Meta cancelled climate change ads, then cancelled a local newspaper that reported about the ads, then a blogger who reported on the paper's cancellation, and now has escalated to blocking all of LGF
Content warning: Meta cancelled climate change ads, then cancelled a local... #threads #technology #socialmedia #censorship #streisandeffect
This entry was edited (3 weeks ago)
like this
Hugh_Jeggs
in reply to mozz • • •...says a cunty website that won't let me refuse cookies with one click
They're all just as bad as meta. Click on "manage options" and see how many times these fuckers are selling your data 😡
mozz
in reply to Hugh_Jeggs • • •Who the fuck is upvoting this
LGF's policy is one of the most upfront and protective ones I've ever seen, second only to something like Pluralistic or other sites which simply don't do ads. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like they make it clear they run Google Ads which require cookies, tell you how to opt out of the data collection on Google's side, and promise not to leak your information to anyone except Google.
... Show more...Who the fuck is upvoting this
LGF's policy is one of the most upfront and protective ones I've ever seen, second only to something like Pluralistic or other sites which simply don't do ads. Maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like they make it clear they run Google Ads which require cookies, tell you how to opt out of the data collection on Google's side, and promise not to leak your information to anyone except Google.
Whether you believe their privacy policy is a separate issue, but if you're gonna pick out someone's privacy policy to call cunty and complain about, this is about the last one I would do it to.
geophysicist
in reply to mozz • • •Hugh_Jeggs
in reply to mozz • • •People with consumer rights
It's a requirement in the EU to be able to refuse all cookies within a couple of clicks. This website should either not load in the EU, or have a "refuse" button
mozz
in reply to Hugh_Jeggs • • •I guess I can buy the idea that they're breaking the letter of the EU law, but isn't the EU cookie law widely acknowledged to be a fairly silly attempt to protect users' privacy in terms of the reality of its implementation? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that's just my impression.
The point that I'm making is that their policy seems like it's actually constructed to protect its users' privacy, which makes it an outlier in the positive direction and makes criticism of it on this basis come off and weird and mean-spirited and not accurate.
By way of contrasting example, I picked a random other story which you'd commented on recently without feeling the need to call them cunty, and saw this notice when it's accessed from the EU:
... Show more...I guess I can buy the idea that they're breaking the letter of the EU law, but isn't the EU cookie law widely acknowledged to be a fairly silly attempt to protect users' privacy in terms of the reality of its implementation? Maybe I am wrong about that and there is a substantive benefit to allowing users to ask the web site to reject all cookies, that's just my impression.
The point that I'm making is that their policy seems like it's actually constructed to protect its users' privacy, which makes it an outlier in the positive direction and makes criticism of it on this basis come off and weird and mean-spirited and not accurate.
By way of contrasting example, I picked a random other story which you'd commented on recently without feeling the need to call them cunty, and saw this notice when it's accessed from the EU:
... which sounds a lot more status-quo to how most modern web sites behave than does LGF's notice.
Tom Holland's 'Romeo & Juliet' Faces 'Barrage of Racial Abuse'
Naman Ramachandran (Variety)TeNppa
in reply to mozz • • •mozz
in reply to TeNppa • • •Hugh_Jeggs
in reply to mozz • • •Definitely has the "reject all" button for me
Have you checked your consumer rights? 😂
mozz
in reply to Hugh_Jeggs • • •Bezier
in reply to mozz • • •Seems like a jest about whether you live in EU or not.
If you're not in EU and are not seeing a huge reject all button, it probably means that they are serving you a worse cookie popup because of location.
mozz
in reply to Bezier • • •IDK; I tried it from VPN from Europe was what I meant by "when it's accessed from the EU." I honestly have no explanation why I didn't see the prompt; my best guess is that either the geolocation or VPN fucked up, or that my adblocker removed a unified package that also included the prompt.
To search for ad settings I tried clicking AdChoices from the bottom navigation (from Europe) and it took me to a page that lectured me about how I should turn off my third-party cookie blocking, and when I tried from a different browser it succeeded (without having prompted me about cookies) and then announced that I had the opportunity to customize my ads experience from 111 different companies:
... and
... Show more...IDK; I tried it from VPN from Europe was what I meant by "when it's accessed from the EU." I honestly have no explanation why I didn't see the prompt; my best guess is that either the geolocation or VPN fucked up, or that my adblocker removed a unified package that also included the prompt.
To search for ad settings I tried clicking AdChoices from the bottom navigation (from Europe) and it took me to a page that lectured me about how I should turn off my third-party cookie blocking, and when I tried from a different browser it succeeded (without having prompted me about cookies) and then announced that I had the opportunity to customize my ads experience from 111 different companies:
... and so on. I was also entertained by its summary of privacy policy within the State of California ("If you would like to opt out of the sale of this information, please complete this webform or call our automated line at (877) 365-3500.")
I stand by my assessment of relative cuntiness of Variety compared with LGF saying hey we don't sell your info but we do Google Ads, here's how to disable their tracking of you if you want, fuck EU's cookie laws and their weird little dialog box, have a good one.
California Residents: Opt Out of Sale of Personal Information | PMC
www.pmc.comGhoelian
in reply to mozz • • •anlumo
in reply to mozz • • •exocrinous
in reply to mozz • • •survivalmachine
in reply to Hugh_Jeggs • • •You literally have an "x" button in the top-right of your web browser (or similar exit feature if you've disabled or moved that).
mozz
in reply to survivalmachine • • •Or, you can use a browser or plugin which blocks a fairly-accurate blacklist of ad tracking cookies, and not involve the sites' dubious assurances that they'll respect your requests for privacy into the equation at all. That seems like a way, way better way. If you want to go past that I would just configure the browser to reject cookies except from a whitelist of sites you trust, and still not involve the site's assurances into it.
I think the EU overall does a great job at doing consumer protection and I think the "you gotta have a cookie dialog" is one isolated aspect where the law does nothing but create hassle for everyone involved, but I don't really know; that's just my uninformed opinion.
ryannathans
in reply to Hugh_Jeggs • • •"They're all just as bad as meta"
Lol if only you knew what meta have and do with that data
mozz
in reply to ryannathans • • •tempest
in reply to mozz • • •Infynis
in reply to tempest • • •ryannathans
in reply to tempest • • •some_guy
in reply to mozz • • •Nick Heer wrote intelligently about this.
https://pxlnv.com/blog/hanlons-razor-kansas-edition/
Hanlon’s Razor, Kansas Edition
pxlnv.comNaibofTabr
in reply to some_guy • • •Chahk
in reply to NaibofTabr • • •t3rmit3
in reply to some_guy • • •Hard disagree with this person.
They're position basically boils down to "Facebook won't tell us what problems were identified with the domains that caused the blocks, but it's better to have guards against malicious domains than not". That is a false dichotomy.
A better response is, "unless Facebook is actually disclosing what issues with the domains caused the flagging, we should not allow them to block news websites, especially when they've been critical of Facebook". To do otherwise is basically just giving them carte blanche to block domains whenever they want to, and assuming on their behalf that they're being honest and benevolent.
They go on to make excuses for Meta all throughout the article:
... Show more...Hard disagree with this person.
They're position basically boils down to "Facebook won't tell us what problems were identified with the domains that caused the blocks, but it's better to have guards against malicious domains than not". That is a false dichotomy.
A better response is, "unless Facebook is actually disclosing what issues with the domains caused the flagging, we should not allow them to block news websites, especially when they've been critical of Facebook". To do otherwise is basically just giving them carte blanche to block domains whenever they want to, and assuming on their behalf that they're being honest and benevolent.
They go on to make excuses for Meta all throughout the article:
As someone who works in security, this is actually a hilarious indictment of how inadvanced Facebook's security would have to be to be mistaking actual organic shares and reposts with malicious boosting attempts, and once again is assuming innocence on their behalf where no assumption of innocence is warranted.
Even their sarcastic line,
is an unwarranted dismissal of assertions that Meta polices political content on their platforms as being akin to a conspiracy, even though we in fact know they do that. Reporting has shown that Meta does actively take political stances and translate those into actions and policies in their sites.
Hanlon's Razor is about assumptions sans evidence, because of the natural human tendency to automatically interpret actions that harm you as intentional. It's not, however, meant to discount evidence of patterns of malicious behavior by actors known to be problematic.
And this is not a new, one-off behavior on Facebook's part:
The climate divide: How Facebook's algorithm amplifies climate disinformation - Feb2022
Facebook did not label over 50% of posts from top climate change deniers, says new report - Feb2022
Facebook’s New Ad Policies Make It Harder for Climate Groups to Counter Big Oil - Mar2022
I can't tell if the author thinks Facebook's security is advanced, or incompetent.
Facebook's New Ad Policies Present Challenges for Climate Groups
Ethan Brown (Peril & Promise)like this
mozz, Drusas and tjhart85 like this.
mozz
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Thank you
The writer also totally skips over, as far as I can tell, the escalating series of blocks of additional outlets who were covering the story. With each additional one, it becomes geometrically less likely that it was just the kind of mistake he is claiming is a plausible explanation (which, he then parlays into arguing that it means it is the plausible explanation).
some_guy
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Interesting take. You've certainly got me thinking about it a bit more.
I won't try to interpret the author's intent because that's for him to do and I don't want to speak on his behalf. But I do think he's right about the tone of the response to the error being wildly wrong. News orgs should be dispassionate and I don't get a sense that they were at all.
I think Meta fucks up. I think mass media is terrible at understanding what they're reporting about. I think conservatives in particular see boogie men everywhere. Anyway, I'd read Nick's piece earlier in the day and that had been my only exposure to the story, so I chose to link to it because to me it was a reasonable response.
octopus_ink
in reply to mozz • • •mozz
in reply to octopus_ink • • •Defederating and blocking bots is the old way, it's defensive and passive and lets them continue what they're doing. It puts the decent people always one step behind.
A better way is the "you're locked in here with me" approach. Redirect bots to a version of your site that provides naught but LLM-generated Nazi furry gibberish and an endless spiral labyrinth of new pages and product reviews of nonexistent products. Try to see if there are any that do that little Javascript-evaluation-to-render-the-client-side-site thing, and if there are, have them mine cryptocurrency for you. Federate with Threads, but serve to the Threads bot an endless series of users who say nothing but constantly-rephrased additional comments which highlight in plain English language situations like this and the types of harm that Meta causes in the real world, and good things to search for if you want to pursue a better solution.
Let the botgarbage come to harm through what comes back to them from your instances. Let them figure it out, if they can, and affirmatively defederate with you instead.
... Show more...Defederating and blocking bots is the old way, it's defensive and passive and lets them continue what they're doing. It puts the decent people always one step behind.
A better way is the "you're locked in here with me" approach. Redirect bots to a version of your site that provides naught but LLM-generated Nazi furry gibberish and an endless spiral labyrinth of new pages and product reviews of nonexistent products. Try to see if there are any that do that little Javascript-evaluation-to-render-the-client-side-site thing, and if there are, have them mine cryptocurrency for you. Federate with Threads, but serve to the Threads bot an endless series of users who say nothing but constantly-rephrased additional comments which highlight in plain English language situations like this and the types of harm that Meta causes in the real world, and good things to search for if you want to pursue a better solution.
Let the botgarbage come to harm through what comes back to them from your instances. Let them figure it out, if they can, and affirmatively defederate with you instead. Welcome all comers and give good free content to the humans and nothing but pain and misery to the semi-malicious bot traffic. View any bot that talks to you that hasn't got the message yet as a new opportunity and a new challenge.
This is the new way
yukichigai
in reply to mozz • • •Using your evil powers for good I see.
MisterD
in reply to mozz • • •Steve
in reply to mozz • • •mozz
in reply to Steve • • •tooLikeTheNope
in reply to mozz • • •AWildMimicAppears
in reply to tooLikeTheNope • • •jarfil
in reply to mozz • • •Stop selling Threads to me...
melpomenesclevage
in reply to mozz • • •Okay so I can't write for shit, but I'm officially putting out the call to all programmers who aren't shit:
Reply to this commenr, and be friends, even if you hate each other. World needs saving. Truth needs saving.
Armok: God of Blood
in reply to mozz • • •helenslunch
in reply to octopus_ink • • •octopus_ink
in reply to helenslunch • • •The usual argument against pre-emptive defederation goes something like, "Well we should wait to see what kind of influence they will be on the fediverse."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuits_involving_Meta_Platforms
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/26/meta-gaza-censorship-warren-sanders/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/03/netflix-ad-spend-led-to-facebook-dm-access-end-of-facebook-streaming-biz-lawsuit/
We know what kind of influence they will be. They will be the most anti-consumer, exploitative influence the law will allow, and probably a little bit more than that, because it's been their entire history, and every few days we get another headline confirming that it's who they are.
And while there is a lot they can do even if many instances refuse to federate with them, there's no good argument for going along willingly, IMO.
Meta Refuses to Answer Questions on Gaza Censorship, Say Sens. Warren and Sanders
Sam Biddle (The Intercept)helenslunch
in reply to octopus_ink • • •You're right. They will. But there's nothing they can influence. Laws be damned. No one owns ActivityPub.
Except the one where, you know, you can use the Fediverse as an actual social media outlet where your friends and family are, public figures and all that, without subjecting yourself to ads and spying. I think that's a pretty good one.
Oh and all of your friends and family can do the same, if they so choose.
like this
mozz likes this.
octopus_ink
in reply to helenslunch • • •helenslunch
in reply to octopus_ink • • •octopus_ink
in reply to helenslunch • • •~~Did you?~~
Edit: Were you?
helenslunch
in reply to octopus_ink • • •octopus_ink
in reply to helenslunch • • •octopus_ink
in reply to helenslunch • • •What stops them from doing so today?
Kichae
in reply to helenslunch • • •No, but they can become the biggest, most influential voice in how it contimues to develop.
The methods of regulatory capture work well beyond regulatory bodies.
helenslunch
in reply to Kichae • • •state_electrician
in reply to octopus_ink • • •octopus_ink
in reply to state_electrician • • •You've missed out on some lively debate then.
Edit: In response to my very comment.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/10077553
octopus_ink
2024-04-08 09:21:48
You've missed out on some lively debate then.
Edit: In response to my very comment.
https://lemmy.ml/comment/10077553
octopus_ink
2024-04-08 09:21:48
octopus_ink
in reply to octopus_ink • • •moitoi
in reply to mozz • • •darkphotonstudio
in reply to moitoi • • •BurningRiver
in reply to darkphotonstudio • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
schnurrito
in reply to mozz • • •2004: The Internet is going to lead us into a utopian future of free communication where we exchange ideas with each other without corporate media being gatekeepers telling us what to read, write and think!
2024: Hi, I'm Meta and everyone gets their information from my platforms and I can decide what ideas to allow there. What do you mean we weren't supposed to have that anymore by now, whoever told you that kind of nonsense.
mozz
in reply to schnurrito • • •When Netscape Navigator's initial announcement post went out, people were alarmed about the idea that someone might be trying to charge money for software related to the internet. Some people questioned if it was legal to even do that, since the supporting software, backbone, and all the content were freely created by other people -- it was basically at that point a 100% non commercial environment.
Things have changed
schnurrito
in reply to mozz • • •Midnitte
in reply to schnurrito • • •Which is funny because Meta has wanted to avoid the "information arbiter" label to avoid the regulations it would inevitably impose.
But I guess no company can resist eating the cake once they have it.
Here are some instances where Facebook has been an arbiter of truth
Salvador Rodriguez (CNBC)darkphotonstudio
in reply to mozz • • •kingthrillgore
in reply to mozz • • •~~Isn't LGF an alt-right shitter?~~
Not saying what Meta has done is wrong (it clearly is) but we need some important context.
mozz
in reply to kingthrillgore • • •It used to be
I'd say that's about 10-15 years too late, but as a total outsider who's not at all familiar with the situation, it looks like his realization and action on it was sincere.
Also as TA notes, LibsOfTikTok is still up and Meta gave the argument that the reason was phishing/malware without any further explanation. I.e. even if LGF was still hosting extensive right wing propaganda (which would most likely be a fine reason on the surface to block it IMO), I'd still see a decent argument for the real reason being the Kansas Reflector story and not anything propagandastic.
American political blog
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)P03 Locke
in reply to mozz • • •2009 is better than realizing it in 2016. The GOP took the Tea Party and funneled all of that hate and racism over Obama and his "tan suits" into something much worse.
like this
mozz likes this.
AWildMimicAppears
in reply to kingthrillgore • • •A 2-for-1 for Racists: Post Hateful Fliers, and Revel in the News Coverage - Media Bias/Fact Check
Media Bias Fact Check