, and I find it hard to find a single thing he says that isn’t just plain awful.Ī report on Gizmodo points out that terrorists still use Facebook to coordinate with one another. There is a joke in there, yes, and maybe you personally don’t like the subject matter. It doesn’t contain violence, hateful language, or nudity (male chest aside, which is so innocuous it can be shown in a G-Rated Disney movie). Is it objectionable content? Facebook says so, but without giving reason. Some people have a dark sense of humor, others do not. some people are offended by nudity, others are not. There are the things we should all object to: racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia… But when you get into policing content, there are problems. Or, said slightly differently, everyone is offended by something. The problem with calling something “objectionable” is that everyone objects to something. However, there’s an item near the bottom of their list that stands out: Those standards include a laundry list of things that make sense including (but not limited to): So if you don’t find what I’m about to post amusing, that’s OK.īut, is what I’m about to post so horrific that it warrants an entire website to protect users from it? Facebook says the picture you’re about to see violates their “Community Standards.” People like different types of music, food, movies, and most importantly to this piece, jokes. I already knew that no one is everyone’s cup of tea, and not all personalities mesh before Zuckercorn’s moneymaker put me in time out. I didn’t learn that while in Facebook Jail. Phil get to the bottom of Nick's torment? Watch more from Tuesday's episode of Dr. In the video above, Nick explains what it's like living with the voices in his head, and that he's even tried to barter with them by leaving $20,000 in his mailbox, telling them to take the money but leave him and his family alone. "If I had my choice between schizophrenia or what I'm going through - electronic harassment - I would choose schizophrenia." ![]() ![]() It wouldn't hurt near as bad," says Nick, a husband and father. He is adamant that he is not mentally ill, though his family believes that may be the cause. "I suspect that hackers are using government satellites to be able to insert voices into my head," he explains. The first time the voices spoke to him, Nick remembers them calling him a "lowlife," and they've since told him to kill himself, Nick says. I believe there is a chip somewhere in my body. During that time when I was unconscious, I believe he put a chip in me. Nick, 35, says he started being tormented by voices in his head about five years ago.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |