dagblog - Comments for "Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No" http://dagblog.com/link/oprah-you-social-media-answer-often-no-28730 Comments for "Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No" en After battling social media http://dagblog.com/comment/270130#comment-270130 <a id="comment-270130"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/oprah-you-social-media-answer-often-no-28730">Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">After battling social media impostors for years, a U.S. congressman and Air Force veteran said he is preparing legislation to force Facebook to do more to combat military romance scams <a href="https://t.co/7nHvIqZ1Gi">https://t.co/7nHvIqZ1Gi</a></p> — The New York Times (@nytimes) <a href="https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1157006857527054337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 1, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Thu, 01 Aug 2019 19:22:45 +0000 artappraiser comment 270130 at http://dagblog.com I earn $375 a week working http://dagblog.com/comment/270051#comment-270051 <a id="comment-270051"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/270044#comment-270044">The numbers in the first</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>I earn $375 a week working from home, and you can too...</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 28 Jul 2019 20:19:41 +0000 PeraclesPlease comment 270051 at http://dagblog.com The numbers in the first http://dagblog.com/comment/270044#comment-270044 <a id="comment-270044"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/oprah-you-social-media-answer-often-no-28730">Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The numbers in the first article are astounding.</p> <p>I know the difference in scale is massive, but still I can't get away from thinking about a comparison which a family member noted to me recently. He said: I can't believe how intelligent the comments on the NYTimes website are. And I said: well, they have human moderators vetting each comment. Which says: the scale and the automation are the source of the problem....</p> </div></div></div> Sun, 28 Jul 2019 14:02:08 +0000 artappraiser comment 270044 at http://dagblog.com The disinformation age: a http://dagblog.com/comment/270041#comment-270041 <a id="comment-270041"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/oprah-you-social-media-answer-often-no-28730">Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/27/the-disinformation-age-a-revolution-in-propaganda">The disinformation age: a revolution in propaganda</a></p> <blockquote> <p>More information was supposed to mean more freedom to stand up to the powerful, but has also given the powerful new ways to crush and silence dissent. More information was supposed to mean a more informed debate, but we seem less capable of deliberation than ever. More information was supposed to mean mutual understanding across borders, but it has also made possible new and more subtle forms of subversion. We live in a world in which the means of manipulation have gone forth and multiplied, a world of dark ads, psy-ops, hacks, bots, soft facts, deep fakes, fake news, Putin, <a class="u-underline in-body-link--immersive" href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/10/russian-trolls-tweets-cited-in-more-than-100-uk-news-articles" title="">trolls</a>, and Trump.</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Sun, 28 Jul 2019 02:00:01 +0000 ocean-kat comment 270041 at http://dagblog.com Delay, Deny and Deflect: How http://dagblog.com/comment/270040#comment-270040 <a id="comment-270040"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/oprah-you-social-media-answer-often-no-28730">Oprah, Is That You? On Social Media, the Answer Is Often No</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/technology/facebook-data-russia-election-racism.html">Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Like other technology executives, Mr. Zuckerberg and Ms. Sandberg cast their company as a force for social good. Facebook’s lofty aims were emblazoned even on securities filings: “<a class="css-1g7m0tk" href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" title="">Our mission is to make the world more open and connected</a>.”</p> <p>But as Facebook grew, so did the hate speech, bullying and other toxic content on the platform. When researchers and activists in Myanmar, India, Germany and elsewhere warned that Facebook had become an instrument of government propaganda and ethnic cleansing, the company largely ignored them. Facebook had positioned itself as a platform, not a publisher. Taking responsibility for what users posted, or acting to censor it, was expensive and complicated.</p> </blockquote> </div></div></div> Sun, 28 Jul 2019 01:37:52 +0000 ocean-kat comment 270040 at http://dagblog.com