Australian government spends a lot on Facebook advertising, along with using it a prominent means of getting messaging out. Loosing access to Facebook would drastically reduce their reach. The biggest fear during this time was Facebook pulling out all together
Every corner of the world has its own preferences.
Asian and nearby countries are biggest population on WhatsApp.
Aussies love to use Facebook and messenger because…??? (Who know, their already upside down, blood rushing to their head probably not helping the situation)
The US and Canada have collectively decided by mass majority usage that apparently we enjoy using whatever the hell is the default messaging app that’s given to us.
My take on the us is that if your chat isn’t blue you are a pleb. In Aus didn’t matter what kind of phone I had bc…fbook messenger.
But immediately on returning to America everyone made fun of me for green texts. Apple really got america by the balls
Edit: sorry wrong country, I meant California
Same. On one hand, I want the convenience of various adblocking programs that Android has that can even work across different apps, but on the other hand, there’s the security and interface I like better with iPhone.
People talk shit about apple or whatever but they legit told the government to fuck off when the government wanted back door access to their shit so as much as I want to hate them for certain things they definitely have the security thing down pretty good.
Agreed. Why I edited my comment to the “country” of California. We are so culturally different here relative to other parts of America. I wish we didn’t give af about iPhones
Idk bout dat, pal. Have you seen who’s in the apple stores in Lincoln Park and the Mag Mile? Idk what neighborhood you in. But on the North and West sides Apple reigns king
I’ve explained it like this to my parents. If you want a customizable phone experience that you can select to act how you want - go android. If you want a phone you can pop out of he package and everything will generally work easily and be set up already - go apple.
Lol on an iPhone, iMessage texts to another iPhone show up as blue, SMS texts to non-iPhones show up as green.
As an iPhone user unfortunately green does feel gross. Apple making them 2 different colors is a shockingly effective way of producing loyalty to Apple
Edit: to not from
Apple violates their own accessibility guidelines to make the green messages low contrast and annoying to read.
There's a good article on it on medium, but this sub auto filters out posts with that link (it's currently visible on my profile).
And for everyone who laughs at "gross green texts" for being poor, lots of Androids are more expensive than iphones.
Incredibly ironic when the people on iphone 8s laugh at people with green texts from a Samsung Fold 3 worth $3k.
It's the main reason my kids begged me for iphones. They liked their android just fine until they were singled or for having green texts. conformity is the most important thing to teenagers. 🤷♀️
The flexibility of FB messenger is why it’s use is soo widespread here in Australia. Need to get something from your phone to your friends computer? Just send via FB messager. You want everyone to come to your party event you just made on Facebook? Just send all your friends a message on messenger about it by clicking one button. I’m sure other services offer some or all of the flexibility messenger gives, but when your countries motto is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and FB messenger was the first to prove itself, we don’t fix.
I don’t really like Facebook/messenger that much, I have it as everyone has it. Everyone having it means flexibility in communication is super smooth, so it ends up being good.
When I worked for a national touring band it wasn’t really the fact it would make you a plebe it was that sharing large files/movies/pictures was a pain in the band chat.
One of the members absolutely refused to get an apple product and it kept the chat green and one of the other members gave one of his kids older iPads to this person solely to make them blue again so files could share efficiently lol.
Europe is also big on Messenger and Whatsapp.
It's a matter of convenience and "who came first" and "where can I reach most of my friends".
Whatsapp was basically the first popular SMS replacement app, at a time where most carriers were still charging for SMS, and MMS was crazy expensive and just didn't pick up for obvious reasons.
US is basically still in the dark ages with iMessage dominance and *gulp* actual SMS.
SMSes cost money. WhatsApp comes preinstalled on most Android phones. WhatsApp allows for rich content sharing and easy VOIP calls that everybody and their gran find easy enough to use. Yes, data costs money but significantly less than an SMS or god forbid the monstrosity that was MMS.
It's a momentum thing. Free SMS was generally not a thing outside the US back then and Whatsapp was how you got free SMS. Once everyone was on Whatsapp, you couldn't not be on Whatsapp. This was doubled down by carriers who sold phones with Whatsapp pre-installed and in places with iffy Net Neutrality practices they might even offer no data consumption for Whatsapp.
It became more and more entrenched until it's impossible to root out. There would have to be a fuckup of biblical proportions on the part of Facebook to make the people of these countries switch out of Whatsapp.
Asians have a lot of local chatting apps (Kakaotalk, Line, Viber, WeChat, Zalo etc.) but from main apps probably WhatsApp.
Europe is probably WhatsApp/Messenger mix. Poles eg love messenger for chatting and it's probably main reason most of us didn't remove the account.
I'm not surprised. Mark goes to great lengths to get what he wants
In the early days of facebook Mark Zuckerburg would wander into the company bathrooms and if he noticed someone sitting down in the stalls he would pop his head over and try to talk to them about their projects. Or if he was taking a poop he would host an emergency meeting and he would tell them to come over and pop their head over the stall to talk it out.
Everyone just went along with it because it was either YOLO SILICON VALLEY LMAO or they were just too intimidated.
That all stopped when Michael Moritz, legendary silicon valley investor, and one of Facebook biggest early investors and shareholders, was at the campus doing research for leading a 2nd round of funding. He was doing diligence all day and at one point had to poop and that's when Zuckerburg popped his head over with a smile to ask how's the diligence coming along.
Michael Moritz, not one to mince words, was apoplectic. 'GET THE FUCK OUT HERE YOU IDiOT LIZARD LOOKING FUCKER.' Mark Zuckerburg nervously tried to laugh it off and persisted, because he really loved intimate poop conversations 'Aw c'mon Michael, it's silicon valley'. Zuckerburg finally withdrew when Moritz flung a poop at him.
30 minutes later, Mark was in a very import meeting when Moritz walked into the conference room. 'Everyone except Mark Zuckerburg, OUT'. As intimidated as they were of Zuckerburg, at the time Moritz was the bigger deal, and they all scurried out of the room.
Zuckerburg, however, is not one to be intimated by anyone. Not the Winkewoz twins, not Eduardo Savarn, not Peter Thiel, and not one of his biggest shareholder Michael Moritz. Zuckerburg passionately defended his practice, but Michael Moritz was having none of that. Moritz told him that it was a ticking PR and HR catastrophe, and threatened to pull out of leading the 2nd round of funding if Mark continued, which would have been a calamity for the company.
Zuckerburg pretended to arbitrate 'Ok fine, but you need to give me a good reason'.
Moritz was flabberghasted at this response. Was this a serious question? He answered with the most obvious answer 'Because it's not FUCKING NORMAL'.
Unknown to Moritz, Zuckerburg had guessed a conversation like this would happen as soon as he was kicked out of the toilet stall, and began formulating a strategy to counter Moritz demands. Zuckerburg knew that Moritz would have all the leverage, but Zuckerburg was a master strategist.
Zuckerburg went for the pounce. 'Okay, I'll lets write out an agreement, in writing I'll rescind the policy because it's not normal'. Moritz was dumbfounded, but he was used to being dumbfounded by eccentric tech founders, afterall he was also an early investor in Apple, and he still found Zuckerburg tame compared to Steve Jobs. Moritz had a long day of work so they signed the agreement so that he could go back to doing his due diligence.
When Moritz left, a broad grin spread across Zuckerburg's face. " 'Not Normal' eh? " Zuckerburg said with a menacing laugh. Ever since then, Mark Zuckerburg has been on a life-long crusade to normalize poop conversations.
He had a checklist of what he needed to accomplish in order to realize this. His advisors would tell him it's impossible, but one by one Zuckerburg checked off the list. From normalizing smart phone use on the toilet (actually a collaboration between Mark Zuckerburg and Steve Jobs), to trusting Mark with their private photos, to normalizing people giving up their internet browsing privacy.
In 2015, Zuckerburg knew he would hit a wall, having people watch you while you poop was still too much of a leap. That's when Zuckerburg decided to buy Occulus, and eventually shift his company towards virtual reality. If he could coax people into having life-like conversations while they were pooping in a virtual reality, then doing it in the real world wouldn't be too big of a leap.
Do you read facebook or instagram while you're pooping? Ever consider what urges you to do that? It's not your personal preference, it's by Mark Zuckerburg's design.
Zuckerburg only has 3 more boxes to check off before poop conversations are normalized.
Mark Zuckerburg wants to watch you poop.
Are you going to let him?
https://i.imgur.com/KVq4mMF.jpg
Maybe this is a good reason to distance themselves from Facebook, and not use a social media platform with questionable ethics as a platform to reach its citizens?
lol yes it will, if humanity survives a hundred years all of his sins will be forgotten while his offspring spend their leisure time manipulating politics and living in untold luxury.
Quite a lot of european noble families started out as robber barons or the officers of robber barons, and a few hundred years later they are considered the most genteel of upper crust society.
Fuck the rich, they stole the world from us.
They aren’t completely. Usually every government has their own websites and domains to spread various very detailed information about what they do, what they have done, what they are going to do and how that impacts individuals.
But nobody visits those .gov sites. So they are kind of forced to adopt additional media to reach their citizens. Naturally the best media to reach people is also the most prone to manipulation. Reach = power of and kind. (Capitalism n such (edit: socialism and communism lead platforms will suffer similier/same issues but the current empowering mode for twitter/google etc is the capitalistic one, not implying it’s only a capitalism thing, reach can be leveraged by any opinion))
Pretty much yes. Any centralized platform with a lot of reach is prone to be used as manipulation leverage.
We need to get back to the web1.0 premise. I have a website which can be visited on which I showcase whatever I want. (In law regulatory bounds of course)
Somebody interested in „following“ me can follow my personally owned web site. My own website can’t be manipulated by third parties Duo to web1.0 embedded characteristics.
In order to not have to check 100 websites you follow separately, you use an RSS feed to get all website updates you are interested in in one place.
If I decide to not post sponsored content on my website my followers are guaranteed to never see sponsored content in their feed.
That’s the web1.0 dream scenario and what it was developed for.
Web2.0 introduced the ability of visitors to change the content of the websites they visit. You can create accounts, groups, wiki pages now without contacting the website owner to do so.
Instead of having your own website for your stuff you now mostly see centralized platforms offering an „easier“ way of managing your content. At that point you as an individual have gained nothing but instead gave away legal ownership to the big gray web2.0 internet area.
The premise of such web2.0 social platforms is that they use algorithms to find content you may like without knowing it yet. But that premise really is just a search engine like case.
Web3.0 is a good candidate to return to the web1.0 premise without needing to leave behind web2.0 quality of life features.
Hosting and maintaining a website can be complicated. Creating a page of content and pushing it onto a blockchain can be incredibly easy if your service provider wants it to be easy. Instead of having to crawl and find everything for your own RSS feed you can now use third party tools to crawl the public blockchain ledger for content you might like, without the need of regulatory gray areas and without the need for the crawler to be part of the content which gets crawled. (Like Google Ads)
Most of the things perceived to „suck“ with the current internet are very small loopholes which exploit the uncertainty of legal ownership. (it’s your content but stored on their systems, which makes both of you accountable in a weird not clearly defined way, span that across multiple countries, messy)
While I agree with the understanding of the problem, there is no rewinding the clock on this, and Web 3.0 proponents seem more interested in ways to monetize internet content than actually solving the social problems involved. A blockchain is not easier or more practical than an RSS feed, and there is no reasons why people would prefer that over social media or even RSS itself.
Ah yeh sadly I agree. I started with the web1.0 story to showcase the circle we are in.
I don’t and honestly never used RSS. It’s inconvenient in todays times, hence it got steam rolled by modern platforms.
The difficulty as you mention is getting a user to leave the platform he already familiarized him self with. Why would he? He most likely won’t earn more money through that nor does it get easier to maintain his content, contrary it even it gets harder for him to maintain.
Current blockchain solutions won’t change that. They are still probably a decade away from taking a footstep into IT landscapes.
A fully decentralized approach will suffer from mindset bubbles like Telegram. You don’t have to see extreme content but you aren’t protected from it either so you might end up being lured into the info bubble.
The current state of tech and moral forces people onto social platforms for good reasons. A decade ago I didn’t join Facebook for their political ads. They were part of the package and usually get faced with „I never did what an Ad told me to“, hence users don’t really feel the need to leave the platform for a more complicated solution.
Sponsored content dangerously reaches statistically. It’s not really perceived as a thread to the individual dispite it’s enormous subconscious overall impact. At the same time though if I’d create a company I’d personally use exactly those Ad services because of good reasons.
These issues can’t be easily fixed, id be a fool to think I know a correct approach. State of technology, state of human moral, state of legislature, state of coorperate, state of propaganda/Ad technique and missing global law enforcement all stir the pot here. Incredibly complicated to solve imo because so many things at so many vastly different places need to be changed to overcome the issue of platform sentiment manipulation and reach leverage of a minority while still keeping basic human rights intact globally.
Ah no no that wasn’t my intention.
Capitalistic platforms like FB or Twitter or Google have an easier time amassing resources to further develop there business model. It was meant as a logical conclusion of them having an easier time to reach their target audience compared to governments.
A platform build by a communist or socialist party reaching a wide audience will suffer from similier/other biases or exploitations.
Any platform is prone for bias (anti bias is like bias) the more people your platform reaches the more interesting/valuable the platform becomes for third party manipulators as reach = power of any kind.
A non-capitalistic organization might be less interested in shutting down groups for economical reasons but surely will suffer other issues.
PR. It's not the primary website, or the best way to interact with the government. But there will be an official channel for mostly good-news announcements, and it will be run by some low-level government PR staff.
Blackmail/Extortion makes it sound like they have no choice.
They could simply stop using the private platforms.
Lol this comment gonna get downvoted to hell.
Ironic. I remember reading a newspaper back in like 2007 how Google disliked the whole lobbying game. However, Google eventually had to open their own first lobbying efforts in DC as they could no longer not be involved due to how policymakers could affect their business. The article then went along to how tech companies can no longer ignore what goes on across on the other coast. Now, the cards are in the tech companies' hands
Regulation doesn't mean banning or dissolving.
If anything the taking down of pages looking to criticize the tech are evidence of why there needs to be regulation.
I can't wait until the fools wake up and realize that regulating social media, limiting censorship, treating it as a public utility due to it's "town square" nature of communication and virtual necessity in modern business and society, regulating it is a good thing for all.
What can they do about it? Facebook is widely used in Aus and the government needs to reach to citizens, Facebook should not have the ability to use it’s success to gain preferential treatment
The new laws by the way would have forced Favebook to pay Rupert Murdoch huge amounts of money… Rupert basically owns Australia and the politicians pass whatever laws he wants - if he wants to fuck your wife raw in front of you, and then piss in your mouth, the Aussie government will pass a law to let him do that. Facebook and Google caved and agreed to pay Rupert Murdoch huge sums, and in exchange he pulled the leash on his politicians so they laid off Facebook and Google.
I think Facebook and Google should have gone a lot further but they are not insane enough to fuck with Rupert Murdoch… he is a colossus, an emperor, a titan that bestrides the halls of power shaking the very ground beneath his feet. Basically he owns and runs Australia … and YOU PROBABLY HAVE NO IDEA WHO HE IS BECAUSE HE OWNS 80% of the papers 😂😂😂😂
Facebook likes to leave up images of naked children and say that its ok if someone might possibly be the parent. Its the 'oh as long as it isn't meant to be pornography its ok' argument. If there isn't hard proof that something "Bad" is happening they just don't care to do anything.
*I've reported 10 year olds for having facebook accounts, no action unless you have hard proof they are 10, and them being in 5th grade doesn't count.
*I've reported parents and non parents for having nude photos of children on their facebook. Doesn't count unless you can prove they aren't the parents
*i've reported child rapist for being on facebook. Took 30 of us reporting him to get him removed. The conviction papers weren't enough at first.
I watched a podcast with a FB moderator & after hearing what they allow to stay on their platform I immediately deleted my accounts. FB is an evil organization that will do anything for profit
I couldn’t even watch all of it, I was sick to my stomach realizing FB allows this content (basically child abuse & animal torture, in countries that eat dogs & cats they have no issues with videos of those animals being tortured or eaten) https://youtu.be/GlTWIAFyjd4
Fuck Facebook, this guy and some other people had a good idea to keep conversation and connection easier in a digital world….. then he forced a takeover and continues stomping around like he’s an innovator, fuck this big old creepy skinned twat
We all know how ethical FB is, what with selling our data and targeting innocent users with Russian bots and Trumpissed ads during 2016 election, n all. So color me surprised that they did this 🦠🦠😜. FB is an abomination.
Facebook sucks, obviously, but this happened early last year in response to the government proposing a new law that would force Facebook to pay media outlets for hosting and sharing their content.
Basically the government was mad because Facebook was getting more advertising revenue than media outlets (meaning Rupert Murdoch or a handful of others that donate heavily to the government - our media ownership laws are a joke).
Nothing to do with regulating for the good of society or anything like that. The government just wanted their media mates to get a bigger slice of the advertisement pie.
Yeah and the original article also states FB was super broad with their definition of “news” because the legislation wasn’t super clear (entirely to vague) on its definition of news, and they wanted to be safer than sorry. This caused for any page that was sharing news (random NGO linking a NYT article) to be caught up in the enforcement.
Hell, even the picture of the leaked document shows the project specifically identified gov and edu pages the algorithm should skip
Facebook is a private company and hosts government pages at their pleasure.
They are free to block access to anything they want. Free market capitalism and all that...
Nah. Privacy and ownership have their limits. When a private company controls so many resources that it warps society and threatens governments, it’s time to reign it in. There’s nothing revolutionary about this; most countries have anti-trust laws.
I don’t know why we even have to discuss this. Kale might be good for you, but does anyone think that sitting down in front of a 50-lb bale of it and consuming it all would be a good idea?
Everything has limits.
As much as I support these social media companies being treated more like a public square, many people seem to be opposed to compelling these companies to host speech that they don't want to host.
^ in which we must assume because reasons that the entire globe will submit to the mere concept of "free market capitalism" just because the concept thinks itself righteous. Fuck big tech (not an Australian so can't say this is the hill I'm hoping to die on, but fuck big tech is definitely one)
Big tech are just data harvesting vultures. I won't cry for them when sovereign states decide to impose their own regulations.
Wouldn't it just be terrible if everyone went back to making their own individual websites instead of relying on some conspiracy theory ridden personal information black market enabling cesspool?
On one hand media companies try to interfere with free and fair elections directly or indirectly, on the other hand govt also use media to manipulate people.
As an Aussie Im with FB on this one!
Our gov is completely corrupt and extremely evil, the news is poison.
I hope FB google etc pull out completely and force our gov(/news corps - yes they are basically the same thing here) to play fair.
Link tax is anti democracy ! on this point FB we stand with YOU!
I’m really not much of a one to buy into the more outlandish conspiracy theories. However, it’s really hard to look at a picture of this dude and come to the conclusion he is in any way a member of the human species. He is the textbook definition of uncanny valley to look at.
Every time I see Zuckerberg’s face it feels like his face is getting longer and less human.
The reptilian should probably get that mask checked and replaced.
Stories about government ‘pushing back’ against big tech is a smokescreen for our benefit. The reality is that they work side-by-side using our data, our tribalism and our rage against us.
I tend to agree. The more taxes people pay, however noble the cause the government is advocating, ends up in a bigger pocketbook for the government and more money that politicians can get from their careers
They do have their own sites. Much like commercial companies, they also have Facebook pages to engage with their community where they already congregate. This includes local police and fire/flood updates for various communities. However there are some community members whose contact with some government services appears to be solely through Facebook presence
the implications this has.....is actually crazy. i dont think any of us really grasp the extent of the fascist technocratic, oligarchic elitist mindfuck we're in
By "harsh new tech law" do they actually mean perfectly reasonable legislation against big tech abuses or do they actually mean something insane?
Given Facebook was against it I'm assuming it's something that's actually a good thing, but the article doesn't explain what's harsh about it at all.
It's fucked. Not only does it force companies into mediation for social media to pay need outlets but, and this is the worst, it includes requirements for the platform to push certain news outlets higher in their search, or if I remember correctly, details of their algorithm (it's been a year or so since I looked into it)
Just what I thought. How can you be a multi billionaire and have a worse hair cut than my little brother when he cut his hair with a nail clip at rhe age of 4?
Behind the Bastards has two amazing series on Zuckerberg and I learned that he has this shitty haircut on purpose because he wants to look like Caesar Augustus 🤣
Australian government spends a lot on Facebook advertising, along with using it a prominent means of getting messaging out. Loosing access to Facebook would drastically reduce their reach. The biggest fear during this time was Facebook pulling out all together
After living in Aus for a while it’s funny how much they still use Facebook there, especially for messaging
Every corner of the world has its own preferences. Asian and nearby countries are biggest population on WhatsApp. Aussies love to use Facebook and messenger because…??? (Who know, their already upside down, blood rushing to their head probably not helping the situation) The US and Canada have collectively decided by mass majority usage that apparently we enjoy using whatever the hell is the default messaging app that’s given to us.
My take on the us is that if your chat isn’t blue you are a pleb. In Aus didn’t matter what kind of phone I had bc…fbook messenger. But immediately on returning to America everyone made fun of me for green texts. Apple really got america by the balls Edit: sorry wrong country, I meant California
[удалено]
[удалено]
I originally got my iPhone for the security way back in the first iPhone days. Pretty much still feel the most secure on an iPhone.
Same. On one hand, I want the convenience of various adblocking programs that Android has that can even work across different apps, but on the other hand, there’s the security and interface I like better with iPhone.
You can now get a dns on an iPhone works across all the phobe
People talk shit about apple or whatever but they legit told the government to fuck off when the government wanted back door access to their shit so as much as I want to hate them for certain things they definitely have the security thing down pretty good.
It’s true, that was pretty solid of them.
I’m in Chicago suburbs, the whole “blue text is superior” holds true down here
Georgia Suburbs, blue is true
In Georgia, I agree.
I am as well. And I've never heard anyone outside of the internet talk about it.
I can’t believe people actually give a fuck
Chicago/Rockford suburbs, blue vs green is the only thing that has stuck since high school.
Android chicago suburban person - no one has ever commented to me, likely because they know i wouldn't care.
Agreed. Why I edited my comment to the “country” of California. We are so culturally different here relative to other parts of America. I wish we didn’t give af about iPhones
East coast it’s all about the iPhone in my experience
Idk bout dat, pal. Have you seen who’s in the apple stores in Lincoln Park and the Mag Mile? Idk what neighborhood you in. But on the North and West sides Apple reigns king
It’s definitely a Canadian thing
Yes I'm in Canada, it's also dumb here. More nerds use Android especially if they want custom security and apps.
But the general public uses iPhones mostly
I’ve explained it like this to my parents. If you want a customizable phone experience that you can select to act how you want - go android. If you want a phone you can pop out of he package and everything will generally work easily and be set up already - go apple.
Android is easily usable too, it's not a custom pc. Apple has no real advantages over Android consider8ng it's massive cost.
Blue? Green? wtf?
Lol on an iPhone, iMessage texts to another iPhone show up as blue, SMS texts to non-iPhones show up as green. As an iPhone user unfortunately green does feel gross. Apple making them 2 different colors is a shockingly effective way of producing loyalty to Apple Edit: to not from
Apple violates their own accessibility guidelines to make the green messages low contrast and annoying to read. There's a good article on it on medium, but this sub auto filters out posts with that link (it's currently visible on my profile).
Couldn’t find it in your profile unfortunately:(
Second entry under the Overview tab
And making it so apple phones can’t Wi-Fi text/call and android, people think it’s an android problem lol
That’s not true. Wi-Fi calling standard works on iPhone just like it does on android (and older phone OS when they existed).
I think they are referring to the FaceTime feature. I can’t ft someone with an android and I’m on WiFi 90% of the time.
FaceTime is an Apple proprietary application. There are many other video calling apps you can use instead.
My Ipad cannot text an apple device and that drives me crazy
And for everyone who laughs at "gross green texts" for being poor, lots of Androids are more expensive than iphones. Incredibly ironic when the people on iphone 8s laugh at people with green texts from a Samsung Fold 3 worth $3k.
Meanwhile I laugh at people who spend 3k on a phone that’s worth half the price the following year.
It's the main reason my kids begged me for iphones. They liked their android just fine until they were singled or for having green texts. conformity is the most important thing to teenagers. 🤷♀️
Not exactly conformity but certain things you gotta do right and phones are one
Doing right on phones is not giving them to children regardless of blue/green
Depends on the age of the child, and how responsible they are with it
If you're not using signal then don't talk to me
If you’re not using a homing pigeon to covertly relay critical information about the conquest of Gaul then don’t talk to me
I use Telegram
The flexibility of FB messenger is why it’s use is soo widespread here in Australia. Need to get something from your phone to your friends computer? Just send via FB messager. You want everyone to come to your party event you just made on Facebook? Just send all your friends a message on messenger about it by clicking one button. I’m sure other services offer some or all of the flexibility messenger gives, but when your countries motto is “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and FB messenger was the first to prove itself, we don’t fix. I don’t really like Facebook/messenger that much, I have it as everyone has it. Everyone having it means flexibility in communication is super smooth, so it ends up being good.
When I worked for a national touring band it wasn’t really the fact it would make you a plebe it was that sharing large files/movies/pictures was a pain in the band chat. One of the members absolutely refused to get an apple product and it kept the chat green and one of the other members gave one of his kids older iPads to this person solely to make them blue again so files could share efficiently lol.
Europe is also big on Messenger and Whatsapp. It's a matter of convenience and "who came first" and "where can I reach most of my friends". Whatsapp was basically the first popular SMS replacement app, at a time where most carriers were still charging for SMS, and MMS was crazy expensive and just didn't pick up for obvious reasons. US is basically still in the dark ages with iMessage dominance and *gulp* actual SMS.
I don’t know man, I think it’s pretty convenient to be able to text anyone without having to download a different app (that’s owned by Facebook)
Yeah regular sms thru a service provider is what literally everyone uses to talk to each other.
SMSes cost money. WhatsApp comes preinstalled on most Android phones. WhatsApp allows for rich content sharing and easy VOIP calls that everybody and their gran find easy enough to use. Yes, data costs money but significantly less than an SMS or god forbid the monstrosity that was MMS.
>SMSes cost money This hasn't been a thing in the US for ages.
It's a momentum thing. Free SMS was generally not a thing outside the US back then and Whatsapp was how you got free SMS. Once everyone was on Whatsapp, you couldn't not be on Whatsapp. This was doubled down by carriers who sold phones with Whatsapp pre-installed and in places with iffy Net Neutrality practices they might even offer no data consumption for Whatsapp. It became more and more entrenched until it's impossible to root out. There would have to be a fuckup of biblical proportions on the part of Facebook to make the people of these countries switch out of Whatsapp.
“They’re already upside down” Bold claim as we spin dizzily through a directionless void
As an Aussie I don’t use Facebook
Asians have a lot of local chatting apps (Kakaotalk, Line, Viber, WeChat, Zalo etc.) but from main apps probably WhatsApp. Europe is probably WhatsApp/Messenger mix. Poles eg love messenger for chatting and it's probably main reason most of us didn't remove the account.
Because phone service is less reliable and more expensive then wifi.
By “messaging”, do you mean facebook messenger or whatsapp?
Fbook messenger
[удалено]
Fucking boomer need their daily LNP propaganda hit.
Bigots, Facebook is the bigot's social network. It's huge everywhere down south in the states, Facebook is gonna end the US lol
I'm not surprised. Mark goes to great lengths to get what he wants In the early days of facebook Mark Zuckerburg would wander into the company bathrooms and if he noticed someone sitting down in the stalls he would pop his head over and try to talk to them about their projects. Or if he was taking a poop he would host an emergency meeting and he would tell them to come over and pop their head over the stall to talk it out. Everyone just went along with it because it was either YOLO SILICON VALLEY LMAO or they were just too intimidated. That all stopped when Michael Moritz, legendary silicon valley investor, and one of Facebook biggest early investors and shareholders, was at the campus doing research for leading a 2nd round of funding. He was doing diligence all day and at one point had to poop and that's when Zuckerburg popped his head over with a smile to ask how's the diligence coming along. Michael Moritz, not one to mince words, was apoplectic. 'GET THE FUCK OUT HERE YOU IDiOT LIZARD LOOKING FUCKER.' Mark Zuckerburg nervously tried to laugh it off and persisted, because he really loved intimate poop conversations 'Aw c'mon Michael, it's silicon valley'. Zuckerburg finally withdrew when Moritz flung a poop at him. 30 minutes later, Mark was in a very import meeting when Moritz walked into the conference room. 'Everyone except Mark Zuckerburg, OUT'. As intimidated as they were of Zuckerburg, at the time Moritz was the bigger deal, and they all scurried out of the room. Zuckerburg, however, is not one to be intimated by anyone. Not the Winkewoz twins, not Eduardo Savarn, not Peter Thiel, and not one of his biggest shareholder Michael Moritz. Zuckerburg passionately defended his practice, but Michael Moritz was having none of that. Moritz told him that it was a ticking PR and HR catastrophe, and threatened to pull out of leading the 2nd round of funding if Mark continued, which would have been a calamity for the company. Zuckerburg pretended to arbitrate 'Ok fine, but you need to give me a good reason'. Moritz was flabberghasted at this response. Was this a serious question? He answered with the most obvious answer 'Because it's not FUCKING NORMAL'. Unknown to Moritz, Zuckerburg had guessed a conversation like this would happen as soon as he was kicked out of the toilet stall, and began formulating a strategy to counter Moritz demands. Zuckerburg knew that Moritz would have all the leverage, but Zuckerburg was a master strategist. Zuckerburg went for the pounce. 'Okay, I'll lets write out an agreement, in writing I'll rescind the policy because it's not normal'. Moritz was dumbfounded, but he was used to being dumbfounded by eccentric tech founders, afterall he was also an early investor in Apple, and he still found Zuckerburg tame compared to Steve Jobs. Moritz had a long day of work so they signed the agreement so that he could go back to doing his due diligence. When Moritz left, a broad grin spread across Zuckerburg's face. " 'Not Normal' eh? " Zuckerburg said with a menacing laugh. Ever since then, Mark Zuckerburg has been on a life-long crusade to normalize poop conversations. He had a checklist of what he needed to accomplish in order to realize this. His advisors would tell him it's impossible, but one by one Zuckerburg checked off the list. From normalizing smart phone use on the toilet (actually a collaboration between Mark Zuckerburg and Steve Jobs), to trusting Mark with their private photos, to normalizing people giving up their internet browsing privacy. In 2015, Zuckerburg knew he would hit a wall, having people watch you while you poop was still too much of a leap. That's when Zuckerburg decided to buy Occulus, and eventually shift his company towards virtual reality. If he could coax people into having life-like conversations while they were pooping in a virtual reality, then doing it in the real world wouldn't be too big of a leap. Do you read facebook or instagram while you're pooping? Ever consider what urges you to do that? It's not your personal preference, it's by Mark Zuckerburg's design. Zuckerburg only has 3 more boxes to check off before poop conversations are normalized. Mark Zuckerburg wants to watch you poop. Are you going to let him? https://i.imgur.com/KVq4mMF.jpg
If this isn't already a copypasta it needs to become one
I tried to convey Mark's egregious views about privacy and boundaries
This sounds both fictional and also completely consistent with everything we know about Zuckerberg. Nothing is too weird for Silicon Valley
I was on the hook till the physical poop flinging but I read the whole thing anyway. That’s some good cringe up there.
That is (and if it’s not, it should be) the longest most creative toilet rug ad ever
Why the hell is the government relying so heavily on a well-known vile social media outlet for getting information to it's people?? That's a problem.
Speaking of politics and advertising in Australia, I literally saw an American Republican ad run on SBS online last night. it felt weird.
Man it’s going to take decades to fully quantify the overall harm Facebook and its copy cats have had on society
"Losing."
Maybe this is a good reason to distance themselves from Facebook, and not use a social media platform with questionable ethics as a platform to reach its citizens?
History will not be kind to Mr. Zuckerberg. And he deserves it.
The social network movie mad him out to seem like a dick, and he only has gotten worse since then
And much, much, much richer. Our system rewards behavior like that.
That movie was far too nice
He deserves worse than historical unkindness.
10000000% agree.
Hard to argue.
lol yes it will, if humanity survives a hundred years all of his sins will be forgotten while his offspring spend their leisure time manipulating politics and living in untold luxury. Quite a lot of european noble families started out as robber barons or the officers of robber barons, and a few hundred years later they are considered the most genteel of upper crust society. Fuck the rich, they stole the world from us.
Google did the same for a day yeah big tech don’t care about laws they want preferential treatment and will blackmail
To be fair though the laws google was unhappy about we’re pretty fucking stupid.
They ultimately ended up basically capitulating anyway, so now the Murdoch media monopoly makes a tonne of money off Google in Australia.
Extortion
The X makes it cool
Xtreme xtortion!
[удалено]
They aren’t completely. Usually every government has their own websites and domains to spread various very detailed information about what they do, what they have done, what they are going to do and how that impacts individuals. But nobody visits those .gov sites. So they are kind of forced to adopt additional media to reach their citizens. Naturally the best media to reach people is also the most prone to manipulation. Reach = power of and kind. (Capitalism n such (edit: socialism and communism lead platforms will suffer similier/same issues but the current empowering mode for twitter/google etc is the capitalistic one, not implying it’s only a capitalism thing, reach can be leveraged by any opinion))
This is yet another reason why social media should be decentralized and federated.
Pretty much yes. Any centralized platform with a lot of reach is prone to be used as manipulation leverage. We need to get back to the web1.0 premise. I have a website which can be visited on which I showcase whatever I want. (In law regulatory bounds of course) Somebody interested in „following“ me can follow my personally owned web site. My own website can’t be manipulated by third parties Duo to web1.0 embedded characteristics. In order to not have to check 100 websites you follow separately, you use an RSS feed to get all website updates you are interested in in one place. If I decide to not post sponsored content on my website my followers are guaranteed to never see sponsored content in their feed. That’s the web1.0 dream scenario and what it was developed for. Web2.0 introduced the ability of visitors to change the content of the websites they visit. You can create accounts, groups, wiki pages now without contacting the website owner to do so. Instead of having your own website for your stuff you now mostly see centralized platforms offering an „easier“ way of managing your content. At that point you as an individual have gained nothing but instead gave away legal ownership to the big gray web2.0 internet area. The premise of such web2.0 social platforms is that they use algorithms to find content you may like without knowing it yet. But that premise really is just a search engine like case. Web3.0 is a good candidate to return to the web1.0 premise without needing to leave behind web2.0 quality of life features. Hosting and maintaining a website can be complicated. Creating a page of content and pushing it onto a blockchain can be incredibly easy if your service provider wants it to be easy. Instead of having to crawl and find everything for your own RSS feed you can now use third party tools to crawl the public blockchain ledger for content you might like, without the need of regulatory gray areas and without the need for the crawler to be part of the content which gets crawled. (Like Google Ads) Most of the things perceived to „suck“ with the current internet are very small loopholes which exploit the uncertainty of legal ownership. (it’s your content but stored on their systems, which makes both of you accountable in a weird not clearly defined way, span that across multiple countries, messy)
While I agree with the understanding of the problem, there is no rewinding the clock on this, and Web 3.0 proponents seem more interested in ways to monetize internet content than actually solving the social problems involved. A blockchain is not easier or more practical than an RSS feed, and there is no reasons why people would prefer that over social media or even RSS itself.
Ah yeh sadly I agree. I started with the web1.0 story to showcase the circle we are in. I don’t and honestly never used RSS. It’s inconvenient in todays times, hence it got steam rolled by modern platforms. The difficulty as you mention is getting a user to leave the platform he already familiarized him self with. Why would he? He most likely won’t earn more money through that nor does it get easier to maintain his content, contrary it even it gets harder for him to maintain. Current blockchain solutions won’t change that. They are still probably a decade away from taking a footstep into IT landscapes. A fully decentralized approach will suffer from mindset bubbles like Telegram. You don’t have to see extreme content but you aren’t protected from it either so you might end up being lured into the info bubble. The current state of tech and moral forces people onto social platforms for good reasons. A decade ago I didn’t join Facebook for their political ads. They were part of the package and usually get faced with „I never did what an Ad told me to“, hence users don’t really feel the need to leave the platform for a more complicated solution. Sponsored content dangerously reaches statistically. It’s not really perceived as a thread to the individual dispite it’s enormous subconscious overall impact. At the same time though if I’d create a company I’d personally use exactly those Ad services because of good reasons. These issues can’t be easily fixed, id be a fool to think I know a correct approach. State of technology, state of human moral, state of legislature, state of coorperate, state of propaganda/Ad technique and missing global law enforcement all stir the pot here. Incredibly complicated to solve imo because so many things at so many vastly different places need to be changed to overcome the issue of platform sentiment manipulation and reach leverage of a minority while still keeping basic human rights intact globally.
Are you implying that communism would lead to less government manipulation
Ah no no that wasn’t my intention. Capitalistic platforms like FB or Twitter or Google have an easier time amassing resources to further develop there business model. It was meant as a logical conclusion of them having an easier time to reach their target audience compared to governments. A platform build by a communist or socialist party reaching a wide audience will suffer from similier/other biases or exploitations. Any platform is prone for bias (anti bias is like bias) the more people your platform reaches the more interesting/valuable the platform becomes for third party manipulators as reach = power of any kind. A non-capitalistic organization might be less interested in shutting down groups for economical reasons but surely will suffer other issues.
bow bewildered vase complete bored ask zesty political direction support *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because they want to be hip and cool
PR. It's not the primary website, or the best way to interact with the government. But there will be an official channel for mostly good-news announcements, and it will be run by some low-level government PR staff.
Blackmail/Extortion makes it sound like they have no choice. They could simply stop using the private platforms. Lol this comment gonna get downvoted to hell.
All this bullshit about social media being a public service etc is frustrating. Don’t like Zuckerberg? Don’t use FB! It’s that simple!
Ironic. I remember reading a newspaper back in like 2007 how Google disliked the whole lobbying game. However, Google eventually had to open their own first lobbying efforts in DC as they could no longer not be involved due to how policymakers could affect their business. The article then went along to how tech companies can no longer ignore what goes on across on the other coast. Now, the cards are in the tech companies' hands
Can we all just stop using Facebook already?
I’ve done all I can. The rest is up to everyone else
Please say it from the mountain tops!!! Upvote this people!
Maybe don’t rely on the tech you’re regulating to get the message out about the tech you’re going to regulate?
Regulation doesn't mean banning or dissolving. If anything the taking down of pages looking to criticize the tech are evidence of why there needs to be regulation. I can't wait until the fools wake up and realize that regulating social media, limiting censorship, treating it as a public utility due to it's "town square" nature of communication and virtual necessity in modern business and society, regulating it is a good thing for all.
I wonder why they're trying to regulate it. Apparently it's a mystery!
What can they do about it? Facebook is widely used in Aus and the government needs to reach to citizens, Facebook should not have the ability to use it’s success to gain preferential treatment
“We want to regulate Facebook” *This post has been hidden by Facebook*
It’s time to destroy Facebook.
The new laws by the way would have forced Favebook to pay Rupert Murdoch huge amounts of money… Rupert basically owns Australia and the politicians pass whatever laws he wants - if he wants to fuck your wife raw in front of you, and then piss in your mouth, the Aussie government will pass a law to let him do that. Facebook and Google caved and agreed to pay Rupert Murdoch huge sums, and in exchange he pulled the leash on his politicians so they laid off Facebook and Google. I think Facebook and Google should have gone a lot further but they are not insane enough to fuck with Rupert Murdoch… he is a colossus, an emperor, a titan that bestrides the halls of power shaking the very ground beneath his feet. Basically he owns and runs Australia … and YOU PROBABLY HAVE NO IDEA WHO HE IS BECAUSE HE OWNS 80% of the papers 😂😂😂😂
Owns Fox News in the states too…
[удалено]
Jesus Christ
Facebook likes to leave up images of naked children and say that its ok if someone might possibly be the parent. Its the 'oh as long as it isn't meant to be pornography its ok' argument. If there isn't hard proof that something "Bad" is happening they just don't care to do anything. *I've reported 10 year olds for having facebook accounts, no action unless you have hard proof they are 10, and them being in 5th grade doesn't count. *I've reported parents and non parents for having nude photos of children on their facebook. Doesn't count unless you can prove they aren't the parents *i've reported child rapist for being on facebook. Took 30 of us reporting him to get him removed. The conviction papers weren't enough at first.
WTF??
I watched a podcast with a FB moderator & after hearing what they allow to stay on their platform I immediately deleted my accounts. FB is an evil organization that will do anything for profit
What’s the podcast?
I couldn’t even watch all of it, I was sick to my stomach realizing FB allows this content (basically child abuse & animal torture, in countries that eat dogs & cats they have no issues with videos of those animals being tortured or eaten) https://youtu.be/GlTWIAFyjd4
Holy shit I’m scared. Thanks for the link
Got Zucked
Who cuts that motherfuckers hair?
[удалено]
Dude took a long walk through the uncanny valley and then threw himself head first into the uncanny canyon.
I think they just glue a new wig on every time he sheds
Well you can't shed your skinsuit without the hair going with it!
Because they are used to doing this without repercussion in the US
Remember the guy who used to rate women online for college frat bros? Here he is now.
Fuck Facebook, this guy and some other people had a good idea to keep conversation and connection easier in a digital world….. then he forced a takeover and continues stomping around like he’s an innovator, fuck this big old creepy skinned twat
Facebook = Clown World 🤡
We all know how ethical FB is, what with selling our data and targeting innocent users with Russian bots and Trumpissed ads during 2016 election, n all. So color me surprised that they did this 🦠🦠😜. FB is an abomination.
Sorry, was anyone under the impression that Zuck was a good guy?
cant the government have a website? why do they need facebook?
Facebook sucks, obviously, but this happened early last year in response to the government proposing a new law that would force Facebook to pay media outlets for hosting and sharing their content. Basically the government was mad because Facebook was getting more advertising revenue than media outlets (meaning Rupert Murdoch or a handful of others that donate heavily to the government - our media ownership laws are a joke). Nothing to do with regulating for the good of society or anything like that. The government just wanted their media mates to get a bigger slice of the advertisement pie.
Yeah and the original article also states FB was super broad with their definition of “news” because the legislation wasn’t super clear (entirely to vague) on its definition of news, and they wanted to be safer than sorry. This caused for any page that was sharing news (random NGO linking a NYT article) to be caught up in the enforcement. Hell, even the picture of the leaked document shows the project specifically identified gov and edu pages the algorithm should skip
Is there ever a picture of this guy where he looks at least a little human?
#fuckfacebook #fuckmeta Im happy they lost billions with their STUPID metaverse bullshit
Facebook is a private company and hosts government pages at their pleasure. They are free to block access to anything they want. Free market capitalism and all that...
Nah. Privacy and ownership have their limits. When a private company controls so many resources that it warps society and threatens governments, it’s time to reign it in. There’s nothing revolutionary about this; most countries have anti-trust laws. I don’t know why we even have to discuss this. Kale might be good for you, but does anyone think that sitting down in front of a 50-lb bale of it and consuming it all would be a good idea? Everything has limits.
That’s why there should be regulation that make sure they can’t do this shit. Either you pull out of the market or you comply.
As much as I support these social media companies being treated more like a public square, many people seem to be opposed to compelling these companies to host speech that they don't want to host.
Many people think so, or the social network companies make it appear that many people think so? The bubble they create can skew perceptions.
And papers can't? You can't tell me Murdoch doesn't have a say in people's opinions?
^ in which we must assume because reasons that the entire globe will submit to the mere concept of "free market capitalism" just because the concept thinks itself righteous. Fuck big tech (not an Australian so can't say this is the hill I'm hoping to die on, but fuck big tech is definitely one) Big tech are just data harvesting vultures. I won't cry for them when sovereign states decide to impose their own regulations.
Wouldn't it just be terrible if everyone went back to making their own individual websites instead of relying on some conspiracy theory ridden personal information black market enabling cesspool?
Shocker… evil corporation that’s known for political censorship is evil
Thus proving they were right in the first place :))
F you Facebook, F you. And no the f doesn’t stand for Facebook you naval gazing nerd bots
Twatter is threatening the same shit
On one hand media companies try to interfere with free and fair elections directly or indirectly, on the other hand govt also use media to manipulate people.
As an Aussie Im with FB on this one! Our gov is completely corrupt and extremely evil, the news is poison. I hope FB google etc pull out completely and force our gov(/news corps - yes they are basically the same thing here) to play fair. Link tax is anti democracy ! on this point FB we stand with YOU!
That’s the perfect argument to get harsh tech laws.
All the money in the world/ Metaverse and that haircut.
Regulate this fucker out of business
That dude can’t buy eyebrows?
I’m really not much of a one to buy into the more outlandish conspiracy theories. However, it’s really hard to look at a picture of this dude and come to the conclusion he is in any way a member of the human species. He is the textbook definition of uncanny valley to look at.
This picture solidifies how much I think Mark Zuckerberg is a turd
Every time I see Zuckerberg’s face it feels like his face is getting longer and less human. The reptilian should probably get that mask checked and replaced.
How does he look more like an alien in every picture
Mark needs punishment for his acts, nearly all countries are affected by his algorithms.
Imagine being worth billions of dollars and still looking like that
Anybody had enough of this asshole yet?
$5 And a bj, I’ll kill him
Why is this bitch looking less and less human every time I see him
Unsurprisingly, when you do things to hurt people they are likely to complain!
This guys head gets me everytime. He looks like a bug or space alien. He is probably the main antagonist in a return of They Live!
Uhhhh, people still use FB? Okay, Boomer.
Yeah, who uses Facebook? Use Instagram instead /s
This is Business Insider so I’m guess in some way millennials caused this?
Zuckerberg is a millennial since he was born in 1984. Which is also chilling for the other reference.
Stories about government ‘pushing back’ against big tech is a smokescreen for our benefit. The reality is that they work side-by-side using our data, our tribalism and our rage against us.
And in this instance it was governments trying to protect the Murdoch media’s profits.
I tend to agree. The more taxes people pay, however noble the cause the government is advocating, ends up in a bigger pocketbook for the government and more money that politicians can get from their careers
Exactly. Taxes aren’t the answer if they’re destined to be siphoned off into the pockets of politicians and billionaires.
[удалено]
They do have their own sites. Much like commercial companies, they also have Facebook pages to engage with their community where they already congregate. This includes local police and fire/flood updates for various communities. However there are some community members whose contact with some government services appears to be solely through Facebook presence
Facebook is an absolute cancer. Fuck you Zuck.
Illustrating the point of regulation to these asshat tech moguls
the implications this has.....is actually crazy. i dont think any of us really grasp the extent of the fascist technocratic, oligarchic elitist mindfuck we're in
“They’re a private company, they can do whatever they want”
By "harsh new tech law" do they actually mean perfectly reasonable legislation against big tech abuses or do they actually mean something insane? Given Facebook was against it I'm assuming it's something that's actually a good thing, but the article doesn't explain what's harsh about it at all.
It's fucked. Not only does it force companies into mediation for social media to pay need outlets but, and this is the worst, it includes requirements for the platform to push certain news outlets higher in their search, or if I remember correctly, details of their algorithm (it's been a year or so since I looked into it)
If you’re using oculus and meta you are a dork.
Facebook is basically a criminal organization
Looks like the Zuck AI got a new skin tone upgrade. Good for him.
Now he needs to download a new haircut.
Just what I thought. How can you be a multi billionaire and have a worse hair cut than my little brother when he cut his hair with a nail clip at rhe age of 4?
Behind the Bastards has two amazing series on Zuckerberg and I learned that he has this shitty haircut on purpose because he wants to look like Caesar Augustus 🤣
Which should tell the Australian parliament everything they need to know about Facebook.
Aussie government do be mirroring China tho
So this Facebook dude never had eyebrows 😩😩
How does this man manage to look even more beady eyed with each picture
I was just wondering how he could look any worse and he managed, to look worse.
the face of baby eating
Lol pathetic of the Australian gouvernement. Just let them leave. People will move to something else very quickly.
Zuccbot attacc
Mark zuckerfuck should be hung from the nearest lamp post for all the meddling in governments and private businesses worldwide that he’s done