#yes !! i did ask permission from the screenshotted ops before posting !!! | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

foundthe8wing · 4 years ago

Text

Okay, doing this over here because my main tumblr is usually a place for me to vibe and I don’t want all the bullshit tied to that account, but basically: I’m really angry and disappointed with the dndads cast for how they’ve put a lot of the minors in their fanbase in danger. Everything below is a repost from twitter (with permission from the OP, crypticjoy), and I’ll link the thread in a reblog.

Under a cut because it’s long and potentially triggering (content warnings for grooming, sexualizing minors, and sexual assault)

[OP tagged the relevant cast accounts; I added slashes here bc I’m not sure if those same urls exist on tumblr and I don’t want to be randomly tagging people over here]

5:49 PM Sep 5, 2020

“I don’t usually do this, but: the way that the cast of @/dungeonsanddads engages with their audience is actively dangerous to minors, and they need to get it together. (cw for discussion of grooming, sexualizing minors, sexual assault)

First off, there are some iffy jokes and situations in the podcast itself. I’m not going to get into all of it right here, but have a google doc: [doc will also be linked in reblog]

Yes, the kids in #dndads are fictional, but that doesn’t mean this stuff doesn’t affect real kids listening. a. it normalizes talking/joking about kids in that way and b. There’s a lot of inconsistancy and confusion on the lines they draw--

Paeden saying “baby” is weird but Ron sitting in Terry Jr’s lap isn’t? I’m confused. You know who the fuck relies on that type of confusion and unclarity? Fucking predators

And I’m not saying every in-character decision has to be perfectly moral or acceptable, but the way the cast, out of character, discuss what’s weird and what’s not sends a lot of mixed messages. And that’s legitimately dangerous.

So then you take all of this, and you add a patron discord server that lets nsfw discussions run virtually unchecked--you create a fandom space that allows adults to discuss kinks, and porn searches, and just, all this other stuff, with teenagers...

... and it becomes a breeding ground for grooming and abuse.

The creators aren’t responsible for babysitting their fanbase or for how people engage with their content outside of their spaces (though, again, I’d urge them to be very careful about what kind of messages they’re sending)

But they ARE responsible for taking basic steps to keep the spaces that THEY create and engage with safe.

“But the rules for the server say 18+!” The rules say you have to be 18 *or have parental permission.* They also say to keep things PG-13. That’s vastly different than establishing something as an adult-only/nsfw space.

“Minors shouldn’t be joining/listening anyway!” The cast can’t control who listens and neither can I, but there’s a difference between knowing teens are listening to you discuss sex with your adult friends vs facilitating conversations between teens and adults on those topics.

“If people are uncomfortable they can just leave.” First off, this situation isn’t just uncomfortable, it’s unSAFE. Second: fuck that. It’s not on minors to set and maintain boundaries about this stuff; a lot of them literally do not know how

Not because they’re stupid, but because they’re young and inexperienced. It’s the responsibility of adults to set and enforce healthy boundaries around sexual discussions, and this particular group of adults has done a fucking terrible job

(Maybe don’t encourage listeners to DM you about kinks! Maybe especially don’t do that when you’ve communicated, intentionally or not, that making and escalating sexual jokes is a really good way to get a reaction from you guys)

I get that they didn’t expect to have so many young listeners, but to be aware of that fact and make no adjustments whatsoever is irresponsible and it WILL lead to someone getting hurt. Does their “young, thirsty, female” audience only exist to them when they can laugh about it?

And let’s be absolutely 1000% clear: this isn’t an issue they’re unaware of. The stuff I’m talking about is an ongoing problem with how their server is run, but it came to a head with one specific situation very recently:

They released a bonus, patron-exclusive episode about the dads taking the bdsm test. Given the general state of the server, I was worried about where those discussions might lead, so before it dropped, I reached out to @/anthony_burch to express my concern

He told me he raised the issue with @/fwong and Ashley, meaning at least three members of the dndads team were aware of the situation, and decided it didn’t warrant any type of preemptive action on their part

(alternatively, it means Anthony lied, which would be a whole separate issue)

[Image ID: a discord DM conversation from Sep 1, 2020, between a crossed out username and reverendanthony. It reads:

OP: heyyyyy have you guys considered that releasing an episode focused on the bdsm test is almost inevitably going to lead to a bunch of 15 year olds sharing their results in your server because you might want to get ahead of that before someone gets hurt

reverendanthony: oh holy shit, really good idea

OP: thanks, I know it's easy to veer into that territory just because of the nature of your show but I wanted to bring it to your attention because I figured you don't want to create a situation that's like, actively dangerous (and for the record I'm willing to discuss what I think would make it safer but I'm also not going to assume you want/need my input, obviously you can handle it however you see fit)

reverendanthony: No, thank you for bring it up, I really appreciate it -- I just raised the issue with Freddie and Ashley

OP: Good to know, thank you /End ID]

I’m not overreacting. I have seen this shit happen, to my friends and to myself, and watching the dndads cast take absolutely no meaningful action to prevent situations like that from occurring directly under their noses makes me fucking livid

I can guarantee that the #dungeonsanddaddies fanbase includes both predators and survivors of abuse, grooming, etc (including those currently living through it), and I need them to think very, very hard about which group they’re prioritizing.

And I need that choice to be evident through more than just their words, because it doesn’t fucking matter how much you “really appreciate” that I brought up my concerns if you do fuck-all to address them.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say the word “consent” if apparently everyone was okay that “Darryl gets sexually assaulted” was almost a plot point played for laughs.

(His dare from Scam would have been rape, straight up. Just because no one said the word doesn’t mean it wasn’t coercive and gross).

I’d like to think the @/dungeonsanddads cast isn’t intentionally encouraging abuse, but they’re sure as hell enabling it, and they needed to get their shit together ages ago, because they’re not the ones their negligence hurts.”

Quote retweet by OP 6:51 PM Sep 7, 2020

“So, they updated the rules for the patron server, but I want to be really clear that from my perspective, it’s way too little, way too late.

The new rules don’t adequately address the core issues and they certainly don’t absolve the cast of the harm they’ve already caused.

[Tweet includes 2 screenshots: one of a bot asking people to click thumbs up to confirm they’re 18+ (or have a parent’s permission) and agree to the rules, and one that includes two of the rules. It reads:

“This is an 18+ space. Them’s the rules: per Patreon’s policy, you must be 18+ or have parental permission.

Use language as if you’re at your parents dinner table. Don’t get people in trouble because of your SPICY POSTS. Keep conversation polite. NSFW content is not allowed!”]

(and before anyone says I should bring up my concerns privately, a quick refresher on how well that went last time I did it:)

[links back to the “(alternatively, it means Anthony lied . . .)” tweet from the original thread]

So hey, @/fwong, some thoughts:

1.The rules are vague and unclear: what /exactly/ do you mean when you say “NSFW content is not allowed!” when the content of your show itself is so often nsfw? And how are you planning to enforce this?

Does it mean you’ll shut down the MBIC conversation that is literally just kink discussion? I need you to be clear on where the line is, because, again, predators rely on that confusion. Don’t give them a gray area to play in.

For an example of a more clear policy, it’s pretty easy to say, “yep, ‘Henry gets pegged’ sure is a sentence we said on our show and you don’t have to pretend it’s not, but if you’d like to discuss it in any more detail at all, you need to move”

2. Remember how I said I needed to be clear on whether you’re prioritizing survivors or predators? While I doubt it was intentional, the language you’re using here is prioritizing predators.

It’s not “don’t get people in trouble,” it’s “don’t make people uncomfortable.” It’s “we all have a responsibility to make sure this space is safe for everyone, especially the younger members of the community.”

You’re setting people up to be afraid of expressing concerns for fear of “getting people in trouble” or “inciting unnecessary drama.” Even if it’s not what YOU meant, it’s very easy for those words to be manipulated, so +

You absolutely have to be explicitly clear that if someone expresses their discomfort, you’ve got their back. Being safe is more important than being polite.

3. I need every cast member to take responsibility for their own actions. I’ve gotten no indication from any of you that you understand the ways in which the in-show things I brought up were harmful.

Acknowledging that harm is important not just because of the immediate effects of that content, but also because it implicitly sets an example for how similar complaints should be dealt with going forward.

When someone says “hey, I was uncomfortable that you seem fine with the Glennary ship, because she reads as very young to me,” I don’t need a dissertation on how the perception of characters can evolve due to your improvisational nature

I need to hear “oh, I interpreted her differently, but you’re right, we should have been more clear, and I’m sorry for making you uncomfortable.” Because your responses to your own mistakes set the tone for any other situations like that going forward.

How comfortable is someone going to be with coming to you, or Ash, or any of the mods about someone making them uncomfortable if they’ve seen that when people call YOU out, they’re argued with and shut down?

Don’t tell people you’ve “made it clear that you won’t go there” when they tell you that you ARE there. Listen to them and do better.

Set the expectation that people will be respected when they raise their concerns. “If you want to come at me you have to bring the heat” is not an appropriate response on a subject that made people genuinely uncomfortable.

In essence: set people up to be supported and protected, not dismissed.

[It’s like a matriosche of tweets over here. This one links to another thread, also by crypticjoy. That thread reads:

A non-comprehensive guide to keeping discord servers safe for minors:

1. Make designated channels for nsfw/18+ discussion. Generally speaking, this is a lot more effective than banning those discussions altogether, because it’s a lot easier to say “hey, can you move this conversation?” than “hey, I need you to stop”

In fandom spaces, it’s usually a good idea to have separate channels for talking about nsfw fiction vs discussing your personal sex lives.

2. Give everyone minor/adult roles; make sure your 18+ channels are locked to people who don’t have an adult role. It’s important that there’s more of a barrier there than just checking a box.

3. NSFW channels shouldn’t necessarily be a free-for-all; be aware of people’s boundaries and respect them (for example, r*pe jokes aren’t funny or okay, even if you’re not making them around kids)

4. Explicitly state in your rules that people should feel free to come to mods if anyone is making them uncomfortable. Actually listen to people and resolve the situation if they do approach you.

5. Make it clear that creepy behavior via DMs or other means is also not tolerated--you can’t control what people do outside your server, but you can make the choice to not allow people like that in your space

6. Make sure mods are on top of things BEFORE people have to say anything; sometimes being a mod means being willing to be the “asshole” who shuts things down before they get out of hand, even if they’re not asked.

Be generally aware of signals that people are uncomfortable or that things are escalating too far, and address those situations sooner rather than later.

*It should be noted that safety involves a lot of components beyond just containing nsfw discussions; this thread just happens to be focused on that one specific element.

oh also! It's a good idea to provide resources on grooming so people know what to look out for [links to some resources; again, this’ll be in the reblog]]

So, @/dungeonsanddads, if you’re interested in anything beyond just having a flimsy excuse you can point to to cover your own ass, I’m gonna need you to try again.

Sorry I can’t be nicer about it, but I’ve given so many benefits of the doubt I could be running a successful charity, and this isn’t an issue I’m willing to drop.

10:02 PM

Thought I was done but actually I've got a few more questions: to what extent were @/HeyBethMay, @/WillBCampos, and @/mattLarnold included in conversations about this issue/the new rules? Is this something your whole team is involved in?

Have you discussed what you're doing on a team and individual basis to keep your fan interactions safe, and are you on the same page about how much it matters? Are you holding each other accountable? Is everyone okay with where this ended up?”

#dungeons and daddies #dndads #cw grooming #cw SA #8wing

137 notes · View notes

theultravioletalliance · 5 years ago

Text

A Closeted Bi's Guide to Being Out Online

When I was just coming out, I did so in a very isolated space. I was living away from home for the first time, my only roommate for the semester had her own bedroom and didn’t really talk much to me, and I was pulling away from my closest friends because of my depression. I knew I didn’t have a community of people around me who were ready to welcome me, but I knew I needed one and I knew I could find one online.

The only problem was that I wasn’t ready yet to be visible yet and the last time I had tried to make a secret account online, I was discovered almost immediately. I had to make sure this time would be different, or I wouldn’t be able to feel safe. Below are the steps I took to make sure my IRL acquaintances wouldn’t be able to find me.

(Obviously you can pick and choose which of these steps will work for you and which ones might be overkill for your particular situation, but this is what I did to keep my overbearing, super-strict parents from discovering my sexuality without my consent.)

Open a new email account (I use gmail, more on that later). Make sure the email doesn’t have your name, birth year, nickname, or anything else in it that people you know IRL could connect to you. Don’t connect it to your current email or phone number. No photos of you. (This is important because you don’t want anyone with your old contact info to see your new account as someone in their contact list. Why every app seems to think you’d automatically want people with your email address to follow your twitter is beyond me.)

Get a second number through an app. I use my new gmail account and just add a google voice number, thus why I suggested it. Only use that number for the email and social media accounts you want to make for your “queer accounts”. ((If you want to use twitter, this step is important because they make you add a phone number shortly after you start tweeting to verify your identity as a non-robot human.)) Turn off notifications for this app to avoid anyone seeing anything!

Use your new contact info to make your queer accounts! Use your preferred name (preferably something new to you), add your pronouns (yes, even if you’re cis! support your trans fam!), and your sexual orientation in your bio. Get used to the idea of owning and loving your identity, but keep in mind that you can change it as you see fit. Just do what feels right now and don’t worry about having to stick to it later if you don’t want to.

Remember, steer clear of info your IRL people might know. Use a fake birthday (I usually pick halloween lol) if you add one at all and don’t use pictures of yourself, your room, your house, your car, your pets, your friends, or anything else that might give it away until you’re ready for the possibility of being outed.

Make sure you don’t tell detailed stories of your life in case you’re spotted. Change everyone’s names if you tell a story about your real life, don’t talk about which city or town you live in, don’t add pictures of your house/car/etc., just keep everything extremely vague for your own protection. Your online friends will most likely not question it, but they will understand if you ever explain.

DON’T FOLLOW YOUR FRIENDS. I did this once and instagram suggested my queer account to my friends because I used it to follow my main account and my IRL acquaintances! One of my closest friends checked out my queer account and asked if it was mine because of the accounts I followed, my speech patterns, and my posting habits. It isn’t worth it! Also try not to follow all the same verified accounts as your main. Pick the accounts with a more universal appeal and a wider audience than your favorite op-ed writer, then leave out the rest.

Follow new topics and people you think are funny and aspirational and cool. Find people who discuss topics you like and get that content on your tl so you can learn more about it! Then find the people your new people follow and check those people out too.

Don’t be afraid to occasionally comment on people’s posts. Leaving comments as your truest self is liberating, and being seen doesn’t hurt either. (The feeling I got the first time I started a thought with the words “as a bisexual” was euphoric. Highly recommend it.) Cultivate a rapport with people you like who care about people and think critically--maybe you’ll even become internet friends! Don’t harass them, though. The line between friendship and harassment is easy to miss when you’re not looking for it.

Listen, listen, listen! Learn everything you can. Try to find multiple perspectives on a topic before you jump in with your opinion. The issue might be deeper than you know. Utilize google to help you define terms you don’t know or find news stories people are discussing rather than asking for second or third-hand takes on a given issue.

Engage, engage, engage! If google doesn’t or can’t help, ask questions. People like to engage with one another, so as long as you’re as informed and polite as possible, you don’t need to worry about hurting someone’s feelings! And if you do, they can easily let you know so you don’t make the same mistake later. (Pro-tip: always assume the people you’re engaging with are smart until they prove you wrong, but also don’t believe everything you read because the internet.)

Turn off all notifications for your queer accounts. It only takes one glance at your screen to find something that could out you. Don’t let this simple slip-up hurt you if you think you might be at risk for snooping.

Lock your phone! If you have family and friends who don’t understand boundaries, this could save your tail. Make the passcode as weird as you want or whatever, just also maybe memorize it as number too if you ever need to tell someone you trust what the code is. (Sometimes you want to let your brother change the song while you’re driving, but can’t figure out how to tell him your passcode spells out the name of Lesbian Jesus--which is valid.)

Don’t let people use your phone without your permission and supervision. All it takes is a few seconds to open an app and find something incriminating.

If the app you’re using has a way for you to save posts without downloading them, do that! Bookmark, pin, send the post to your main as a DM, whatever you have to do, just don’t download them if you share a cloud with someone or have nosy friends. Screenshots are not safe from snoops (and they’ll be the first to tell you that).

That’s basically it. Do you have any suggestions of your own that might be helpful to other queer people looking to stay safe online? Share them below!

Stay safe and have a Happy Pride!

-Rev Gaia

15 notes · View notes

ethelbertpaul444-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Why Zuckerbergs 14-Year Apology Tour Hasnt Fixed Facebook

In 2003, one year before Facebook was founded, an internet site announced Facemash began nonconsensually cleaning pictures of students at Harvard from the school’s intranet and expecting customers to frequency their hotness. Clearly, it began an protest. The website’s developer speedily proffered an apology. “I hope you understand, this is not how I symbolize for things to go, and I apologize for any harm done as a result of my neglect to consider how quickly the site would spread and its consequences subsequently, ” wrote a young Mark Zuckerberg. “I surely see how my meanings could be seen in the wrong light.” In 2004 Zuckerberg cofounded Facebook, which rapidly spread from Harvard to other universities. And in 2006 the young busines blindsided its users with the launching of News Feed, which assembled and presented in one target information that beings has hitherto had to sought for piecemeal. Countless useds were outraged and fright that there was no warning and that there were no privacy ascertains. Zuckerberg rationalized. “This was a big mistake on our component, and I’m sorry for it, ” he wrote on Facebook’s blog. “We really shambled this one up, ” he read. “We did a bad errand of clarifying what the brand-new pieces were and an as bad enterprise of giving you verify of them.” Zeynep Tufekci( @zeynep) is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina and an mind writer for The New York Times. She lately wrote about the( democracy-poisoning) golden age of free speech. Then in 2007, Facebook’s Beacon advertising system, which was launched without suitable ascendancies or acquiesce, discontinued up compromising user privacy by making people’s acquisitions public. Fifty thousand Facebook customers indicated an e-petition titled “Facebook: Stop conquering my privacy.” Zuckerberg responded with an regret: “We plainly did a bad hassle with this release and I apologize for it.” He promised to improve. “I’m not proud of the way we’ve treated this situation and I know we can do better, ” he wrote. By 2008, Zuckerberg had written only four poles on Facebook’s blog: Every single one of them was an justification or an attempt to explain a decision that had unnerved users. In 2010, after Facebook infringed useds’ privacy by making key types of information populace without proper approval or forewarn, Zuckerberg again responded with an apology–this time published in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “We just missed the mark, ” he mentioned. “We examined the feedback, ” he included. “There needs to be a simpler style to control your information.” “In the coming weeks, we will include privacy controls that are much simpler to application, ” he promised. I’m going to run out of space here, so let’s hop to 2018 and skip over all the other accidents and justifications and have committed themselves to do better–oh yeah, and the approval fiat that the Federal Trade Commission formed Facebook sign in 2011, billing that the company had deceptively predicted privacy to its useds and then frequently break-dance that promise–in the intervening years. Last month, Facebook once again garnered widespread attention with a privacy related backfire when it became widely known that, between 2008 and 2015, it had allowed hundreds, maybe thousands, of apps to scrape voluminous data from Facebook users–not just from the users who had downloaded the apps, but more detail from all their friends as well. One such app was run by a Cambridge University academic called Aleksandr Kogan, who apparently siphoned up detailed data on up to 87 million consumers in the United States and then surreptitiously sent the plunder to the political data firm Cambridge Analytica. The happen made a lot of disorder because it connects to the flattening storey of bias in the 2016 US presidential election. But in reality, Kogan’s app was just one among numerous, many apps that amassed an enormous amount of information in a manner that is most Facebook users was totally unaware of. At first Facebook indignantly represented itself, claiming that people had consented to these calls; after all, the disclosures were implanted somewhere in the thick-witted communication surrounding obscure used privacy ensures. Parties were ask questions it, in other words. But the backlash wouldn’t die down. Aiming to respond to the growing anger, Facebook announced changes. “It’s Day to Stir Our Privacy Tools Easier to Find”, the company announced without a clue of irony–or any other kind of hint–that Zuckerberg had promised to do just that in the “coming few weeks” eight full years ago. On the company blog, Facebook’s chief privacy editor expressed the view that instead of being “spread across roughly 20 different screens”( why were they ever spread all over the place ?), the assures would now finally be in one place. Zuckerberg again went on an confession expedition, giving interviews to The New York Times, CNN, Recode, WIRED, and Vox( but not to the Guardian and Observer reporters who broke the tale ). In each interrogation he rationalized. “I’m really sorry that this happened, ” he told CNN. “This was surely a breach of trust.” But Zuckerberg didn’t stop at an apologetic this time. He likewise protected Facebook as an “idealistic company” that cares about its users and spoke disparagingly about rival business that charge users fund for their commodities while maintaining a strong chronicle in protecting user privacy. In his interview with Vox’s Ezra Klein, Zuckerberg said that any person who is reputes Apple attends more about useds than Facebook does has “Stockholm syndrome”–the phenomenon whereby captives start yearning and marking with their captors. This is an interesting argument coming from the CEO of Facebook, a company that essentially supports its consumers’ data hostage. Yes, Apple accuses amply for its products, but it also includes boosted encryption hardware on all its telephones, hands timely protection updates to its entire user cornerstone, and has largely locked itself out of user data–to the chagrin of many governments, including that of the United States, and of Facebook itself. Most Android phones, by distinguish, gravely lag behind in receiving security revises, have no specialized encryption hardware, and often handle privacy limitations in a way that is detrimental to user sakes. Few governments or companionships complain about Android phones. After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it came to dawn that Facebook had been downloading and preventing all the textbook themes of its users on the Android platform–their content as well as their metadata. “The consumers consented! ” Facebook again hollered out. But people were soon affixing screenshots that showed how difficult it was for a merely someone to see that’s what was going on, let alone figure out how to opt out, on the indistinct permission screen that flashed before users. On Apple telephones, however, Facebook couldn’t harvest people’s text messages because the permissions wouldn’t allow it. In the same interview, Zuckerberg made wide-cut is targeted at the oft-repeated notion that, if an online service is free, you–the user–are the produce. He said that he found the contention that “if you’re not compensating that somehow we can’t am worried about you, considered extremely glib-tongued and not at all aligned with the truth.” His rebuttal to that accusation, nonetheless, was itself glib; and as for whether it was aligned with the truth–well, we just “re going to have to” take his statement for it. “To the frustration of our sales unit here, ” he supposed, “I make all of our decisions based on what’s going to are important to local communities and centre much less on the advertising side of the business.” As far as I can tell , not once in his apology expedition was Zuckerberg asked what on earth he signifies when he refers to Facebook’s 2 billion-plus consumers as “a community” or “the Facebook community.” A parish is a set of people with reciprocal claims, powers, and responsibilities. If Facebook actually were a community, Zuckerberg would not be able to induce so many statements about unilateral decisions he has made–often, as he boasts in countless interrogations, in defiance of Facebook’s shareholders and many factions of the company’s personnel. Zuckerberg’s decisions are final, since he powers all the voting stock in Facebook, and always will until he decides not to–it’s just the action he has structured the company. This isn’t a community; this is a government of one-sided, highly profitable surveillance, be carried forward on a proportion that has realise Facebook one of the largest companies in the world by grocery capitalization. Facebook’s 2 billion customers are not Facebook’s “community.” They are its user locate, and they have been repeatedly carried along by the decisions of the one person who controls the platform. These customers have invested season and coin in improving their social networks on Facebook, yet they have no means to port the connectivity abroad. Whenever a serious competitor to Facebook has arisen, the company to expeditiously replica it( Snapchat) or obtained it( WhatsApp, Instagram ), often at a mind-boggling cost that simply a behemoth with massive money substitutes could afford. Nor do people have any means to completely stop being moved by Facebook. The surveillance follows them not just on the scaffold, but elsewhere on the internet–some of them apparently can’t even text their friends without Facebook trying to snoop in on those discussions. Facebook doesn’t merely collect data itself; it has obtained external data from data intermediaries; it creates “shadow profiles” of nonusers and is now attempting to match offline data to its online profiles. Again, this isn’t a community; this is a regime of one-sided, highly profitable surveillance, carried out on a flake that has made Facebook one of greater fellowships in the world by busines capitalization. There is no other channel to perform Facebook’s privacy conquering moves over the years–even if it’s time to simplify! finally !– as anything other than decisions driven by a mix of self-serving inclinations: namely, gain rationales, the structural incentives intrinsic to the company’s business pose, and the one-sided ideology of its founders and some administrations. All these are forces over which the subscribers themselves have little input, aside from the regular given an opportunity to grouse through repeated gossips. And even the ideology–a ambiguou thinking that claims to prize openness and connectivity with little to say about privacy and other values–is one that does not seem to apply to people who race Facebook or work for it. Zuckerberg buys lives circumventing his and tapes over his computer’s camera to perpetuate his own privacy, and company employees get up in arms when a contentious internal memoranda that made an debate for growing at all costs was recently revealed to the press–a nonconsensual, surprising, and awkward disclosure of the species that Facebook has regularly imposed upon its billions of users over the years. This isn’t to allege Facebook doesn’t specify real value to its useds, even as it locks them in through network accomplishes and by suppressing, buying, and mimicking its rivalry. I wrote a whole volume in which I document, among other things, how useful Facebook has been to anticensorship efforts of all the countries. It doesn’t even mean that Facebook executives make all decisions purely to increase the company valuation or benefit, or that they don’t care about customers. But various things can be true at the same occasion; all of this is quite complicated. And fundamentally, Facebook’s business model and foolhardy mode of operating are a heavyweight knife threatening the health and well-being of the public sphere and the privacy of its useds in many countries. So, here’s the thing. There is indeed a instance of Stockholm syndrome here. There are very few other situation in which person or persons will also be able to make a series of decisions that have obviously improved them while diminishing its protection and well-being of billions of parties; to shape mostly the same justification for those decisions countless hours over the gap of precisely 14 years; and then to declare innocence, idealism, and full independence from the obvious structural incentives that have influenced the whole process. This should commonly stimulate all the other instructed, literate, and smart beings in the apartment to break into howls of rally or humour. Or perhaps tears. Facebook has tens of thousands of works, and apparently an open culture with strong internal meetings. Insiders often talk of how free works find to speak up, and really I’ve frequently been told how they are encouraged to differ and discuss all the key issues. Facebook has an instructed workforce. By now, it ought to be plain to them, and to everyone, that Facebook’s 2 billion-plus customers are surveilled and profiled, that their attention is then sold to advertisers and, it seems, basically anyone else who will pay Facebook–including unsavory authoritarians like the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte. That is Facebook’s business model. That is why the company has an almost half-a-trillion-dollar market capitalisation, together with billions in spare money to buy competitors. These are such readily apparent points that any negation of them is quite astounding. And hitherto, it appears that nobody around Facebook’s sovereign and singular ruler has managed to convince their master that these are blindingly obvious truths whose following may well provide us with some suggestions of a healthier acces forwards. That the repeated term of the use “community” to refer Facebook’s useds is not appropriate and is, in fact, misleading. That the constant repetition of “sorry” and “we intended well” and “we will define it this time! ” to refer to what is basically the same sellout over 14 times should no longer be accepted as a have committed themselves to work better, but should rather be seen as but one indication of a profound crisis of accountability. When a large chorus of beings outside the company invokes frights on a regular basis, it’s not a sufficient explanation to say, “Oh “were in” blindsided( again ). ” Maybe, just perhaps, that is the case of Stockholm syndrome we should be focusing on. Zuckerberg’s outright denial that Facebook’s business sakes frisk a powerful role in mold its behavior doesn’t augur well for Facebook’s chances of doing better in the future. I don’t disbelieve that the company has, on occasion, regarded itself back from bad behaviour. That doesn’t move Facebook that exceptional , nor does it justify its existing selections , nor does it adapt the facts of the case that its business pose is profoundly driving its actions. At a minimum, Facebook has long necessary an ombudsman’s power with real teeth and ability: the two institutions within the company that they are able act as a check on its worst compulsions and to protect its useds. And it needs a lot more employees whose task is to keep the programme healthier. But what the fuck is absolutely be disorderly and innovative would be for Facebook to alter its business representation. Such a change could come from within, or it could be driven by regulations on data retention and opaque, surveillance-based targeting–regulations that would make such practices least profitable or even forbidden. Facebook will respond to the latest crisis by remaining more of its data within its own walls( of course, that fits well with the business of accusing third party for access to users based on extensive profiling with data held by Facebook, so this is no sacrifice ). Sure, it’s good that Facebook is now promising not to spill user data to ruthless third party; but it should eventually allow genuinely independent researchers better( and secure , not foolhardy) access to the company’s data in order to probe the real effects of the platform. Thus far, Facebook has not cooperated with independent investigates who want to study it. Such investigation would be essential to informing the kind of political discussion we need to have about the trade-offs inherent in how Facebook, and definitely all of social media, operate. Even without that independent investigation, one thing is clear: Facebook’s sole sovereign is neither are available to , nor should he be in a position to, make all these decisions by himself, and Facebook’s long predominate of unaccountability should end. Facebook in Crisis Initially, Facebook used to say Cambridge Analytica get illegal access to some 50 million users’ data. The social network has now raised that figure to 87 million. Next week, Mark Zuckerberg will certify before Congress. The topic on our recollections: How can Facebook foreclose the next crisis if its general principles is and always has been connection at all cost? Facebook has a long record of privacy gaffes. Here are just some. http://dailybuzznetwork.com/index.php/2018/06/11/why-zuckerbergs-14-year-apology-tour-hasnt-fixed-facebook/

0 notes

ethelbertpaul444-blog · 6 years ago

Text

Why Zuckerbergs 14-Year Apology Tour Hasnt Fixed Facebook

0 notes